Blog
Campaign Finance Reform
By David Earley – 05/18/12
According to a new study by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, four nonprofit organizations have spent $3.4 million in the state on “a steady barrage of campaign-style ads criticizing the Obama administration” since the start of the year all without disclosing their donors. Because these organizations — Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, American Energy Alliance, and the 60 Plus Association — are nonprofit “501(c)(4)” organizations and were careful to run their advertisements just outside the 30 day federal reporting window, they will never have to reveal information about their underlying donors.
All of this is completely legal. That federal disclosure requirements are so easily evaded — by entities spending millions of dollars to influence elections — underscores the need to reform federal disclosure laws.
Under federal campaign finance disclosure law, organizations that run “electioneering communications” must disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, which in turn releases the list of donors to the public. Electioneering communications are broadcast advertisements (TV or radio) that refer to a specific candidate for federal office and air within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Before disclosure of electioneering communications was required, only ads that expressly said things like “vote for” or “vote against” candidates had to be reported. Groups easily evaded disclosure under that regime by running “sham issue ads,” advertisements that are often highly critical of a candidate but stop short of telling voters to vote against the candidate. Instead they say things like “call Senator Smith and tell her not to tamper with Social Security.” Voters understood these as appeals to vote for or against candidates, but because they avoided the “magic words” they didn’t have to be reported. By requiring electioneering communications to be disclosed, Congress ensured voters would know who paid for sham issue ads run just before an election.
The groups in Michigan avoided disclosure by running their ads outside the 30-day window before the state’s primary. They also avoided disclosure by being registered as 501(c)(4) organizations, or “social welfare” organizations under the tax code. Consequently, these organizations are prohibited from having political activity be their “primary” focus, but can still engage in significant political spending. Had these nonprofits instead registered as so-called “527 organizations” — the intended designation for political organizations under the tax code — their donors would have to be disclosed. By exploiting the dual weaknesses of the current electioneering communication definition and the tax code, the people behind these kitschy organizational names will never be known.
Activity like this is why members of Congress recently introduced the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 to address the weaknesses of federal disclosure requirements. Under the proposed legislation, the reporting window would be greatly expanded. Donors behind electioneering communications would have to be disclosed if the advertisement runs within 120 days of the first presidential primary, and continuing until the general election. Ads mentioning congressional candidates would require disclosure if they ran on or after January 1 of an election year. By expanding the disclosure period, the law would ensure voters have both greater knowledge going to the ballot box and the ability to better scrutinize the dealings between independent organizations and the candidates they support.
Because the Michigan groups didn’t report their spending, the magnitude of the campaigns would have gone unnoticed. But the Michigan Campaign Finance Network carefully combed through public files of Michigan broadcasters and cable companies, meticulously analyzing their contracts to air the groups’ political commercials. The effort should certainly be applauded, as it brought to light spending that would otherwise have remained secret. But such effort shouldn’t be necessary — the public has a right to know who is trying to influence the voters and elected officials and how much they are spending in the process. Our federal disclosure laws should reflect that by making this information easily accessible so that everybody can know who is behind the money. Expanding the electioneering communication reporting window, as the DISCLOSE Act would accomplish, is an important first step.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Disclosure
By ReformNY – 05/18/12
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 Robert Friedman.
For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtags #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.
New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1. WYNC touts the findings from the new joint report by the Brennan Center and the Campaign Finance Institute, Donor Diversity Through Public Matching Funds. A significantly greater number of small donors contributed to campaigns in New York City, which matches donations of less than $175 at a six-to-one ratio, than contributed to state-level elections, where no matching exists. The results also evidence greater participation by minorities and low-income individuals under New York City’s public matching fund system. The report notes the ongoing campaign to institute a similar system for New York State elections, suggesting that small donor public financing could increase the diversity of the donor base for state elections.
2. Super PACs are already dominating this federal election cycle, and an article from Crain’s New York Business suggests they may play a major role in New York City elections as well. "There will be super PACs," said New York Republican State Committee Chairman Ed Cox. "It's impossible not to have them. They're a part of the process now." Such organizations could put unlimited dollars behind policy issues or mayoral candidates, according to some sources. Nonetheless, heightened disclosure requirements and a vigilant city Campaign Finance Board, according to the Board’s former general counsel, Laurence Laufer, may mean that these organizations work within greater restraints in New York City than at the federal level.
