Blog
Democracy
By Maggie Barron – 04/23/08
More information emerged yesterday about the scope and scale of the "small donor revolution." The Campaign Finance Institute released data on individual donations to presidential candidates—large and small—which suggests that despite the fanfare surrounding small donors, "the cumulative bottom line for all campaigns so far has shown only an incremental, though significant, change in the overall balance between small and large donations." In other words, if you take all presidential candidates from both parties into account, not just Clinton and Obama, this election has not dramatically tipped the scales towards small individual donations after all.
From January 2007 to March 2008, 34% of donated dollars came in amounts less than $200, versus 27% for the same period in 2003–4. It's a significant increase, to be sure, but perhaps not the "revolution" that many have suggested—and certainly not the "parallel public funding system" that Obama has described.
This is not to say that small donors are not an asset for campaigns. For example, a full 52% of McCain's individual donations come from $2300 contributions (the limit), whereas they make up only 8% of both Clinton's and Obama's totals. This means that a large chunk of McCain's donors have "maxed out," while the Dems can continue to return to their donors for more support. This allows donors to stay engaged throughout their chosen candidate's campaign. Says one Obama supporter quoted in the National Journal, "Every time my husband and I are going to go out to dinner, we figure the average cost is about $80, so we just donate it to Barack instead."
McCain, who is expected to accept public financing for his general election campaign, will have to depend on his supporters making donations directly to the RNC, which has a whopping individual contribution limit of $28,500.
CFI also provides comparisons to previous elections. It's interesting to note that in 2000, 40% of McCain's individual donations came from small donors, while in this campaign small donations account for only 23%.
We have a lot to learn still about what this data means as campaigns play out. Remember that CFI is counting donations, and not donors. And on Election Day, every vote counts the same, whether it is cast by a small donor or large.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Public Financing
By Thaddeus Kromelis – 04/22/08
Apparently the kids in my
neighborhood are so hopped up for voting they're vandalizing businesses (and riffing on
Robert Indiana no less) to encourage voter turnout. Heartening, indeed, unless that's your business they've spray painted I suppose. Whatever your opinion of graffiti, I took a quick picture this morning on my way to work and thought I'd share it.
In a similar vein of web/voting participation, and with the Pennsylvania primary in full swing, thought I'd also take this opportunity to recommend everyone head over to the Polling Place Photo Project when they have a moment.
Hosted by the NY Times, the Polling Place Photo Project (PPPP) is a forum where citizen journalists (read: voters with cameras) can post snapshots of polling locations and ballots. A Zagats of sorts, users are also encouraged to rate the quality of service, report delays and apparently comment on poll workers' wardrobes.
Much like the mixed bag you'd find on youtube, flickr and any other user-generated-content site, PPPP entries predictably run the gambit from the incredibly mundane to the bizarre—cutouts of the biblical fathers watching over voters for instance. Regardless, there are plenty of interesting snapshots to be found, payoff well worth the cost of spending a lunch break on the Internet.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues
By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy – 04/21/08
Cross-posted from the ACS Blog
April 22, the Supreme Court will
hear oral arguments in a case testing the constitutionality of the so-called
"Millionaires' Amendment" of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA," also
known as "McCain-Feingold"). The Millionaires'
Amendment passed in 2002 as part of a reform package to update and improve the
nation's campaign finance laws.
The Millionaires'
Amendment,
somewhat
levels the playing field for opponents of self-financed candidates who plan to spend
$350,000 or more of their own money on their campaign for federal office. Once a candidate for federal office spends
more than $350,000 of personal funds on a campaign, their opponent
will be allowed to raise private funds in amounts that are triple the normal
limits—up to $6,900/person/election—and can coordinate additional expenditures
with his or her political party, up to a cap.
The Amendment also requires certain financial disclosures from both
candidates so that the FEC can monitor when the cap has been reached. In all cases, the self-financed candidate can
spend as much money as he or she desires.
