Blog
By ReformNY – 04/20/12
Crossposted at ReformNY
Every Friday, the Brennan Center will be compiling the latest news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Matthew Ladd and Dan Rockoff.
For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.
New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1. This week saw the publication of several editorials calling on Gov. Cuomo to maintain his commitment to creating a public campaign finance program in New York state, beginning with a Sunday New York Times editorial that cut to the heart of the matter: “There is no mystery about what New York State needs: do it like New York City.” The Times also noted that Cuomo now has “big-time support” for public campaign finance in the form of the NY LEAD coalition, the subject of a front-page story in the Times last week.
2. On Monday, the Newsday editorial board called public campaign finance “New York’s chance to blunt big donors,” noting that the current contribution limit of $60,800 for a state candidate is over 12 times the national median, and citing a recent report by NYPIRG that found that just 127 donors gave one third of the total amount of money raised by state-level candidates and political parties. The editorial praised Gov. Cuomo for supporting public campaign finance but adds, “better still would be action to make it a reality.” Monday’s Times Union reported that Cuomo’s popularity, together with emergence of the NY LEAD coalition, have created what Citizen Action Executive Director Karen Scharff calls a “unique moment in time” for public campaign finance. A Times Union editorial also highlighted one of the major benefits of public campaign finance: not only a reduction in the influence of corporate money, but a “surge in civic engagement,” based on new information released by the Campaign Finance Institute (below).
3. The Campaign Finance Institute released a new report by Prof. Michael Malbin finding that a state-level public matching funds system would “reverse the importance of small and large donors” in state electoral campaigns, and that “importing something like the city’s program is likely to bring greater participation and equality to the state’s campaign finance system.” Prof. Malbin’s report concludes that a small-donor matching funds program is likely to boost the total percentage of small donations ($250 or less) in state races from 6% to 54%, allowing small donors to be “the most important financial constituents instead of the least important.” The full study can be downloaded as a PDF here.
4. As if to confirm the conclusions drawn by the Campaign Finance Institute, the Wall Street Journal noted this week that hedge funds have contributed tens of millions of dollars to state political candidates and parties within the past few years, and that the amounts are steadily growing: from $4.1 million in 2006 to over $7 million in 2010.
5. Advocates for Fair Elections for New York held a well-attended press conference in Albany on Wednesday, urging lawmakers to pass a public campaign finance bill before the end of the legislative session in June. The press conference included statements from NY LEAD, Citizen Action, the Brennan Center, NYPIRG, and Citizens Union, among other organizations and community groups from across the state.
6. An Albany grand jury is deciding whether to indict former Sen. Majority Leader Joe Bruno on new charges of receiving kickbacks while he was in office. Bruno, who was earlier convicted of fraud by a federal district court, saw that conviction overturned on appeal thanks to a Supreme Court ruling that limited the definition of “honest services fraud,” which includes accepting bribes and kickbacks. Bruno spent nearly $2 million in campaign contributions to fund his legal defense during his trial in 2009.
7. In other news concerning disgraced New York state senators, former state Sen. Carl Kruger, facing over a decade in prison for taking over $500,000 in bribes during his tenure in office, appealed to a federal judge for mercy this week in a sentencing memorandum that emphasized his “humble and modest life.” He will be sentenced in Manhattan federal court next week. Meanwhile, testimony in the embezzlement trial of former Sen. Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr. revealed that Espada took in over a quarter of a million dollars from his Soundview Health Care Network, ostensibly for “unused vacation time,” in order to reimburse Soundview for the “personal expenses” he charged to its corporate American Express card—expenses that included tickets to sporting events and bills from restaurants near Espada’s home in Mamaroneck.
National Campaign Finance News
1. 2012 is shaping up to be the most expensive presidential race in history, with Mitt Romney’s campaign now estimating that it will spend a total of $1 billion in the general presidential election this summer and fall, including $800 million from joint fundraising between the Romney Campaign and the Republican National Committee. The campaign also states that another $200 million will likely be spent by super PACs.
2. The Democratic Party and the Obama campaign raised $53 million in March in preparation for the upcoming general election season. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina pointed out that the average contribution to the campaign in March was small—a little over $50—but the president ahs also held big-ticket joint fundraisers with his victory committees and the Democratic National Committee, events at which wealthy donors can write checks for up to $38,500.
