Archive for the 'Campaign Finance Laws' Category
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on Tuesday a lower-court order that struck down campaign contribution limits in Montana, and Justice at Stake applauded “a victory for fair and impartial courts and the people of Montana.”
The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit remanded the case of Lair v. Bullock back to the lower court, finding that the lower court had not used the correct standard of review in its initial ruling. The ruling on Tuesday keeps in place campaign contribution limits set by Montana, which apply to elections including state judicial elections.
JAS Deputy Executive Director Liz Seaton said in a statement, “These limits provide essential protections in our justice system when judges are elected. It is important to prevent the kind of outsized donations by a single lawyer, group or party that run the risk of influencing courtroom decisions.” Read more
An Ohio judge is suing state officials over campaigning restrictions which she says puts her at a disadvantage in elections.
Colleen O’Toole already announced her candidacy in the 2016 Supreme Court election, but restrictions on fundraising and other campaign activities prevent her from doing much early self-promotion. The Columbus Dispatch explains that judicial campaigns are prohibited from raising money until 120 days before the primary. O’Toole is suing Justice Maureen O’Connor and two others, claiming that this and other regulations violate her First Amendment rights.
Governor Steve Bullock of Montana signed the Montana Disclose Act this week, expanding campaign finance regulations.
Sponsored by Republican Sen. Duane Ankney, the legislation requires groups that contribute to state elections disclose their donors, according to the Associated Press. “Beginning next election Montanans for state races will be able to accurately judge and understand the political attacks that have become so common in our elections and will have the opportunity to see who’s funding those attacks,” Bullock said. “We’re saying if you’re going to spend money in our elections you need to just simply disclose who’s writing those checks.” The bill narrowly passed in a nearly party line vote, with 10 Republicans siding with all the Democrats.
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