Blog
By Molly Alarcon – 05/21/12
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 highlights the Brennan Center’s amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court regarding the potential review of a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding a cap on corporate political spending.
Tampa Bay Times columnist Robyn Blumner asks if the Florida Secretary of State’s sudden interest in purging the state’s voter rolls of 180,000 alleged non-citizens “is a pure effort to clean up the voter rolls or is there an element of suppressing minority votes?” Read the Brennan Center’s Myrna Pérez on the matter (“Florida Should Avoid Misdeeds of the Past”).
LA Times: “The Supreme Court, after a four-year break from terrorism issues, is set to decide as soon as Monday whether to again take up constitutional challenges to George W. Bush-era anti-terrorism laws involving wiretapping and the Guantanamo prisoners.”
Conservatives and civil rights advocates are coming together to oppose exorbitant phone fees for prisoners.
Over 2,000 people who were wrongly convicted of major crimes were exonerated in the past two and a half decades, according to a new database compiled by a team of academics. "We know there are many more that we haven't found," the editor of the new registry told the AP.
The New York Times editorial board praises DC Circuit Judge Tatel for his opinion affirming the constitutionality of an important provision of the Voting Rights Act. The Brennan Center released a statement applauding the ruling as well.
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By Meghna Philip – 05/21/12
A new documentary by University of Pennsylvania law students chronicles the story of Philadelphia’s aggressive criminal justice debt collections over the past two years. As the Brennan Center has previously written, these efforts have targeted one in five Philadelphians for a total $1.5 billion in alleged fines, fees and court costs dating back to the 1970s.
The filmmakers questioned a number of men and women impacted by the collections. The interviews highlight the fundamental injustice of fees and fines that force people to pay over and over for their crimes, long after having served their sentences.
In Philadelphia, and in many jurisdictions around the country, outstanding criminal justice debt can prevent people from accessing public benefits for themselves and their families. It can also bar people from accessing pardons or expungements of their criminal records, which is a huge barrier to employment.
“This is another example of just kicking the poor down,” Pennsylvania State Senator Shirley M. Kitchen says in the film. “The budget is being balanced on the backs of the poor, the working class, and the middle class. And all of this is just not fair.”
Criminal justice debt policies all over the country demand reform. But the collections process in Philadelphia is particularly egregious. The courts in the City of Brotherly Love lack crucial documentation to substantiate many of these debts. Thousands of formerly incarcerated people – overwhelmingly poor and from communities of color – are locked in battles over debts that they should not owe, and that they cannot pay. Seventy percent of those who allegedly owe money to the courts are elderly, disabled, impoverished or unemployed.
The ACLU and Community Legal Services of Philadelphia serve many clients trapped in cycles of criminal justice debt. The groups have asked that the Philadelphia courts waive all debts owed prior to 2005. This is the best way to ensure that the city is not wrongfully pursuing people for debts they do not owe. It is beyond time for the city to take this important step to encourage the reentry of hard-working people trying to lead productive lives after incarceration.
Said Malissa Gamble, a formerly incarcerated community organizer who was interviewed in the film: “I take full responsibility for what I have done, but I would like to move on with my life. I don’t want to continuously be beat over the head, and beat down, so when I think that I’m doing something good, the city comes again and they try to tear me down. There’s something strange about that.”
A trailer for “Pay Up! Criminal Justice Debt in Philadelphia” is available here.
The full-length film is available here.
Tags: Justice, Racial Justice, Civil Justice, Criminal Justice, Fees & Fines
By Myrna Pérez – 05/21/12
Florida does not have a good track record with voter purges. In 2000, Florida’s efforts to purge persons with criminal convictions from the rolls led to, by conservative estimates, close to 12,000 eligible voters being removed because the state’s process was so imprecise that an eligible voter named John Michaels could be confused with an ineligible person named John Michaelson. In 2004, Florida’s purge had a blatant racial disparity. Now, in 2012, Florida’s Secretary of State recently announced new efforts to purge Florida’s voter rolls. The initiative purports to be targeting non-citizens and deceased persons for removal from the voter rolls, but because Florida’s past efforts purged eligible voters from the rolls, careful scrutiny is warranted to ensure eligible Americans will not be blocked from voting.
Clean voter rolls are very important. We all benefit when states undertake responsible list maintenance procedures. Because the fundamental right to vote is at stake when voter list cleansing efforts are undertaken, the process must be transparent, accurate, and under reasonable time frames, especially when the list maintenance effort is of the scale Florida is proposing.
Part of the problem with voter purges is that they happen inside someone’s office and outside the public eye. For example, Florida’s Secretary of State Ken Detzner issued a public release announcing the purge effort earlier this month, but the initiative started in early 2011. So far he has only revealed that election officials are working with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to cross-reference voters’ information contained in various databases. But the press report does not explain anything more to the public. How can we know the process is being undertaken carefully? How can a voter incorrectly removed be put back on the rolls?
This lack of transparency illustrates another problem: purges are not always undertaken with the accuracy and care that is required. For example, to identify deceased persons on the rolls, Florida officials compare voter information with federal Social Security files. But a simple comparison offers insufficient protection for voters. The Social Security Administration admits there are errors in its database — 14,000 people are improperly recorded as deceased each year — and typos, bad handwriting, similar names, and basic statistical principles can lead to mix-ups between eligible and ineligible voters.