3. The Obama White House has also shown itself friendly to lobbyists; as the Times reports, “the regular appearance of big donors inside the White House underscores how political contributions continue to lubricate many of the interactions between officials and their guests.” Although the Obama administration has publicly declared that it will not accept contributions from registered lobbyists, this does not stop big donors with access to the White House from bringing lobbyists with them on their visits.
4. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which allows presidential candidates to opt into using volunteered public funds to finance their campaigns, is steadily shrinking, according to FEC records. Those records show that in 2010 fewer than 7% of Americans chose to make a donation to the fund, far below the funds’ high-water mark of 29% in 1980. President Obama was the first major-party candidate to opt out of public funding for both the primary and general elections in 2008, and both he and Mitt Romney are expected to opt out of the system this year as well, leading some to wonder whether the PECF will last much longer. The New York Times called upon candidates to fix the presidential public financing system – and to stop selling White House access to big campaign donors.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By Molly Alarcon – 04/19/12
What We're Reading: a daily round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
“You start to paint a picture of people of color, poor people, being cut out and not allowed to get their votes counted,” Larry Norden of the Brennan Center told Bloomberg for an article on corporate support for both sides of the voter ID law debate.
Read an overview of the House Judiciary’s hearing on voting issues yesterday morning from Main Justice. The Brennan Center’s Wendy Weiser testified about the rarity of in-person voter impersonation fraud and the disparate impact voter ID laws have on the poor, the elderly, students, and minority voters. Her testimony is here.
Newsday editorial board: He who pays the piper calls his tune. Albany needs campaign finance reform like the kind being pursued by the Brennan Center and NY LEAD.
Duke University researchers studying felony criminal cases in Florida found that all-white juries (the result of random jury selection) convicted black defendants in 16% more cases than white defendants. This gap all but disappeared when juries were integrated, even by the addition of one black jury member.
Los Angeles Times: “Crossroads GPS, a conservative nonprofit group that is one of the most prominent critics of President Obama, raised nearly $77 million in its first 19 months from a small cadre of secret donors, including two dozen who wrote checks of $1 million and more.”
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By Madeline Friedman – 04/17/12
See all these stories in full and all the latest news on the Brennan Center website.
Read and sign up for the Brennan Center’s new voting newsletter – the most comprehensive digest of the latest news affecting voting.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Coalition Pushes for Public Financing of Elections
A new coalition is pushing for public campaign financing in New York State, and they’re not of the type of profile you’d expect, the New York Times reports. Members of New York Leadership for Accountable Government, brought together by the Brennan Center, are CEOs, executives, and political leaders — many of whom have donated large amounts of money to political campaigns in the past. The coalition proposes that Albany adopt New York City’s public financing system to let state legislators focus less on fundraising and more on actual policy and constituents. This would be a double victory for all New Yorkers, the Brennan Center’s Fritz Schwarz, Jr. told the Times. “You have lower amounts of money that can be given, and No. 2, ordinary people become engaged in political campaigns and candidates change their approach to campaigning.” Read the Times and Newsday editorials in favor of public campaign financing.
Judge Diane Wood Keynotes Jorde Symposium
Judge Diane P. Wood has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit since 1995, so she knows more than a little something about the keys to effective decision-making. Yesterday, for the Brennan Center’s Jorde Symposium, she delivered a lecture on the topic called, “When to Hold, When to Fold, and When to Reshuffle: The Art of Decision Making on a Multi-member Court.” Judge Wood peppered her lecture with movie quotes and examples from decisions she was involved in throughout her career. She explained what she thought were the main reasons appellate judges choose to write separate dissenting opinions: They are compelled out of a strong matter of principle, they do not believe the majority rule will provide the necessary guidance, or they feel the need to correct errors when they think a panel is mistaken.
Surveilling the NYPD’s Surveillance
The NYPD's decision to monitor Muslims solely on the basis of their religion is not conducive to building trust, the Brennan Center’s Faiza Patel and Michael Price argued on Al Jazeera. If the NYPD insists on modeling its intelligence operation as a mini-FBI, they said, it should be subject to the same level of oversight the FBI faces — from an independent inspector general. The AP reported that the Department’s “counter-terrorism” efforts since September 11, 2001 included secret surveillance of American Muslims based on their ethnicity alone. Unlike the NYPD, which operates independently, law enforcement in Chicago and Los Angeles work with the FBI to build relationships with Muslim communities to develop and share credible information. A Brennan Center report found that an evidence-based approach is the best way to deter “homegrown terrorists.”