3. After more than a decade of accusations of misusing public funds, the law has finally caught up with the former New York State Senator Pedro Espada. A federal jury convicted Espada of four counts of theft, and he now faces up to forty years in prison. The charges stemmed from Espada’s unlawful use of over $400,000 belonging to a health clinic he helped found in 1978. Espada became known statewide in 2009 after taking part in a coup against party leadership shortly after the Democrats gained a narrow majority in the Senate. Two other Senators involved in that political turmoil – Hiram Monserrate and Carl Kruger – recently pleaded guilty to separate corruption charges.
National Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1. The Federal Elections Commission continues to press Congress to extend the ban on using campaign funds for personal use, according to The Hill. The ban currently covers candidates and candidate committees, but the FEC is urging Congress to extend it to reach campaign funds held by all political committees, including Leadership PACs and party committees. The Department of Justice has echoed the FEC’s concern, noting a “dramatic rise” of theft of funds intended for use in a campaign. To date, Congress has not taken action to respond to the FEC’s recommendation.
2. An op-ed published in The Columbus Dispatch examines the distaste for Citizens United expressed on both sides of the political aisle. Particularly troublesome to congressional representatives is the lack of transparency, and both Republicans and Democrats interviewed cited the need for increased disclosure. “There are national groups dropping in and out of communities without it being clear as to their interests,” said Rep. Mike Turner, a Dayton, Ohio Republican.
3. Proponents of increased disclosure of campaign contributions and curbing rampant spending in politics won a victory this week. Last month, in Van Hollen v. FEC, the District Court for the District of Columbia struck down FEC rules that undermined a federal law requiring organizations that make electioneering communications to disclose their major donors. The Huffington Post reports on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision denying a stay of the District Court’s judgment. While the FEC chose not to appeal the initial ruling, two private groups intervened to seek a stay. The Court of Appeals rejected their request two to one.
4. Some suggest that secretive spenders will find loopholes to exploit even after the Van Hollen decision. In an article on Slate, Richard Hasen argues that mandated disclosure for “electioneering communications,” which stop short of urging listeners and watchers to vote for a particular candidate, could lead to an increase in “independent expenditures,” which do expressly encourage voting for or against a certain candidate. While this express advocacy could cause the groups to lose tax-exempt status, Hasen notes that the FEC’s thin history of enforcement may lead to groups taking that risk. Another possibility Hasen flags is that the Supreme Court could hear the case, leading to a potential stay of the new disclosure requirements.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By ReformNY – 05/11/12
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.
For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.
New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1. State Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries reiterated his strong support for public campaign finance in an interview on MSNBC this week, urging fellow state lawmakers to pass the Fair Elections Act before the end of the legislative session. Jeffries noted that Gov. Cuomo’s backing will be crucial to the success of the Fair Elections Act: “We need his leadership on this issue, and I’m convinced if he decides to lead and move this forward, we can get meaningful campaign finance reform in New York State.”
2. A new report issued by the Center for Working Families examines how money in politics led taxpayers to foot the bill for the new Yankee Stadium. In 2006 Yankees ownership paid over $300,000 to a lobbying firm run by former Bronx Assemblyman Roberto Ramirez—the largest lobbying fee reported that year—as well as other influential lawmakers including former state senator Joseph Bruno, in an apparent effort to secure funding for the stadium. The report highlights the financing of Yankee Stadium as a case study in the high-stakes influence-peddling permitted by New York’s current campaign finance regime.
3. The Democrat and Chronicle strongly urged Gov. Cuomo to stand behind his promise to prioritize campaign finance reform, recalling a 2010 campaign publication in which Cuomo called on state legislators to “fundamentally alter our system to give voices to all New Yorkers” by creating a small-donor matching program for publicly funded campaigns. Bills that would create such a program have been introduced in the Assembly, but Cuomo’s support is widely seen as instrumental in moving campaign finance reform through the Senate.
