In the News
Washington Examiner: Citizens United: It’s about free speech
By Scott BlackburnThis week marks the fifth anniversary of Citizens United — the most maligned, degraded, and vilified Supreme Court decision of the last decade. But it is a decision that deserves celebration. On this day five years ago, the court continued a proud tradition of protecting our right to free political speech.The decision was controversial. It prompted President Obama to berate the Supreme Court directly during his State of the Union address. It was reviled. The New York Times declared that “the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era.” And it was opposed. It led many Senate Democrats to propose a radical constitutional amendment in a misguided attempt to “overturn” the ruling.But at its heart, the decision was right — it prevented the government from potentially using campaign laws to ban certain political books and movies.In all of the bluster surrounding Citizens United, it is easy to forget what the case was truly about. Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit, produced a documentary, “Hillary: The Movie.” The film excoriated then-Presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton, urging viewers not to support her run for president. But when Citizens United wanted to air its movie in 2008, it was prohibited from doing so by federal campaign finance laws. These laws banned independent speech by corporations (and unions) if it opposed (or supported) the election of any federal candidate. And Citizens United, itself a nonprofit corporation, was partially funded with for-profit corporate funds.
CCP
The Lie that Just Won’t Die: Do Tax-Financed Campaigns Help Female Candidates?
By Luke WachobYoungblood’s remark is interesting because so far in their history, tax-financed campaign programs have failed to increase the number of women in legislatures and failed to increase the diversity of legislators’ occupational backgrounds. So I decided to check: are there really more women in the Maine Legislature today than there were before the state’s Clean Election program began?I turned to the Center for American Women and Politics’ “Women in State Legislatures 2015” fact sheet, and found that Maine currently has 54 women in its 186-member Legislature, or 29.0%. In 1999-2000, the last Legislature before tax-financing was implemented, Maine had 52 women in the Legislature, or 28.0%.So it turns out that Youngblood is technically correct: there ARE more women in the Legislature today than before tax-financing was enacted. Two (2) more, to be precise. And it only took a decade-and-a-half! At this rate, Maine could have gender equality in its Legislature as soon as the year 2307.[1] So pat yourself on the back, Maine. Take a victory lap. It turns out tax-financed campaign programs DO achieve their goals if you can be patient for the first three centuries.All joking aside, Maine’s 1% increase in female legislators from 2000 to 2015 actually overstates the progress the state has made. Nationwide, the percentage of women in state legislatures has increased nearly twice as much – 1.7% to be exact – over the same time. In other words, women are gaining ground faster in states without tax-financing programs than they are in Maine.
Citizens United
Washington Post: How Citizens United is — and isn’t — to blame for the dark money President Obama hates so much
By Philip BumpThat, it is safe to assume, is the dark money that Obama frets “is pulling us into the gutter.” The rhetoric is overly strong; the first graph above shows that non-disclosed spending leveled off in 2014. And given how much is spent in total, we’re drowning in outside money from disclosed donors far more than from undisclosed ones. But the shift from money being spent in the open by candidates to disclosed and undisclosed money spent by outside groups is very clear, and very much part of the story of the Obama years. The president may not like it and may not want to be associated with it, but it’s hard to believe he’ll be able to stop it.
More Soft Money Hard Law: Citizens United After Five Years
By Bob BauerThe five year anniversary of Citizens United finds critics largely where they stood when the opinion as first issued. Enthusiasts remain cheered and critics have lost none of their gloom. One difference is that time has passed and the inquiry has shifted from predictions about what CU will have wrought to claims about what the data shows about its effects. There is no agreement here, either, and any one analyst’s interpretation of data typically corresponds closely with her heartfelt views of the decision’s rightness or wrongness. Like most campaign finance debates, this one does not change minds. We are in for endless and inconclusive argument about CU’s contribution to oligarchic rule, or its responsibility for “dark money, or for trends identified in the volume of money spent in politics.These “big picture” disputes may block a clear view of other, more subtle but still significant changes in campaign finance doctrine and practice brought about or encouraged by CU. These are changes that can’t be precisely pinned to CU alone: the whole course of campaign finance doctrinal development was driven, principally by Buckley, in particular directions, and CU, after all, is an “independent expenditure” case the logic of which rests in the main on the 1976 case. But CU as a case about independent corporate spending, and about campaign finance regulation more generally, occupies a special, prominent place in this history, and it is in this context that it might be best understood.