Modernization is the Real Way to Protect Votes
States across the country continue to pass restrictive voting laws, claiming that they protect citizens from voter fraud. Instead they should be encouraging participation by modernizing the voter registration system. “The paperless systems are much cheaper than the old forms and far more accurate,” The New York Times wrote. The Times called for states to adopt an electronic registration system and expand the rolls, a proposal the Brennan Center first introduced in 2009. Modernization would cost less, add millions to the rolls, and do much more to curb any real possibility of fraud.
From the Brennan Center Blog
DISCLOSE 2012 Will Make Mandatory Disclosure Mandatory – Mary Kate Hogan
- For decades, the one piece of campaign finance reform that Democrats and Republicans agreed about was the importance of disclosure. Here is their chance to prove they are serious.
Jim Crow Legacy Continues Today – Keesha Gaskins
- We are seeing a war on voting that can only be compared to the dark, discriminatory past of the Jim Crow era.
Louisiana’s Public Defender Fees are Poor Fiscal and Legal Policies – Roopal Patel
It Takes a Village to Raise a Battle Cry – Ethan Smith
What We’re Reading Today
- A round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
Read more blog posts here. To have the blog in your RSS feed, click here.
Events
Screening: The Man Nobody Knew
On April 4, the Brennan Center hosted a screening of the documentary The Man Nobody Knew: In Search of My Father, CIA Spymaster William Colby. Afterwards, Carl Colby, Director/Producer of the film, spoke with the Brennan Center’s Fritz Schwarz, Jr., who was the Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee. They discussed the Church Committee’s methods during the hearings, Colby’s memories of his father, and the story of how and why the film was made. The late William Colby was one of the CIA’s first recruits back when it was called the Office of Strategic Services. He parachuted in behind enemy lines in France and Norway during World War II, and in the 1950s moonlighted as a diplomat in Rome, playing a key role in the operation to counterbalance the Soviet support of the Italian Communist Party. He is best remembered for the Operation Phoenix “pacification” program in Vietnam, and for later disclosing some of the agency’s deepest secrets to a Senate committee when he served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1973 to 1976. See video of the event here. See pictures here.
Upcoming Events
- April 18 – Monica Youn testifies at a congressional forum on campaign finance reform in Washington, D.C.
- April 18 – Wendy Weiser testifies on restrictive voting laws at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C.
- April 19 – Nicole Austin-Hillery participates in a University of Memphis panel on racial justice advocacy and reform.
- April 25 – The Brennan Center co-hosts a debate on the scope of executive power with the American Constitution Society.
- April 27 – Diana Kasdan presents a workshop on voter suppression at the 4th Annual Civil Rights Summit in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Liza Goitein and Faiza Patel wrote about religious and racial profiling for The Hill's Congress Blog.
- USA Today’s story about spending in West Virginia’s Supreme Court races mentioned a Brennan Center study showing that fundraising of state races has increased exponentially since 1989.
- The Nation cited a Brennan Center survey showing how voter ID laws affect women, whose last names often change with marriages, and whose address might change due to separations or divorces.
- Nicole Austin-Hillery told The Washington Post that Americans should learn from — not turn from — racial issues that arise from events such as Trayvon Martin’s killing.
- Adam Skaggs told UPI that the Supreme Court’s decision to evaluate a recent Montana court decision on corporate campaign funding “gives justices a chance to review the ‘real-world consequences’ of Citizens United and the devastating effect it has had on our democracy."
- A Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed questioning if there is indeed “true merit” in judicial selections used the Brennan Center’s numbers on judicial elections spending.
- Lee Rowland helped a New Republic blogger figure out why voter suppression isn’t a protest cause.
To read more Brennan Center In The News, click here.
Stay Connected. Stay informed.
Tags: Newsletter, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform, Liberty & National Security
By Mary Kate Hogan – 04/16/12
For decades, the one piece of campaign finance reform that Democrats and Republicans agreed about was the importance of disclosure. For example, in 2000, House Republican Amo Houghton explained that "[w]e need disclosure by section 527 organizations, but when 501(c) groups intervene in the political process, they should disclose what they are doing and who is paying for it as well.” Lately, though, the GOP has changed its mind about political transparency, and the current debate over increased disclosure requirements for independent election spending has sharply divided on partisan lines.