National Campaign Finance News
1. A new poll jointly released on Thursday by Democracy Corps, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Public Campaign Action Fund finds that swing voters are likely to support candidates who make campaign finance reform a priority in their legislative agendas. Key findings from the poll suggest that ordinary voters see money in politics as a key economic issue, and that reform alternatives—including small-donor matching programs—have garnered wide support among the voting public. Over a third of the voters polled said that they considered candidates’ willingness to make campaign finance reform a legislative priority as a litmus test for their support. According to David Donnelly, Executive Director of PCAF, “Money and politics is increasingly becoming a ballot box issue. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe there should be common sense restrictions on the amount of money people can contribute to politics and voters—especially independents—will strongly support those who take the issue head-on.” The polling memo can be downloaded here, and individual slides from the poll can be downloaded as well.
2. The results of Thursday’s poll generated articles this week from The Hill, National Journal, and Mother Jones, among other media outlets, some of which noted the poll’s findings that campaign finance reform is supported by a broad swath of the American electorate. Nearly 75% of respondents, for instance, expressed support for limiting the amount of money in politics—a number that included 60% of voters who identify with the Tea Party movement. As Greenberg Quinlan Rosner CEO Stan Greenberg noted, “There aren’t many things we’ve tested that are viewed as negatively as super PACs.” Moreover, less than a quarter of those polled found that limits on campaign contributions interfere with free speech rights.
3. On Sunday, the New York Times editorial board called for the resuscitation of the flagging presidential public financing program. The editorial notes that this will be the first presidential election since the program’s inception in 1976 that neither major-party candidate draws on public funds. Public funding of elections is crucial to the legitimacy of the electoral process: “The era of “super PACs” and secret donors has made public financing more urgent. A system that greatly magnified small donations with high matches would give ordinary citizens a shot at competing with corporations, unions and wealthy donors. It would allow candidates to campaign more instead of constantly begging among the rich. And it would give a challenger a chance to be competitive without the help of a super PAC.
4. The Washington Times reports this week that presidential fundraising efforts this summer cannot afford to overlook the importance of the small donor. Mitt Romney in particular will have to do much more to court small voters, according to Prof. Michael Malbin, Executive Director of the Campaign Finance Institute. Malbin’s analysis of the Romney campaign filings indicates that 64% of the presumptive Republican candidate’s total funds came from donors giving the maximum legal amount of $2500.
5. The Sunlight Foundation reports that former Sen. Richard Lugar’s defeat earlier this week was influenced by outside PAC spending in favor of his challenger, conservative state treasurer Richard Mourdock—including over $2 million from the anti-tax Club for Growth. Although Lugar outspent Mourdock by a 3-to-1 margin, the state treasurer was backed by a “flood of outside money” from PACs and super PACs, as well as from 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups not subject to FEC disclosure requirements.
6. In a clear indication of the revolving-door nature of Super PACs, ABC News reports that now that Rick Santorum is no longer a candidate for public office, the “Red, White, and Blue Fund” super PAC that spent on his behalf during the race has become a “hybrid PAC” with which Santorum can freely coordinate. The hybrid PAC can also fund some of the costs of Santorum’s ongoing political activity—expenditures that are technically legal, since Santorum currently holds no office and is no longer running a campaign.
7. This week the disclosure website Open Secrets, a collaboration between the Center for Responsive Politics and Center for Public Integrity, published new information on presidential campaign bundlers for the both the Democratic and Republican campaigns.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By ReformNY – 05/04/12
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.
For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.
New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1. In a radio interview this week, Gov. Cuomo renewed the call for statewide campaign finance reform, decrying the corrosive effect that super PACs and high contribution limits continue to have on electoral politics in Albany. “The power of money in the Capitol is unbelievable,” Gov. Cuomo said. Cuomo has pledged to implement a public financing system similar to New York City’s small donor matching program, as well as to improve enforcement of state campaign finance laws, close campaign finance loopholes and lower contribution limits.
2. The debate over public financing has begun in the state Senate, with the introduction of new legislation by Senator Eric Adams, which would establish a public financing program, create an independent enforcement counsel in the State Board of Elections, lower contribution limits and improve disclosure of independent political spending. At a press conference called by Senate Democrats, Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson told reporters that public campaign finance would dilute the influence of moneyed interests and enhance the power of small donors. Sen. Tom Duane added that Gov. Cuomo’s support is crucial for a bill’s passage, observing that the governor’s track record on marriage reform and pension benefits is clear evidence that “when he puts his mind to something, he can win.”