The law was
challenged by Jack Davis, of New York,
who alerted the FEC that he intended to spend $1 million dollars of his own
money in his 2006 run for Congress. In
the case, he argues that it is unconstitutional under First and Fifth
Amendments, and
claims that the additional benefits for his opponents chilled his own
speech.
Mr. Davis lost
on all counts in the lower court, which
found that the Millionaires' Amendment did not burden his speech since it "places
no restrictions on a candidate's ability to spend unlimited amounts of his
personal wealth to communicate his message to voters, nor does it reduce the
amount of money he is able to raise from contributors."
Instead, the court
held, the statute merely "provides a benefit to his opponent, thereby
correcting a potential imbalance in resources available to each candidate." Thus, the statute "preserve[s] core First
Amendment values by protecting the [opposing] candidate's ability to enhance
his participation in the political marketplace." The court also rejected Mr. Davis's equal
protection argument, because he had failed to show that Section 319 treats
similarly situated persons differently. It
is this opinion that Davis
seeks to overturn in the Supreme Court. The Brennan
Center for Justice submitted
an amicus brief in support of the FEC's
position.
The Davis case has
its roots in the seminal case of Buckley
v. Valeo, which (in)famously stands for
the proposition that money is speech. What
Buckley actually says is,
A
restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political
communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression
by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration,
and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means
of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of
money.
242 U.S.
1, 19 (1976). Buckley stuck an uneven balance that we have been living with ever
since. It is constitutional to regulate
political contributions but it is unconstitutional to regulate expenditures, including
expenditures by a wealthy candidate on his own candidacy. Despite the fact that most self-financed
candidates end up losing their elections for lack of a strong base of support
among voters, post-Buckley,
self-financed candidates, who can make a huge media buy with a single check,
have often had a demonstrable funding advantage over other candidates, who must
gather hundreds of small contributions before making a similar advertising purchase. As races for Congress have grown more
expensive over time, parties have increasingly turned to candidates who can
afford to self-finance to run for election.
This trend could discourage candidates of lesser means from running for
office. The Millionaires' Amendment was
a response by Congress to this Buckley-inspired
doctrinal inequity.
This case will
be a key test of how hostile the Roberts Court has actually become to campaign
finance regulation on the heels of 2006's
Randall v.
Sorrell (striking down $200-$400 contribution limits as being
too low and invalidating expenditure limits in Vermont) and 2007's FEC v. Wisconsin
Right to Life II (invalidating the application of BCRA's electioneering
communications regulations to a political ad by a nonprofit. BCRA defines "electioneering communications"
as television and radio communications that refer to a clearly identified
candidate for federal office, that are publicly distributed within 60 days
before a general election or 30 days before a primary election, and are targeted
to the relevant electorate.)
Mr. Davis and his amici have argued that disclosure under the Millionaires' Amendment is
particularly burdensome. This is the
first chance since the 2003 decision in McConnell for
the Court to opine on disclosure burdens, a subject which at that time garnered
8 supportive votes from Justices on the Court. Disclosure is widely viewed as the least
restrictive tool in the campaign finance toolbox.
This case is
also an opportunity for the Court to clarify (1) whether the specific $350,000 "trigger"
provision in the Millionaires' Amendment is permissible, and (2) whether
generally mechanisms to equalize funding among candidates with different
financial resources are allowable. While
the endorsement of such a mechanism has been adopted by lower courts in the
public financing context, the Davis case is
the first time that the Supreme Court will entertain this type of argument when
both candidates are using private funds.