Given the huge volumes of money being spent to swing the 2012 election — with millions being spent by non-profit 501(c) groups with secret donors — it’s long past time for a new bipartisan consensus in favor of transparency. Democrats like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who recently introduced the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 in the Senate, are leading the way, but they need a new generation of Republican leaders to join them.
The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 represents a promising first step in implementing what both parties used to call for: making sure that all politically active groups — including super PACs, “social welfare” 501(c)(4) groups, unions, trade organizations, and corporations — disclose who funds their political activities. The new DISCLOSE Act is a simplified version of legislation proposed in 2010, which passed the House but, despite the support of 59 Senators, fell one vote shy of overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The new bill strips out the provisions that led to GOP opposition in 2010, and should have broad support.
The new DISCLOSE Act aims at a major problem with current disclosure law — the fact that disclosure of political activity is now essentially optional. Groups like 501(c)(4)s and unions that spend money on electioneering exploit a loophole created by an FEC rule. The regulation says these groups are only required to file a report if that donor expressly indicates that their contributions were made for a particular ad. Vanishingly few contributors do so, meaning that the voting public is bombarded by campaign ads funded by these groups, without any idea who is paying for the ads.
While super PACs have to report their contributors, a super PAC donor who wants to remain anonymous simply has to route their money through a non-profit group to ensure that the ultimate source of the money stays secret. For example, during the 2010 election cycle, the Environment Colorado Action Fund, a super PAC, received about 99 percent of its funding from Environment Colorado, a 501(c)(4) organization. The super PAC discloses that all its donations came from the (c)(4) groups, but the real donors to the super PAC remain secret. Donors just give to the (c)(4), remain anonymous, and know the money ends up being used by the Super PAC. Disclosure defeated.
The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 solves this problem. It ensures that funds used to influence the political process and voters themselves are accounted for and donors are made public. It also makes the leaders of shadowy groups involved in electioneering “stand by their ads,” by requiring disclaimers like those for candidates, who have to approve each commercial’s message.
The Act also protects donors who want to support a group’s mission, but not its political ads. The Act allows a donor to remain anonymous by earmarking their contribution not to be used for political advertisements. This protects people who want to support nonprofit groups but do not want their money to fund campaign ads or other regulated political activity.
The DISCLOSE Act 2012 is an important first step toward transparency in elections. As Congress returns from recess this week, and the general election heats up, it should be a first priority. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) held a hearing before the Senate Rules Committee, and it’s time for the full Senate to consider the bill. The House should take up a parallel bill introduced by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).
As politically active groups continue to find new ways to circumvent disclosure laws, it is Congress’s duty to close the loopholes that allow them to do so. Democrats and Republicans should come together on political transparency — their constituents uniformly support it, by substantial margins. By passing DISCLOSE 2012, Congress can show American voters that it is serious about giving them what they want: a political process open to voters so they can make informed choices in the political marketplace. Democracy depends on it.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Disclosure
By Molly Alarcon – 04/13/12
What We're Reading: a daily round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
The Washington Post editorial board praises Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s actions to ease a strict voter ID law passed by the legislature earlier this year.
A study by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law highlights the harms voter ID laws can cause to transgender voters in 2012.
BET tells its readers about the upcoming racial profiling hearing in the Senate on April 17th. The Brennan Center is preparing written testimony.
AP: The Missouri House voted yesterday to approve a bill that reduces the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The bill now heads to the state Senate. Congress passed a similar law in 2010 to reduce the disparity in federal sentencing.
The National Institute on Money in State Politics released two reports documenting record fundraising and spending in state elections in 2009-2010.
The ACLU has a great new infographic on the wave of suppressive voter laws in place around the country.
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By Molly Alarcon – 04/12/12
What We're Reading: a daily round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
The Brennan Center’s Faiza Patel and Michael Price say reports of widespread surveillance and religious profiling of Muslims by police in three major cities demonstrate a clear need for proper oversight and accountability (Al Jazeera).
The Brennan Center is working with a broad coalition of groups and influencers to bring public financing and fair elections to New York State. The New York Times profiles New York Leadership for Accountable Government (NY LEAD), a diverse group of wealthy donors leading the campaign.
A proposed cybersecurity bill may seriously threaten the privacy rights of consumers.
Talking Points Memo: “The Justice Department has given up on settling with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and is planning to sue the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for systematic civil rights abuses of Hispanic residents.”
Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist criticizes the restrictive voting laws passed in his state last year. “Florida should be doing all it can to promote more voter participation, not creating barriers to it” (Tampa Bay Times).