3. Reform groups including Citizen Action New York gathered in Albany on Monday to protest the outsized influence of the natural gas industry on the state legislature’s approach to hydrofracking, noting that the industry has contributed more than $1.3 million to state legislators in an effort to buy support for the controversial practice. Sierra Club representative Robert Ciesielski cited a study by Common Cause that the governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, had received over $1.6 million in political donations from the industry—a figure that, given the current state of New York’s campaign finance laws, lobbyists in Albany could well surpass.
4. On Wednesday, Fair Elections for New York held a screening in Albany of “Pricele$$,” a new documentary on the influence of money in politics that includes interviews with former Gov. Mario Cuomo and former U.S. Representative Dan Maffei (D—NY), who is currently running for the seat he lost in 2010. Filmmaker Steve Cowan posted full transcripts of his interviews with Cuomo and Maffei on the film’s website, which include Maffei’s observation he supports public campaign finance “because it means the only people we’ll have to worry about in our day are the taxpayers and constituents in our district, and that’s what we’re supposed to do.”
National Campaign Finance News
1. President Obama’s two most recent fundraising efforts have added at least $2 million to his campaign’s war chest, adding fuel to predictions that 2012 will be the costliest presidential race in U.S. history. The two fundraisers, in which contributors paid $40,000 a plate, are the latest in over 100 campaign fundraisers the president has held since early last year.
2. Nate Silver writes in the New York Times, however, that small contributions ($200 or less) still make up over half of the president’s total contributions during the current election cycle, in contrast to a mere 13% of Mitt Romney’s campaign contributions. Silver notes that in the current era of super PACs and big-ticket fundraisers, the dearth of small contributions does not indicate a weak campaign budget so much as it suggests a lack of support among grassroots Republican voters.
3. In an effort to draw attention to the coercive effects of Super PAC spending on the political process, two leading reform advocates have chosen an unusual strategy: creating a “hybrid” PAC and super PAC whose aim is to remind voters “that money and politics remains an issue in the campaign, and that we have the option of creating political accountability around it.” The announcement came just days before a new report by the Annenberg Center revealed that “Restore Our Future,” the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s election campaign, has spend $20 million in deceptive advertisements in early primary and caucus states.
4. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy notes in the Huffington Post that, in a victory for campaign finance disclosure, the FCC has decided to make public broadcasters’ records of how much they charge political candidates or committees for advertisements. The disclosure of these so-called “political files” allows voters to see whether broadcasters in TV or other media are charging some candidates more than others—a potential violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The FCC’s rule, Torres-Spelliscy notes, is in stark contrast to the SEC’s foot-dragging over a recent call for disclosure of the political contributions of publicly traded companies.
5. Redistricting in California’s 53 congressional districts has set off a wave of hyper-partisan fundraising by super PACs, as both parties see California races as crucial to winning a majority in the U.S. House this fall. Super PACs such as American Crossroads, partly managed by Karl Rove, and the GOP Congressional Leadership Fund, to which billionaire Sheldon Adelson has contributed $5 million, are expected to play a leading role. Bill Allison, editorial director of the nonpartisan watchdog organization Sunlight Foundation, predicted that “After the election, it is these donors who will have access and entree to Congress at a level that will be unbelievable compared to what we’ve seen before.”
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By Sundeep Iyer – 05/03/12
Crossposted at Huffington Post.
The super PACs and nonprofit groups dominating the 2012 election filed their latest financial disclosures with the Federal Election Commission. The reports showed that these outside groups — some of which do not disclose any information about their donors — are poised to continue playing an outsize role in this year's elections. Karl Rove's Crossroads groups, for instance, raised about as much in the first quarter of 2012 ($49 million) as they did during all of 2011. This breakneck fundraising pace will only accelerate as November approaches.
But this fundraising is not just affecting the ads we see on TV. It may also be having a troubling influence on voter attitudes toward our electoral process. According to a national survey conducted on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice, 41 percent of Americans already say their vote does not matter because big donors to super PACs have so much more influence than they do. Alarmingly, nearly one in four Americans say they are less likely to vote because of the influence big donors have over elected officials.
This is nothing less than a crisis of confidence in the power of average citizens to effect change through the electoral process.
