Campaign finance

  • February 27, 2014
     
    In Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. said that the Department of Justice notified defendants whose information had been “obtained or derived from” the Section 702 surveillance program. However, the DOJ’s claims were found to be untrue. Writing for The Intercept, Dan Novack reports on the implications of this “false assurance” to the high court.
     
    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a controversial bill that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers after politicians, business owners and even the 2015 Super Bowl host committee protested the controversial bill. Aaron Blake of The Washington Post comments on the governor’s decision.
     
    A federal district court judge in Texas declared the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The ban, enacted in 2005 by popular referendum, was held to violate the Fourteenth Amendment by U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia. Manny Fernandez of The New York Times has the story.
     
    The Supreme Court could soon rule on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. David Early and Avram Billig at the Brennan Center for Justice break down the five decisions that have shaped campaign finance law.
     
    Liz Watson at Womenstake explains how the Maryland Fair Employment Preservation Act would ensure that “all workers in Maryland have an effective remedy from supervisor harassment.”
  • February 10, 2014

    The U.S. Department of Justice announced an expanding federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Human Rights Campaign reports on the policy change that has Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. calling for the DOJ “to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages.”
     
    Writing for Balkinization, Gerard N. Magliocca anticipates a lengthy opinion from the Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Magliocca explains why the justices should make it brief.
     
    Reporting for The Washington Post, Brian Fung explores why it is likely that net neutrality will not reach our nation’s highest court.
     
    In “Slavery, By the Numbers,” Henry Louis Gates, Jr. provides readers of The Root with “28 statistics every American should know this Black History Month.”
  • December 23, 2013
    Guest Post
    by Erin Kesler, Communications Specialist at the Center for Progressive Reform
     
    Climate change and pollution affects everyone. Global warming-induced hurricanes pummel our coasts and droughts ravage our farmland. Our neighbors, friends, and children develop asthma and heart attacks because of air pollution and our favorite parks and hunting grounds are withering away.
     
    The science is conclusive and polls reflect the concern of many Americans about global warming and its related pollution. So what can account for the lack of government action on the issue? The answer has a lot to do with our broken campaign finance system and the ability of individuals committed to denying the existence of climate change to dump huge amounts of money (much of it secret) into elections and in the political process.
     
    During the 2012 election, outside spending groups, many of them newly created in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, reported spending more than $1.28 billion to influence voters and politicians. Of the amount disclosed, just 132 individuals who contributed over $1 million each were responsible for the bulk of Super PAC spending. Significant amounts were dumped into the campaign coffers of members of Congress by regulated industries that have taken an active role in opposing any new efforts by the President to move forward on greenhouse gas regulations.
     
    In addition, veins of secret money whistled their way through the campaign to the tune of over $300 million. Financial juggernauts of vague origin “donated” even more money to still more groups organized under the section of the tax code reserved for nonprofits and trade associations and continue to spend and influence policy debates and elections throughout the country, with a particular focus against environmental protection and anti-pollution measures.
  • October 9, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Adam Lioz. Mr. Lioz is a lawyer and policy advocate who joined the Demos Democracy Program in November 2011. He focuses on litigation to enforce the National Voter Registration Act and end prison-based gerrymandering; and policy advocacy to promote political equality and democratic fairness through safeguarding the right to vote and curbing the influence of big money on the political process.

    Yesterday, in spite of official Washington being on lockdown, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on McCutcheon v. FEC – a case many are referring to as “Citizens United II.”

    The case is a challenge to the total cap on the amount that one wealthy donor can give to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs, known as “aggregate contribution limits.” 

    An Alabama coal industry executive named Shaun McCutcheon (joined by the RNC) thinks that the current $123,200 cap – more than twice what an average family makes in a year – is a burdensome restriction on his political participation.  So, he’s asking the Court to lift the cap, freeing him to kick in more than $3.5 million to Republican candidates and party committees.

    Senator Mitch McConnell, who proudly embraces his reputation as the “Darth Vader of campaign finance reform,” has asked the justices to go further by overturning key parts of the Court’s seminal campaign finance case and striking all contribution limits, including the cap on the amount an individual can give directly to any one candidate (currently $5,200 per election cycle). 

    What’s at stake in the case?  New research from Demos and U.S. PIRG projects that striking aggregate limits would bring more than $1 billion in additional “McCutcheon Money” through the 2020 election cycle, from just slightly more than 1,500 elite donors. 

    This is not a sea change in overall election spending, and much of this money may be shifted from Super PACs to candidates and parties. But, it will continue to shift the balance of power from average citizens to a tiny minority of wealthy donors. And, who are these wealthy donors?  In a nutshell, they don’t look like the rest of the country, but rather are avatars of what Public Campaign calls “Country Club Politics.”

  • October 8, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As was widely expected the Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared sympathetic to a wealthy businessman’s complaint about federal restrictions on overall contributions individuals can give directly to candidates. The limits described as aggregate limits are intended to prevent corruption of democracy.

    But Alabama businessman, Shaun McCutcheon, and the Republican National Committee are urging the high court to set aside such limits, saying they subvert free speech rights. McCutcheon told The Times last week that Americans need to spend more, not less on politics. But in reality only a tiny few have the resources to spend the kind of money McCutcheon has and wants to on politics.

    Nevertheless, the conservative justices, especially Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, showed little confidence in U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s argument that aggregate contribution limits, help prevent corruption of democracy.

    “Aggregate limits combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual contribution limits and, equally fundamentally, by serving as a bulwark against a campaign finance system dominated by massive individual contributions in which the dangers of quid pro quo corruption would be obvious and inherent and the corrosive appearance of corruptions would be overwhelming,” Verrilli said during oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

    Later, Verrilli acknowledged that the aggregate limits might restrict an individual like McCutcheon from making direct contributions to a certain number of candidates. But that limit Verrilli continued would not stifle McCutcheon’s First Amendment rights. For he could still funnel money into groups that help advance those candidates. “Mr. McCutcheon,” Verrilli said, “can spend as much of his considerable fortune as he wants on independent expenditures advocating for the election of these candidates.”

    If the conservative justices vote to erase or greatly weaken limits on overall contributions, it would as The New York Times Adam Liptak notes “represent a fundamental reassessment of a basic distinction in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, which said contributions may be regulated more strictly than expenditures because of their potential for corruption.”

    Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said in a press statement that if the contribution limits are invalidated in McCutcheon “we are bound to see the $1 million and $2 million contributions that would be permitted by such a decision used by influence-seeking donors to corrupt government decisions.”

    He urged the high court to “not empower the wealthy few to buy the government that belongs to all Americans by striking down longstanding contribution limits that protect citizens against corruption.”