If the Court
would like to rid itself of this case on mootness grounds,
it certainly has the opportunity, since the 2006 election is undoubtedly
over. If the Court would like to avoid
the merits it could also punt based on Mr. Davis's failure to establish an
actual injury since although Mr. Davis spent significant sums of his own money in
his 2006 race for Congress, his opponent did not utilize of any of the
Millionaires' Amendment's benefits.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Public Financing
By Erika Wood – 04/21/08
Cross-posted from Alternet.com
This is a big year for American democracy. Hundreds of thousands of new voters
are not only registering, but are actually showing up at the polls. States
whose primary races have never counted before are suddenly the center of
attention. Voters in Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina,
and Kentucky,
who have long gone ignored during primary season, finally find themselves with
a voice and a vote. This year they matter.
Despite this, our democracy still falls far short of its promise to be a
government that truly represents the will of its citizens. Across the country
there are 5.3
million Americans who are denied the right to vote because of a felony
conviction in their past. Nearly 4 million of these people are not in prison; they
live, work, pay taxes, and raise families in our communities, but remain
disenfranchised for years, often for decades, and sometimes for life.
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, Voting Rights & Elections
By Lawrence Norden & Andrew Stengel – 04/18/08
* Cross-posted from a Newsday op-ed
Albany did it again. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan ground to a halt at the intersection of undemocratic legislative rules and absurdly lax campaign finance laws. Even the many Long Islanders who were against the plan should be appalled by the way in which it was killed. All New Yorkers should be. This unfortunate episode in how the Albany world turns—or in this case, doesn't—provides a "Law & Order"-like summation for the long-overdue need for broad state reform.
Though the plan was supported by the mayor and the City Council, and would have brought hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding to New York, it never even received public debate, not to mention a vote in the legislature. Given the publicity that the mayor's congestion pricing plan had received, you have to wonder why the legislature didn't treat this bill a little differently. Why risk making so public the undemocratic way in which Albany works?
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform
By Andrew Stengel – 04/17/08
Every presidential debate this season—there have been more than 40 and counting—I hope the subject matter will focus on some of the more important issues (not just ones leading the polls) while asking candidates questions they haven't addressed before.
Before last night's debate between the Democratic candidates broadcasted from the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, I was sure moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos would do something different and avoid well-trodden issues while also focusing on substance over style—as I said after the last debate held in Ohio, and similar to the refrain of long-suffering Brooklyn Dodgers fans of the 40's and 50's: Wait till next time. But, I was wrong again.
The first half of last night's two-hour debate seemed more like a 527 ad in October. Focusing on Senator Clinton's trip to Bosnia and Senator Obama's relationship to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, it was a rehash of old news. Both subjects have been talked about to death. The debate questions were more relevant in the second hour, covering pledges to withdraw from Iraq, taxes, handguns and affirmative action and college applicants.
I think of what could have been during the first hour had the moderators chose to ask questions that haven't been addressed before-- maybe about the recently released, previously classified "torture memo," yet another smoking gun proving that the president's advisors have justified perverting Constitutional checks and balances in the interest of national security resulting in the monarchial presidency. Or, that two million homes secured by subprime loans will go into foreclosure by 2009 and that minorities were far likelier to get higher-cost loans.
I, for one, hope that yesterday's debate was akin to the ending of the Dodgers' 1953 season when the Yankees' Billy Martin hit the game-winning run in the bottom on the ninth to win game six and the World Series.
I'll wait till the next debate in North Carolina. Though CBS has yet to confirm the debate, it could be 1955 for us fans of unasked crucial debate questions go.
Tags: Democracy
By Renée Paradis – 04/17/08
The week of April 15 is a nice occasion on which to reflect on deadlines and what people tend to do in the face of deadlines, which, of course, is wait until the last minute before frantically rushing to get that form in on time. This is as true with voter registration as it is with taxes: the single biggest day of the year for voter registration is the deadline before the general election. And, under federal law, states are required to hold that deadline no earlier than 30 days before the election, which leaves elections officials with a deadline of their own: they must somehow process the deluge of forms in order to finalize pollbooks for use on Election Day. The days before deadline are difficult ones for election officials who have to go through mountains of forms while also setting up polling locations, training poll workers, distributing and collecting absentee ballots, testing machines, running early voting, printing ballots. In short, what March and April are to CPAs, October is to elections officials.