Yet super PACs are only one reason voters might disengage this November. Across the country, more than a dozen states have passed laws making it harder for eligible citizens to vote. Voter ID laws are the most common — eight states have passed "no photo, no vote" laws since the last federal elections. Several others have adopted laws restricting registration drives, making it nearly impossible for groups like the League of Women Voters to register voters. All told, during the 2011-2012 legislative sessions alone, there have been 24 laws and executive actions restricting access to the polls. These new restrictions could make it harder for millions of Americans to vote in November.
Poorer communities and communities of color will bear the worst consequences of this year's new election law changes. The Brennan Center super PAC survey found that Americans with household incomes under $35,000 are much more likely than the general population to think their vote does not matter in the face of super PACs. That holds true for African-Americans and Latinos, too. Most voting law changes, like voter ID laws, also have their most pernicious effects on people of color. For instance, the Department of Justice recently noted that Hispanic registered voters in Texas are between 46 percent and 120 percent more likely than whites to not have a driver's license or non-driver's photo ID.
The combination of new campaign finance and voting law changes is almost certain to cause voter disengagement this fall, especially among those traditionally marginalized in our political process. Of course, this would not be the first time that America has had problems with voter turnout. In 2008, an election noted for its high turnout, there were still 75 million voting-eligible people who did not vote.
We need structural reform to the way we run our elections, and fast.
Congress can immediately make outside groups less potent by adopting meaningful rules to prevent coordination between candidates and the super PACs that function as shadow campaigns. But Congress can and should do more. Adopting a system of public funding for federal elections would make the voices of average voters matter as much as those of super PAC fat cats.
Modernizing our voter registration system is also long overdue. Registration-related problems have perennially been the biggest obstacle voters face each election season. In 2008, 80 percent of voting-eligible people who did not vote were not registered, and about three million more were prevented from voting because of problems with their registration. According to the Pew Center on the States, there are now 50 million voting-eligible Americans who are not registered.
To expand the voter rolls, Congress should require states to automatically register consenting eligible citizens to vote when they interact with any state agency — and to provide a failsafe procedure to register voters who are left out. In states like Washington, Kansas, and South Dakota, automation has substantially increased the number of registered voters. States should also be required to provide online voter registration, a more convenient, secure, and cost-effective alternative to paper-based registration forms.
Congress alone cannot completely counteract the harmful effects of the new rules governing our elections. But in an election cycle where these rules threaten to undermine voter participation, Congress must act now to soften the blow.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter ID, Voter Registration Drives
By ReformNY – 04/27/12
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. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver formally introduced a bill this week that would create a statewide voluntary public matching funds program in New York, calling on fellow legislators to pass the bill and make New York state “the model for the rest of the nation in establishing and preserving fair elections.” In a press release accompanying the announcement, Silver noted, “In light of the devastating effects the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has had on federal elections, we in New York should be leading the way in reducing the influence of money in our own elections.” The full bill, which can be read here on the State Assembly website, in addition to providing new contribution limits and enforcement rules, also stipulates that the public campaign fund would be partially financed with money from Wall Street fraud settlements.
2. Media producer and NY LEAD coalition member Marc Weiss, writing for Newsday, called for New York senators and assembly members to support Gov. Cuomo and Speaker Silver in passing public campaign finance legislation, asking, “Do they want to continue business as usual, or do they want to be part of the solution?” Under the state’s current system, Weiss observed, “regular voters feel disconnected from the process and tune out altogether. He went on to cite a Siena poll conducted earlier this year that found 3 out of every 4 New Yorkers would support a statewide campaign finance reform that includes a voluntary small-donor public matching funds program.
3. Washington Post editorial writer E.J. Dionne offered unequivocal support this week for public campaign finance in New York state, pointing out that, like the New York City small-donor matching system on which it is modeled, the state public finance legislation “creates incentives for more people to participate... expands the number of people speaking through their contributions... [and] opens the way for candidates who might otherwise be driven from the competition by established politicians with access to traditional funding sources.” Simply put, Dionne concludes, “it makes our democracy democratic again.”
4. The Nation reminds us why this year presents such a unique opportunity for the passage of public campaign finance in New York, pointing out that the current legislative campaign has garnered the support of the pro-business Committee on Economic Development, Senator Russ Feingold, and an impressive roster of business leaders and philanthropists. But no bill will pass without the public support of Gov. Cuomo; the article finds that public campaign finance presents the governor with the opportunity “to step into the leadership vacuum and provide a rare glimpse of hope on a mission-critical progressive priority.”
