CCP
Reform and the Insider’s Game
By Brad SmithOne of the problems that the regulatory movement has never come to grips with is the cognitive dissonance between decrying the influence of traditional political actors and the pro-regulatory community’s own quest for influence. Despite the oft-repeated goal of blunting the impact of “special interests” in politics, the pro-regulatory lobby wields a significant amount of influence with powerful politicians and is, itself, a “special interest.”For example, even though the Campaign Legal Center, a “reform” organization chaired by John McCain’s former counsel, Trevor Potter, doesn’t run campaign or issue advertisements, it can and does exercise political influence by providing a powerful senator, such as John McCain, with millions of dollars of free legal services. No problem there – since no money changes hands and no voters were informed about a candidate’s position, there’s no threat of corruption at all!What about throwing big banquets honoring, say, Senator McCain and inviting the organization’s major donors to a private reception with the Senator (as the pro-“reform” Brennan Center once did) after providing him with PR, legal services and advocacy on an issue of “transcendent importance” to the Senator? No question of unfair access or influence here folks!In other words, those who exercise great influence playing a Washington insiders’ game are fine, but if you try to inform voters about a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses and try to persuade voters in some manner, well, naturally, lines must be drawn, public integrity must be protected, and so on and so forth.
Nixon and the Federal Election Campaign Act (Video)
What was the first lawsuit that ever was that was brought under the federal campaign act? It was brought by the Nixon administration against a group of citizens basically professors, successful professionals, middle class, upper middle class citizens who took out an ad in the New York Times urging that Nixon be impeached. And President Nixon said they’r urging I could be impeached they shouldn’t be influencing any election they have to register as a political committee and the justice department sued them and the ACLU defended the group successfully. So when we talk about the abuse of the Nixon administration we try to live on Watergate.
Public Financing: Achieving its Goals?
In the states where it’s been used it hasn’t reduced corruption, it hasn’t brought more women and minorities into politics, it hasn’t increased access for certain wealthy donors. Essentially again I put the burden of proof there. It’s not that we don’t have experience with public financing and it’s the system of public financing that gave us President Carter and President Reagan, and President Bush and President Bush.Is that really better than the system we had before public financing that gave us FDR, and Truman, and Ike, and Kennedy. I just don’t think again that there’s much evidence. I think the burden of proof has got to be on those who are sitting here saying we’re going to limit peoples’ freedom of political speech and association.You’ve got to do better than just say I think it would be a really good idea.
Media Watch: New York Times Fueling a Flood of Misinformation
By Scott BlackburnLet’s take a step back and imagine all of the ways that one could speak out by donating money in our current political system. You could donate to a candidate directly. You could donate to a political action committee. You could donate to a political party, or one of its many affiliated groups. You could donate to a specific type of committee that only makes independent expenditures (a Super PAC). You could donate to an advocacy nonprofit, like Americans for Prosperity, the League of Conservation Voters, or the National Rifle Association, which are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code and may only have political activity as less than half of their overall mission in order to maintain their tax status. Or you could donate to a 501(c)(6) trade association, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which, like 501(c)(4)s, engage in the political process as a smaller part of their overall million.Each one of these potential avenues for political participation comes with different restrictions from the IRS and FEC regarding how much can be contributed to an entity, how much information has to be disclosed about donors to an entity, and whether an entity can coordinate with a candidate. Of these groups, only 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations do not disclose the names, addresses, and employers of their donors to the FEC (unless a contributor earmarks their donation for a political purpose, in which case, the name of the donor and amount of the donation is disclosed). These groups represent the supposed “dark money” threat.So, if one wanted to know how much money was spent on ads by organizations that don’t disclose their donors (i.e. “dark money”), you would look at the total spending of 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups and compare it to overall political spending – the sum of spending by candidates, committees, political parties, Super PACs, and “dark money” groups. Right? After all, the amount of influence a “dark money” ad can have is relative to all of the other political ads out there.
Independent Groups
Denver Post: Citizens United can make movie without disclosing donors, court says
By Joey BunchThe organization argued its documentary should be considered part of the protected free press, such as print or TV news, which does not have to disclosure its sources of income.“Today the 10th Circuit embraced the First Amendment and issued an emergency injunction ensuring that Citizens United can bring its latest film, ‘Rocky Mountain Heist,’ to the people of Colorado,” David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United said in a statement.“Our film and its message are at the core of political speech protected by the First Amendment. For far too long Colorado’s campaign finance laws have burdened some speakers while protecting others. Today’s ruling is an important first step in overturning this discriminatory law.”