Last week, however, an elections worker in Muncie, Indiana got a little too hot under the collar during form-processing season. The Delaware County Election Board called a meeting to figure out how to deal with the flood of new registrations they had received for the presidential primary—including 1,500 on the primary deadline itself, out of a citizen voting age population of only around 90,000. Apparently the 1,500 forms were collected by the Obama campaign, which has made voter registration drives a focus of its efforts with student populations in particular. The Delaware Elections Board was operating at reduced capacity already because, under state law, the Board, which must have the same number of Democratic and Republican employees, is short a Republican—so they're down two whole workers. (Partisan election administration is a blog post for another day.) Will Statom, a Republican board employee, was apparently so angry that this meeting was called without complying with an Indiana public meetings law, he started a fight with a reporter for the Muncie Star-Press, which Statom claimed had "promoted" the "illegal" meeting. Statom shoved Nick Werner into a wall, tried to choke Werner, and then ended up punching Barry Welsh, a candidate for Congress, in the eye when Welsh tried to break up the fight. Statom was charged with misdemeanor battery, but returned to work the next day-the office needed his help to process all those registrations. (He has since been given a three-day suspension).
In 2004, elections officials in swing states also received many more forms than they were expecting—in large part because of the success of voter registration drives that registered a bunch of new voters and pulled more people into the process—something that's already happening this presidential year. Sometimes, those forms simply couldn't be processed in time, and voters had to cast provisional ballots. Other places, voting machines were distributed before all those voters registered, meaning long lines for some on Election Day. Ultimately, though, there was record registration and record turnout levels—something we can all agree is good, right?
Maybe not. Afterwards, some officials responded like Statom—they got angry, or ended up punching the wrong person. States across the country passed restrictions on these drives. Instead of giving counties all the money and capacity they needed to hire as many people as they could to process forms and ensure all voters new and old were able to vote, these dates decided to restrict the inputs—to limit drives' ability to reach new voters. States claim these laws are necessary because groups "hoard" forms—save them till the last minute and then turn them in all at once. But as tax day tells us (and as a study we did in Florida demonstrates), that's what voters do anyway—all groups do is increase the overall number of people who register to vote. Here at the Brennan Center, we've challenged these laws—successfully—as unconstitutional in Ohio and Florida. But they're still on the books in a number of states as we head towards the fall registration season. Rather than giving a black eye to new voters, states should figure out ways to process the form of every American who wants to register and vote.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter Registration Drives
By Laura MacCleery – 04/15/08
Cross-posted from the Huffington Post
Sen. Barack Obama's comments last week provided grist for renewed speculation about whether or not he will accept public financing for the general election. With no apparent sense of irony, he said to a roomful of donors at a high-ticket fundraiser that "we have created a parallel public financing system" of free-flowing Internet donations.
This remark may be a signal that Obama is considering using private money for the general election, which would make him the first candidate to do so since the election of President Nixon (before public funding was an option). It certainly is a clear sign that the explosion of small donors will require us to take a fresh look at the structures of campaign finance law.
But it will not help us move forward if enthusiasm for this influx of small donors obscures the facts. Money from large donors is not exactly going the way of the dinosaurs—79 bundlers for Obama have hit up their friends for aggregate contributions of $200,000 each. Still, it is certainly indisputable that having more small donations and less reliance on a tiny pool of wealthy people is a happy development in a democracy.
A true public financing system allows candidates to avoid $2,300-a-person fundraisers like Tuesday's event. But it could look quite different from what we have now, which forecloses any private fundraising in the general election if a candidate accepts a public grant. Indeed, the development of a "parallel" system suggests a way to update the moribund presidential public funding program.
> Read entire piece here.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Public Financing
Page 57 of 64 pages « First < 55 56 57 58 59 > Last »
Permalink