5. Former state Senator Carl Kruger was sentenced to seven years in prison on Thursday for his leading role in a million-dollar bribery conspiracy that exemplified the pay-to-play reputation of the New York state legislature. In imposing the sentence, federal judge Jed S. Rakoff observed that Kruger had engaged in “extensive, long-lasting, substantial bribery schemes that frankly were like daggers in the heart of honest government.” This week also saw closing arguments in the corruption trial of Pedro Espada, Jr., the former state senate majority leader accused of embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a publicly funded healthcare system in order to finance his lavish personal lifestyle.
National Campaign Finance News
1. The New York Times reports that the same wealthy groups that funded the Republican takeover of the U.S. House in 2010 are now mounting an “aggressive campaign” to capture seats in the Senate, one whose final cost will exceed $100 million by November. Much of that money is evidently funding attack ads against Democratic incumbents; for instance, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D—MO) already faces over $2.2 million in television ads funded by the Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads GPS (an offshoot of the super PAC American Crossroads), and other right-leaning groups. Sen. McCaskill said, “You make one company mad by casting a principled vote, and they say, ‘Okay, we’ll just gin up $10 million of our corporate money and take her out anonymously.’ I think if people figure out that’s what’s going on, they’re going to be very turned off by it.”
2. A new national survey conducted by the independent Opinion Research Corporation on behalf of the Brennan Center revealed that “nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Super PAC spending will lead to corruption.” Nearly three out of four survey respondents also found that limiting contributions to super PACs would reduce corruption, and over 50% of both Republicans and Democrats agreed with the statement that “spending in this election is more likely to lead to corruption.” Candidates across the country are taking notice and adopting campaign rhetoric accordingly.
3. The Times also called on the U.S. Senate to require electronic filing of campaign finance reports, finding that while the House already has a system whereby candidates disclose “by a push of a button,” the Senate does not. Under the Senate’s outdated and inefficient system, the Times reports, crucial information is often not disclosed until after voters have already been to the polls.
4. The corruption trial of disgraced former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards began on Monday. The trial, which is expected to last six weeks, opened with testimony that Edwards knowingly accepted illegal campaign contributions in order to hide an ongoing affair from his ailing wife. Conviction on all six counts would leave Edwards facing up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.
5. A former aide to U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK) told the FBI that Rep. Young used campaign funds for personal expenses, including hunting trips, meals, and charter flights. The FBI ultimately cleared Rep. Young of wrongdoing in connection with a budget earmark for a highway, but documents released last week from the investigation show that his aides expressed doubts about “inappropriate” expenses.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By Mimi Murray Digby Marziani – 04/24/12
Last month, distracted by Super Tuesday, March Madness, and "The Hunger Games," you may have missed the news from Delaware. Here’s the exciting update: Governor Jack Markell introduced two proposals to strengthen the state’s democratic processes — one to make lobbying more transparent; the other to shine light on money in politics. Together, these reforms would represent a big step for this small state.
The first proposal is simple. Senate Bill 185 would require lobbyists to file reports online about their lobbying activity within five days of contacting a state official to discuss a bill, resolution, or regulation. Basically, the law would eliminate back-door meetings; when a lobbyist decides to use her clout to try to influence the legislative process, she must come through the front door and leave her calling card.
The second takes a minute more to explain. The Delaware Elections Disclosure Act is focused upon outside spending — i.e., spending by third parties rather than by candidates or political parties — in state elections. The bill would expand the reach of campaign finance disclosure requirements to capture “electioneering communications” — campaign advertisements that identify a candidate and are released right before an election. This is necessary to close a gaping loophole in current law. Now, outside spenders can skirt all reporting requirements simply by avoiding certain magic words like “vote for” or “vote against.”
The new campaign finance bill would also make information about outside spending more accessible to the public. Any person or group spending over $500 on campaign advertisements would have to file a disclosure report within 24 hours that would be available on the Election Commission’s website. In addition, all ads would have to include a disclaimer identifying who paid for the ad and showing a website with more information.
Both bills promote transparency in ways that would improve Delaware’s democratic process. A front-door lobbying policy puts Delawareans on notice about the special interests seeking to affect lawmaking. Similarly, and as the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized time and again, voters have a right to know who is spending big bucks to influence election results. This information helps voters judge the persuasiveness of the campaign ads they see and hear, and ultimately facilitates an informed choice at the ballot box.