The Philadelphia Weekly shines a spotlight on another group disproportionately impacted by strict voter ID requirements: women.
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By Keesha Gaskins – 04/12/12
Today in 1861, the Civil War began — the bloodiest most divisive war of our nation’s history. After the war, we saw the inception of the Jim Crow era, which brought the passage of more than 400 laws between 1865 and 1967 legalizing segregation in all areas of American life. Although Jim Crow laws primarily affected African-Americans, in the Western and Midwest states they also categorically discriminated against Asian-Americans and Indians.
During that time, 29 of the Jim Crow laws that passed in the states limited access to the right to vote. With the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, all facially racially discriminatory voting statutes were outlawed. And after passage of the 26th Amendment barring poll taxes in federal elections, most of the Jim Crow laws, with the exception of those discriminating against persons with felony convictions, were outlawed. Today, following the 2011-2012 legislative sessions, 24 laws and executive actions restricting access to the polls were passed, with more pending, in various state legislatures across the country. Only five fewer laws restricting access to the polls passed in the last 24 months than during the entire century that Jim Crow laws proliferated across this country.
While these laws are allegedly passed to secure elections, they impact communities of color in ways only reflected in our Jim Crow past. Looking at voter ID laws alone, we know that although 11 percent of Americans lack government-issued photo ID, 25 percent of African-Americans, 16 percent of Hispanics, and 18 percent of elderly voters do not have this form of ID. States have also passed restrictions on early voting and community voter registration drives. Communities of color are more than twice as likely to register to vote with these groups, and they use early voting days at a much higher rate than the general population.
Hopefully our country will never again see the kind of internal bloodshed we saw during the Civil War — but we are now seeing a war on voting that can only be compared to the dark, discriminatory past of the Jim Crow era.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter ID, Voter Registration Drives
By Roopal Patel – 04/12/12
In Louisiana, people who are represented by a public defender and are later convicted must pay a $35 fee to augment funding for public defenders even though they have already had a judicial determination made that they cannot afford an attorney. The fee creates a system that undermines the Constitutional right to conflict-free counsel by forcing attorneys to rely on their clients’ convictions for much needed funding. The existing fee already acts as an illogical tax on indigent defendants. And now there are two bills before the Louisiana House that would raise the fees on people who are likely unable to pay.
Like many states, Louisiana has systematically underfunded its defender offices – recently resulting in a layoff of 10 percent of the staff in the Orleans Parish public defender office. Even though their indigent clients face potential incarceration for failure to pay, cash-strapped defenders have been forced to advocate for more vigorous enforcement. In 2011, the Louisiana Public Defender Board sued 23 New Orleans judges who failed to collect the $35 fee. Richie Tompson, the chief public defender in Jefferson Parish argues that the fee increase is a necessity; otherwise defenders would be forced to restrict services.
Increasing the fee to $55 as proposed by State Representative Jeff Arnold or to $100 as proposed by State Representative Marcus Hunter – a former public defender – would only lead to an increase in the number of people unable to pay, along with a likely increase in costs related to collection.
Although intended to help fill budget gaps, Louisiana has failed to track the costs of collecting criminal justice fees and fines. There has been no formal study done of how many people are able to pay the current fee of $35, but the number could be as low as 20 percent of convicted people. The exact numbers of the poor affected by increasing the fee are difficult to determine, but the numbers are significant. Public defenders in Orleans Parish alone represent about 80 percent of all criminal defendants, taking on over 45,000 cases in 2010. Ironically, a fee scheme that doesn’t adequately assess the likelihood of actually collecting the funds may likely lead to greater deficits and further burdens on defenders
The Brennan Center urges the Louisiana state legislature to consider the example of Massachusetts. That legislature formed a commission that conducted a cost-benefit analysis weighing the possible revenue to be generated from a largely indigent population against the costs of implementing a proposed jail fee and ultimately decided not to impose the fee. Without such analysis, Louisiana runs the risk of imposing fees that cost more to track and enforce than any revenue they generate.
A client- and conviction-dependant funding scheme places well-intentioned public defenders in conflicting positions relative to their clients. Creating a structure that results in a need to lobby against clients’ interests is the wrong response to a budgetary problem.
Tags: Justice, Racial Justice, Civil Justice, Civil Right to Counsel, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines, Indigent Defense Reform
Page 4 of 118 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »
Permalink