CCP
Amending Maine’s ‘Clean’ Election Act Will Still Produce More Broken Promises for Mainers
Brian Walsh
Unfortunately, the reality in Maine and elsewhere is that such systems fail to deliver on the promise of diminishing corruption. According to research by the Center, we found that from 2001 to 2012, nearly $185,000 in tax dollars was doled out to allegedly “clean” candidates, who were later investigated for various abuses of the public’s trust. Some candidates were found to have forged signatures to qualify for additional “clean elections” funding. Two others made millions of dollars in unreported payments to organizations they were affiliated with. One individual even faked their entire candidacy solely to game the system and bilk taxpayers out of their hard-earned money.
FEC
Washington Examiner: FEC Chair: Feds must help Americans make ‘thoughtful’ contributions
Rudy Takala
“Yes, I believe the American people are intelligent enough to make decisions,” said Democratic FEC chairwoman Ann Ravel. “But many of them also contribute to … sham PACs, over which we have no control. So in some cases, there’s a necessity for protection for some people to ensure that they’re not, that they’re able to make thoughtful, fair decisions.”
…The commission’s deadlock meant that no opinion was issued. Lee Goodman, a Republican commissioner who chaired the commission last year, criticized the action. In comments to the Washington Examiner, Goodman said, “What we’ve got is an acute case of technophobia at the FEC.” He also asserted that Ravel was trying to turn the FEC into “a consumer protection agency like the Federal Trade Commission.”
Independent Groups
National Journal: 5 Takeaways From Scott Walker’s Withdrawal
Josh Kraushaar
- Hard money (and spending discipline) matters. It’s ironic that, in the age of the super PAC, when it’s easier than ever to raise outside money, two accomplished big-name governors dropped out in the summer in part because they couldn’t raise enough hard money to sustain their operations. Walker, who entered the race July 13, had the support of a well-funded 527 (which raised $20 million at the end of June) and the excitement of many of the wealthiest donors in the party. Now, before he even has a chance to file his first fundraising report, he’s out of the race because he couldn’t get enough donors to commit to his campaign. “No amount of super PAC $ can suffice for hard dollars,” a Walker adviser told National Journal in an email.
Washington Post: If you think super PACs have changed everything about the presidential primary, think again
David Karol
Yet there is reason to doubt that super PACs have changed things all that radically. Perry’s withdrawal from the race despite having several millions left in his super PAC coffers is a reminder that candidates still need “hard money” to provide for campaign expenses. A candidate who is doing very badly will have a hard time raising such funds.
Beyond that, the focus on super PACs overstates the importance of money in previous contests. It is not only a shortage of funds that has sunk previous campaigns. Candidates who do badly in the early primaries and caucuses receive much less media coverage. They start to seem less viable to voters. Much as “better than expected” showings in early contests boost some candidates, others who underperform suffer going forward.
NPR: What Happens To All That SuperPAC Money When A Candidate Drops Out
Peter Overby
Congress long ago passed a law limiting what candidates can do with unused campaign cash — in particular, they can’t take it home with them.
But that law doesn’t apply to superPACs.
This is only the second presidential contest since superPACs were created, and there is no law regarding left over money for the groups given their relative infancy.
Political Parties
More Soft Money Hard Law: Parties and the Rethinking of Reform: Part II
Bob Bauer
Gerken and Fishkin conclude with the suggestion that, while we cannot be certain about the effects of significantly liberalized funding for official parties, it may be best that we not find out. But why not find out? So many of the forecasts about the course of reform have proven to be mistaken, and some of them wildly wrong, that it might make sense to take a chance on the parties. To do this, it is not necessary to go as far as Edsall does and support the elimination of all limits. Raising those limits substantially, or targeting special relief for particular party activities (as the Brennan Center would consider), should be sufficient to see how the official parties can function with more support, on more even terms, with others competing for resources and influence.
American Prospect: Why Major Parties Want Big Donors to Ditch Super PACs
Justin Miller
Some speculate that bringing mega-donors back into the traditional fundraising fold (and out of the super PAC world that has wreaked havoc on the parties’ functions) could reinvigorate the political power of the national parties, which have become eclipsed in recent years by individual candidates. Additionally, some prominent partisan donors see the benefit in donating (and wielding influence) directly to parties and, thus, the eventual nominee, rather than gambling millions by backing an individual candidate’s super PAC during an especially volatile primary season. Just how much of a big-money exodus from super PAC to political party there will be is still unclear.
Huffington Post: The Warnings About The Supreme Court’s Dangerous Campaign Finance Ruling Are Now Coming True
Paul Blumenthal
In exchange for their contributions, the new million-dollar donors sought by parties and presidential candidates will receive access to dinners, retreats, insider phone calls and opportunities to talk to top lawmakers and candidates.
This dynamic now mimics the soft money landscape Congress banned in 2002 and the Supreme Court upheld in 2003. In its 2003 McConnell v. FEC decision, the Supreme Court found that candidates’ practice of soliciting large contributions for their direct benefit raised concerns about both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption. In the court’s eyes, this justified new restrictions on campaign contributions and spending.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Guardian: Democratic candidate Lawrence Lessig decries ‘catch-22’ TV debate eligibility
Lauren Gambino
Lessig added that with a field of only six declared candidates, he doesn’t understand why the DNC is limiting the debate, a concern other Democratic candidates have raised. He agrees that there should be qualifiers to join the debate, as according to the Federal Election Commission, 142 candidates have filed to run for president as Democrats in 2016 so far, but he said the current measure is not fair.
“The DNC should at least take the position that these media organizations should be including all announced candidates in their polling if [it’s] going to use that to exclude people from the debates,” Lessig said.
Time: Scott Walker Ends Presidential Campaign
Zeke Miller and Philip Elliott
Walker, whose super PAC raised millions, had difficulty raising hard-dollar donations and couldn’t afford to maintain his large campaign staff, one Republican operative said.
In a CNN/ORC national poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents Sunday, Walker garnered less than 0.5% support, from well into the double digits earlier this year. In recent months, Walker has struggled to gain attention in a media environment dominated by Trump and Ben Carson, and has found his pitch as a battle-tested reformer to be overshadowed by the desire for political outsiders.
The Hill: Campaigns seek to poach Walker donors, staff
Jonathan Swan, Ben Kamisar, and Jonathan Easley
The Walker campaign could have “hunkered down” in Iowa but the combination of sustained bad news reports, plunging polls and perhaps problems with the campaign’s bank account – revealed for all to see in the next quarterly results unveiled on Oct. 15 – would have been a difficult set of circumstances to overcome, he said.
While donors look at other campaigns, those campaigns are looking at who they can recruit from Walker’s organization.
The States
Sioux City Journal: Attorney general explains plan to revise campaign laws
Associated Press
Attorney General Marty Jackley has released an explanation for a ballot measure to create a publicly funded campaign finance program, require additional disclosure and limit lobbying by state officials after they leave government.
Jackley’s office said Monday the measure significantly overhauls South Dakota’s campaign finance laws.
The campaign finance program would allocate two $50 credits to voters, who could assign them to candidates. The plan also lowers political contribution limits.
Just for Fun
Quartz: Quiz: Is it an ’80s band or super PAC?
Keith Collins
Bands from the 1980s. Political action committees. They have at least one thing in common: hilariously earnest names.