Today, the General Assembly is back from spring break, and ready to get back to work. Before moving on to other matters, the Senate should advance lobbying reform, and the House should push forward the campaign finance bill. Shrug off other distractions and keep your eyes glued on Delaware.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Disclosure
By Erik Opsal – 04/24/12
Welcome to the Brennan Center's voting newsletter, the most comprehensive summary of all the latest developments affecting voting. Sign up for all Brennan Center newsletters here.
Latest Developments
Appeals Court Rejects Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Rule
In a 9-2 en banc ruling, the Ninth Circuit overturned an Arizona law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship when registering, saying the measure conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act.
“That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does,” the Associated Press reports. At least 7 percent of voting-age Americans do not have such documentation readily available, according to the Brennan Center’s research.
Although the decision only applies to Arizona, similar laws in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee could now be struck down. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who defended the law, said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This decision is a major victory for voting rights,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Center’s Democracy Program. “It is another example of courts pushing back against new state restrictions on voting. Instead of restricting access to the polls, we must make our voting system work for all Americans.”
The court also upheld Arizona’s law requiring voters to show identification at the polls. Unlike the restrictive voter ID laws passed in recent months, however, the state’s law allows a non-photo ID to vote. Read the Brennan Center’s amicus brief in the case.
Justice Department Must Combat Voting Restrictions
The Brennan Center’s Wendy Weiser (third from left) testified at a House Judiciary hearing that the Justice Department is correct in its efforts to curb new restrictive voting laws. The Department has objected to new voting laws in Florida, South Carolina, and Texas.
“The Justice Department has appropriately exercised its obligation to assure that these states follow the Voting Rights Act. It has enforced the clear dictates of law — nothing more, nothing less,” Weiser testified.
Weiser also called upon Congress to upgrade the nation’s “ramshackle” voter registration system. “Common sense, nonpartisan reforms could add all eligible voters to the rolls while cutting costs, reducing errors, and curbing any chance for fraud. We should move past partisan ‘voting wars’ and bring our systems into the 21st Century,” she told the House panel.
See video and photos of the hearing.
State Updates
Arizona – As detailed above, the 9th Circuit overturned an Arizona law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship when registering, while upholding a provision requiring a non-photo ID at the polls. Read more here. Professor Doug Chapin called it a “vivid reminder of the lasting power of Motor Voter.” The Yuma Sun lauded the law’s allowance for non-photo IDs to vote.
Colorado – For months, lawmakers have battled over an “inactive” voters list, which would prevent certain voters from receiving a ballot in all-mail elections. The Denver Post called for common sense in the debate, saying voters shouldn’t be removed simply by “failing to cast a vote in the last election.”
Connecticut – The West Hartford News applauded a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow greater flexibility for absentee ballots and early voting.
Florida – Former GOP Gov. Charlie Crist took to the pages of the Tampa Bay Times to criticize the state’s new law restricting voter registration efforts and early voting. “These new measures appear to be a step backward in protecting the right to vote for citizens of the Sunshine State,” Crist wrote. Several editorial boards have chimed in against the changes. And a woman who was convicted of a non-violent drug offense 25 years ago wrote an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel urging Gov. Rick Scott to change the state’s policy of waiting five to seven years after probation is completed to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.
Georgia – After a long legal battle, Georgia has settled the litigation by offering voter registration to all public assistance applicants.
Louisiana – The House voted to shorten poll hours on election day.
Michigan – The House continues to debate a bill requiring photo ID for absentee ballots. Voting rights groups have mobilized to oppose legislation that would change registration and voting procedures, including, “government-sanctioned training” for those seeking to register voters, photo ID when registering to vote and an affirmation of citizenship at the polls.
Minnesota – A “broad” coalition of labor, community, senior and student groups has formed to campaign against a November ballot referendum instituting voter ID. Read more here and here. Although he did not take a position on the measure, the president of the Association of Minnesota Counties, Randy Maluchnik, noted that the amendment “would require the state to spend millions to provide free IDs” and that provisional ballots would cost “local governments millions of dollars every election season.”