Washington Post (Volokh Conspiracy): Legally accurate protest chants against Citizens United
By Orin Kerr1. “Preventing distortions caused by the aggregation of wealth permitted by the corporate form is a compelling governmental interest!”2. “What do we want? Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. When do we want it? Now!”3. “Corporate independent expenditures can be limited because of its interest in protecting dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate political speech!”
Kochs
Washington Post: Koch-backed network pulls back curtain on gathering of wealthy donors
By Matea GoldFor the first time, a private gathering of wealthy conservative political donors brought together by Charles and David Koch will allow a look inside its much-scrutinized conclaves.On Sunday night, the group will share with news organizations a live Web stream of one of its final panels set to be held in the weekend at a luxurious Palm Springs resort. The session will feature three potential 2016 presidential contenders: Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida.The three Republicans will participate in a discussion of economic prosperity, health care and energy titled the “American Recovery Policy Forum,” moderated by ABC News chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl. ABC is billing the event as the first forum of the year featuring presidential hopefuls.
Tax Financing
Washington Post: Is public funding really electing extremists?
By Seth Masket and Michael G. MillerHall’s paper recognizes that there are substantial differences between these two funding systems, and importantly, his findings hold for a number of different tests. So why do our findings differ from his? The most obvious explanation is that the two papers are answering different questions. Hall’s approach examined state legislatures as a whole, comparing overall polarization in these chambers with those of similar states that use only traditional campaign financing, whereas our paper focuses on the link between acceptance of public funding and the behavior of individual legislators. We believe that if public funding is causing more polarization, we should observe a relationship between candidates accepting large, full subsidies and their subsequent behavior as legislators. That being said, given that we examine only legislators who entered after the implementation of public funding, the question begs deeper exploration and we think ours and Hall’s paper are only the first steps toward answering it.What Hall’s paper and ours have in common is the clear finding that public funding of campaigns does not produce less polarizedpolitical systems. At the very least, the current state of things suggests that reformers looking to curb polarization via campaign finance reform should consider looking at ideas other than public funding.
State and Local
New York –– NY Times: Complaint Offers Motive for Silver’s Fight Against Corruption Panel
By Marc Santora“The commission, we believe, has exceeded its mandate and has been engaged in a fishing expedition to intimidate legislators,” Mr. Silver told reporters in February.“The state has spent a great deal of money to conduct this fishing expedition, and I think that so far the greatest result they have come to, they have recommended what this conference has been saying and passing for the last 25 years — public campaign financing in New York State.”
New York –– NY Times: Sheldon Silver, New York Assembly Speaker, Took Millions in Graft, U.S. Says
By William K. Rashbaum, Thomas Kaplan and Marc SantoraAt the news conference, Mr. Bharara offered a stinging assessment of a state capital where money flows freely and deals are cut behind closed doors — sometimes at the expense of taxpayers, and to the enrichment of lawmakers. He said the charges against Mr. Silver “go to the very core of what ails Albany.”Mr. Bharara added, somewhat ominously, that his office had a number of other public corruption investigations that were still continuing. “You should stay tuned,” he said.The arrest of Mr. Silver, one of the most powerful politicians in the state, sent immediate shock waves through the political establishment and upended the new legislative session. The Assembly canceled its session on Thursday as Democrats planned to meet privately to plot a course of action. The state Republican Party issued a statement calling for Mr. Silver to resign, joining several Democrats who also said he should step down.