NY Times: Promote Political Activity and Participation Instead of Regulation
By Bob BauerOne lesson of the last four decades is that the preoccupation with limiting money in politics — whether to avert corruption or “level the playing field” — has achieved neither objective. Reconsideration does not require abandoning all the elements of current law, such as reasonable contribution limits and disclosure. But the bulky regulatory system that has developed around these core elements has proved ineffective, inefficient and, especially after the McCain-Feingold amendments of 2002, highly controversial. A carefully drawn, manageable framework of rules and disclosure will bring the regulation of campaign finance within administrative capacity, constitutional limits and public acceptance.The most productive change would be a shift away from a preoccupation with tighter limitations and controls and toward the promotion of political activity and participation — a move toward facilitating politics, in all creative forms possible. The goal now should be a flourishing political process, with fresh resources made available to parties and candidates, encouragement for individual volunteer and group activity through Internet-based and other mechanisms, and as determined on the local level with experimental public financing.
NY Times: To Deal With Corruption in Campaign Finance Reduce the Size of Government
By Paul ShermanThat’s not to say that political corruption isn’t a real problem or that we shouldn’t be concerned about it. But campaign finance laws are a poor way of addressing that problem, and they carry a high cost for First Amendment rights. Even worse, for 40 years they have distracted us from the more fundamental efforts that might actually make a difference.The fact is, campaign finance regulation was doomed to fail. It is impossible to have a government as large and powerful as ours, dishing out so many favors and meting out so much punishment, yet with no corruption. And it is foolish to expect the public to trust such a government. If we genuinely want to reduce opportunities for corruption and restore public trust in government, it’s time to consider an anticorruption measure that the Founders would have favored: reducing the size and scope of government by enforcing constitutional limits on government power.
Wisconsin
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Judge says election officials, prosecutor can’t stop campaign collaboration
By Patrick MarleyMadison — A federal judge on Tuesday barred state election officials and Milwaukee’s top prosecutor from enforcing their interpretation of campaign finance laws that would greatly limit the ability of candidates and purportedly independent groups from collaborating.The ruling — coming three weeks before the Nov. 4 election — effectively grants candidates to work closely with the groups as long as the groups don’t explicitly tell people how to vote. The groups, however, would still be permitted to run ads with sharp tones that praise or denigrate those on the ballot.The decision comes in a case brought by a longtime backer of Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The lawsuit is not directly related to litigation over an investigation into coordination between Walker’s campaign and conservative groups, but it addresses the questions over campaign finance law at the heart of that case.
Contribution Limits
NY Times: Limits on Giving and Spending Violate the First Amendment
By Joel GoraTo its credit, the current Supreme Court has been restoring normal First Amendment principles and invalidating many of the remaining FECA restraints on political funding. Its controversial Citizens United ruling has allowed corporations, labor unions and nonprofit organizations to speak out about government and politics, without fear of criminal punishment. The court’s more recent McCutcheon decision frees donors to support more candidates whose views and policies reflect their own ideas.However, now that so much political funding has been freed from restraints, the only political actors left that have to wage campaigns with one hand tied behind their backs are our candidates and our parties, still subject to FECA’s contribution limits. Yet those are the most important participants in our political system. Any meaningful changes to FECA must address that problem, by either easing or totally eliminating such funding barriers. In Buckley, we argued that limits on political giving and spending cut to the core of the First Amendment. That is still the case. The sky will not fall if those barriers are eliminated, especially when coupled with smart, targeted disclosure to let the people decide which politicians are too beholden to their large donors.Congress should consider three proposals to bring campaign finance laws in line with the First Amendment: 1. no limits on contributions or expenditures; 2. smart, targeted disclosure of large donors to major party candidates only; 3. public campaign subsidies, without limits attached, to expand political speech and opportunity, not limit it.
Disclosure
NY Times: Let People Donate as Much as They Want to Campaigns, But Mandate Full Disclosure
By Basil SmikleAttempts to put restrictions on spending alone have no significant bearing on the outcome of elections as incumbency rates remain high and the impact on shaping ideology, lawmaking and policy is profound. Since reforms are layered on top of FERC, perhaps it’s time to strike it down and start from scratch, but I suspect that’s easier said than done.
FEC
Roll Call: FEC Rulemakings Roil Agency, Critics | Rules of the Game
By Eliza Newlin CarneyRepublican Commission Chairman Lee Goodman defended the rule-making process in an interview, noting that the FEC has been debating post-Citizens United disclosure questions for close to five years. He called the party convention ruling “a reasonable interpretation of statute” that he said is justified on the grounds that the convention committees are stand-alone entities made up of state delegates, and may therefore face their own contribution limits.“I come from a background of over a decade in the political party,” said Goodman, a former general counsel of the Virginia GOP who has advised four Republican presidential campaigns. “I believe in the parties. I believe they are constructive in the process. I think we need to return more role and effectiveness to the parties.”Obscured in the tit for tat was perhaps the commission’s most important action last week, which was to invite public comment on how it should revise its rules governing earmarked campaign contributions, joint fundraising and public disclosure in light of the McCutcheon ruling. The FEC “is now asking the public what rules it should consider implementing to address corruption in the political process,” wrote Democratic commissioners Ravel, Weintraub and Steven Walther in a statement.
State and Local
Kentucky –– AP: Kentucky judge blocks law banning campaigning near polls
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) – A federal judge has struck down a Kentucky law that prohibits campaign activities within 300 feet of polling places.
