Archive for the 'Campaign Finance Laws' Category
Campaign finance reform is about much more than limits to donations, MintPress News reports. Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perception Index says that the $3.7 billion spent on elections in the 2014 midterms has added to a “murky nexus” between money and politics.
Much of this money was spent by Super PACs, groups that are exempt from disclosure regulations. This loophole exists because Super PAC money is supposed to be directed to educational advertisements. This one requirement is easily circumvented, because transparency laws in many states only prohibit the use of so called magic words, such as “vote for” and “vote against.” Attack ads can therefore become pervasive without having to reveal the people who financed them.
An opinion piece by Joan Claybrook in Chicago Business asks whether “dark money” campaign contributions can lead to the Illinois Supreme Court being bought.
Claybrook sites Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier as an example of a candidate who has benefited from “dark money.”
“Elected in 2004 in a campaign with record expenditures of dark money in which corporate interests spent almost $5 million to unseat a judge considered to be plaintiff-friendly, Karmeier then cast deciding votes reversing judgments in two controversial cases, Avery v. State Farm and Price v. Philip Morris,” the piece states.
Claybrook also points to the lack of recusal rules and transparency as a way that campaigns are being negatively impacted by non-disclosed money. She ends by saying, “State Supreme Courts must require all litigants to disclose campaign money they contributed directly or through third parties to a judicial election when a case is filed or answered. It’s the only way the people can be assured of an independent judicial system—one of the cornerstones of our democracy.”
The newly chosen chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, Ann Ravel, told the Center for Public Integrity that she will fight for transparency of what now is political “dark money,” regardless of the political party tied to it.
“The Kochs, they are not a problem to me, nor are their activities specifically anything I want to address,” Ravel said. “Dark money is a broader problem — a much broader problem. It’s a problem for those on the Democratic side as well as the Republican side. It’s not a partisan question for me.”
With the five-year anniversary of the Citizens United decision less than two months away, campaign finance reform debates continue to heat up.
The Sunlight Foundation reports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is concerned that a reform movement, including campaign spending disclosure, is infringing on its First Amendment rights. An event at the Chamber’s headquarters brought together a diverse group of speakers from the business community to discuss reform options that have been proposed, including the DISCLOSE Act and proposed rulemaking at the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In a long-running campaign finance case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a Federal Election Commission disclosure rule, saying it was too narrow, the Washington Post reported.
The FEC rule had undermined the intent of Congress “to enable voters to be informed about who was trying to influence their decisions,” the judge wrote. “A donor can avoid reporting altogether by transmitting funds but remaining silent about their intended use.”
The Los Angeles Times said Judge Jackson ruled that “groups that run election-related ads must reveal their donors” and her decision “could force disclosure of some of the secret money flooding into elections.” Read more
The Senate voted on Monday to proceed to debate a proposed constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling. A Republican filibuster is expected soon, and the proposal is not likely to pass the Senate this session, Huffington Post reported.
While the proposal has almost universal support of Democrats and opposition from Republicans, a majority of Americans from both parties “support the rationale offered by amendment proponents as a reason to amend the Constitution,” according to a separate Huffington Post article. Read moreNo comments
The full impact of the Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, issued in early April, is starting to be measured.
The ruling struck down aggregate limits on how much individuals may contribute to political candidates and party committees in an election cycle.
According to a Washington Post article, “Together, 310 donors gave a combined $11.6 million more by this summer than would have been allowed before the ruling. Their contributions favored Republican candidates and committees over Democratic ones by 2 to 1.” The article was headlined, “Wealthy political donors seize on new latitude to give to unlimited candidates.” Read moreNo comments
California’s Assembly is weighing a Senate-passed bill to require that political ads aired on TV for ballot measures disclose their three greatest original funders. A spate of editorials is calling attention to the proposal shortly before the legislature finishes its business for the year.
A San Jose Mercury News editorial was headlined, “Truth in campaign advertising should be the law,” and it said the bill’s powerful opponents include the Service Employees International Union and the California Teachers Association. The Los Angeles Daily News editorialized, “California campaign cash disclosure bill needs final push.” A San Francisco Chronicle editorial said, “Do-or-die time for campaign funding disclosure bill.”No comments
The problem of money in politics has grown so big that it seems to be “on steroids” now, laments retired Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson in an outspoken Helena Independent Record op-ed.
Justice Nelson takes direct aim at a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases beginning with Citizens United, saying the problem of big money overwhelming actual voters has become so great that what once was unimaginable is almost possible.
“So, what’s next?” he writes. “Will corporations and special interest PACs eventually get the right to actually vote? Why not? They’re already funding the worst government that money can buy.” Read moreNo comments
Despite an uphill fight ahead, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 on Thursday to advance a proposed constitutional amendment that would permit Congress and the states to bar corporations from spending to influence elections.
The “heated debate at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday underscores the intensity of the fight over the growing role of unlimited money in elections,” USA Today reported.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and the committee’s chairman, said Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance regulation have “twisted the meaning of the First Amendment” and “opened the floodgates to billionaires.” Read moreNo comments