Mississippi – The Senate passed a bill to implement the state’s voter ID law, which passed by referendum last year. One report said the law is not expected by the November elections because it is still subject to review from the Justice Department.
Missouri – The state House approved a revised summary of a voter ID ballot measure, which a judge had struck down because it was “insufficient and unfair.”
Nebraska – One county plans to close nearly half its polling locations. U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson (D) asked the Justice Department investigate the move as a possible voter suppression tactic.
New Hampshire – Voter ID opponents showed up in force at a House Committee hearing on the proposed law.
Pennsylvania – The state’s primary is today, and counties have been preparing for the first test of Pennsylvania’s recently-enacted photo ID law. The Philadelphia Daily News encouraged voters to know what they need to vote, and The Patriot-News in Harrisburg called for a national initiative “to ensure that voters have photo ID.” Seeking to help more people vote, the state announced that expired driver’s licenses or state-issued ID cards can be used to qualify for a free photo ID cards. Meanwhile, a new study concluded that the vast majority of college IDs are invalid for voting.
South Carolina – The state’s voter ID requirement violates the Voting Rights Act, according to documents filed by the Justice Department. Read more here.
Texas– The Justice Department submitted court documents blasting the state’s voter ID law, saying Texas’ own data shows it “will disenfranchise at least 600,000 voters.” Read more here. A federal court denied Texas’ request for a blanket ban on depositions of legislators.
Virginia – GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell said he was disappointed the legislature rejected his amendments to the voter ID bill, which would have expanded the types of acceptable IDs and included a signature match provision. “We’re going to have to take a very hard look at that bill now when it comes back to determine what the next step is,” McDonnell said. Read more here. The Washington Post has applauded McDonnell’s changes. Former gubernatorial candidate state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) believes the measure is discriminatory and unnecessary.“[W]hen there is absolutely no evidence of widespread voter fraud, there is no need for this legislation," Deeds wrote.
Washington – The Seattle Times called for online voting, saying it will benefit democracy.
Wisconsin – The state Supreme Court refused to take up two voter ID cases, which had been enjoined by judges in Dane County. Read the Brennan Center’s statement on the court’s decision. A challenge to the voter ID law won’t be decided in time for the June 5 recall election of Gov. Scott Walker (R). The judge hearing the matter has set June 18 as the deadline for final briefs. Read more here.
See our summary of all pending and passed voting laws.
New Data and Research
Media Round-Up
- Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the Brennan Center’s Myrna Pérez, and others spoke about protecting voting rights at a Rutgers School of Law symposium.
- Reuters detailed how “new curbs on voter registration could hurt Obama,” citing the Brennan Center’s research.
- Myrna Pérez wrote an op-ed for New America Media saying states shouldn’t tamper with the Voting Rights Act.
- The New York Times’ David Firestone praised the Wisconsin Supreme Court for deferring a decision about the state’s voter ID law and a federal district court ruling upholding the ban on campaign contributions by federal contractors.
- The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) scrapped work on non-economic issues after progressive groups challenged its support for “Stand Your Ground” gun laws and voter ID requirements.
- NPR reported that several high-profile companies have left ALEC because of the controversy. MSNBC’s Hardball also covered the story.
- The Brennan Center’s Mimi Marziani spoke to TPM about how restrictive voting laws will affect the youth vote in 2012.
- Former Rep. Lee Hamilton wrote an op-ed saying voter ID laws “build confidence in the system” but they must be “accompanied by an aggressive effort to reach qualified voters.”
- Al Jazeera ran a 25-minute documentary, “Disenfranchised in America,” examining voter ID laws in Florida and Tennessee.
Other News
- Electiononline Weekly, a publication of the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, has an overview of what states have budgeted for implementing voter ID laws. They range from “no fiscal impact” in Kansas and Nebraska, to “unknown greater than $7,027,921” in Missouri.
- The National Conference of State Legislatures released its monthly roundup of voting laws.
Stay Connnected
- Stop getting forwarded! Get your own copy of the Voting Newsletter here.
- For daily voting rights developments and the latest commentary from our experts, be sure to visit the Brennan Center’s website.
- To keep up with all of the Brennan Center’s work, subscribe to our bi-weekly newsletter.
- And don’t forget our newsletters on legal services and fair courts.
- Follow the Brennan Center:
Tags: Newsletter, Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights & Elections
Page 1 of 23 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Permalink