Finally, the timing of purges is often a concern, as it is here because Florida will hold elections in just a few months. The risks of error and enormity of consequences make it critical that purges happen well before elections so that mistakes can be caught and corrected and voters reinstated with ample time to cast ballots that will count. There are reports that local election supervisors share the Brennan Center’s concern about the timing of these purges, which are heightened if it is true that supervisors received instructions to begin purging voters from the rolls with only a few months before the elections when state-level officials compiled initial lists more than a year before.
If there are bloated rolls in Florida or any other state, the solution is easy: modernize. Paper-based registration systems, in Florida and elsewhere, are inefficient, costly, and prone to inaccuracy. The Brennan Center has proposed model legislation for voter registration modernization that would increase the number of eligible voters and restrict ineligible voters with a much higher degree of accuracy. The proposed system electronically transfers registration information, enables secure online registration, ensures that a voter’s registration record travels with her when she moves within a state, and creates an opportunity at the polls to correct any glitches in the process. Numerous states have already adopted components of voter registration modernization, and Florida should follow suit.
What Florida should NOT do is undertake a hasty and ill-planned purge of its voter rolls.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Purges
By Molly Alarcon – 05/18/12
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.
Yesterday, House Democrats introduced the Voter Empowerment Act (HR 5799), which includes the Brennan Center’s proposals for Voter Registration Modernization and provisions based on the Democracy Restoration Act, which would restore the right to vote in federal elections for individuals with criminal convictions. Read coverage of the press conference and bill introduction at: The Hill, CBS News, CNN, Roll Call, and The Grio.
The Brennan Center’s Adam Skaggs in Politico on the Montana campaign spending case reaching the Supreme Court: “Montana’s history demonstrates the corruption that blooms when corporations can spend without limit to capture government. The state’s history demonstrates again and again why the anti-corruption law should stand. Indeed, a close review of the case shows that the court would be well-served to revisit — and substantially narrow — Citizens United.”
Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed, describes a number of ways governments squeeze the poor, citing Brennan Center research to describe the punitive court fees and fines increasingly used against the poorest among us (Huffington Post).
Senator Leahy (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee) takes on controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio: “A U.S. senator has asked federal authorities to consider seeking repayment of federal aid to Maricopa County if they determine that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office used tax dollars from Washington to detain people whose civil rights the sheriff's office is accused of violating” (AP).
Echoing findings by the Brennan Center about the importance of legal counsel in foreclosure proceedings, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has released two reports stressing the benefit of having HUD-approved housing counselors help struggling homeowners.
The economic argument for equal rights: “A draft paper by four U.S. economists makes the strong empirical case that [social and legal equality for women and minorities] made the economy more productive. Chang-Tai Hsieh, Erik Hurst, Charles Jones and Peter Klenow argue that as much as 20 percent of the growth in productivity in the United States over the past 50 years can be attributed to expanded opportunities for women and blacks” (New York Times).
Tags: What We're Reading Today
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 Meghna Philip & Shayla Silver-Balbus – 05/18/12
At the heart of the recent $25 billion national foreclosure settlement is the promise of $2.5 billion in new state funding for foreclosure prevention. This funding is meant to provide immediate relief to millions of distressed homeowners. As the Brennan Center has explained, putting this money towards foreclosure counseling and legal services is a smart investment in our future, which will lift state budgets and our national economy. But the New York Times is the latest to report that a growing number of states – 15 at the last count – have diverted (or are planning to divert) millions away from housing programs and into general coffers to fill budget shortfalls.
Some governors and lawmakers have defended their decision to redirect the settlement money, arguing that revenue into state general funds translates into better economic situations for states overall – and thus, for struggling homeowners. In Georgia, Governor Nathan Deal decided to use the funds for business development instead of direct services to homeowners. A spokesman for Deal said that spending the money on attracting new companies would be the best way to prevent foreclosures.
But these types of policies will provide no immediate relief to the millions of people currently struggling to stay in their homes. Kimya Gentry, an accountant from South Carolina who just lost her job, told CBS, “It's a little scary not knowing if I'm going to be able to pay my mortgage or pay my bills or anything, you know, take care of my children.” South Carolina’s current House budget, if it stands a Senate vote, will send most of its $32 million from the settlement into a fund like Georgia’s that focuses on attracting corporations to the state. This will do nothing to alleviate the day-to-day struggles of distressed borrowers like Kimya.
States that stray from the settlement terms navigate a slippery slope between projects that indirectly help affected homeowners, and projects that represent entirely unrelated budget priorities. In Arizona, for example, $50 million – over half of that state’s settlement share – has been diverted to the general fund for purposes unrelated to housing. Arizona lawmakers initially proposed using the money for prison construction. They chose to do this despite the fact that Arizona posted the highest foreclosure rate in the nation in March. And despite the fact that a February 2012 report concluded that Arizona overpaid for private prisons in 2008 and 2010 by about $10 million, and that the services it received were woefully lacking. The state’s auditor general documented 157 serious security failings across five private facilities that hold in-state prisoners. The fact that lawmakers are more willing to spend public funds on wasteful prison construction, rather than invest in foreclosure prevention that actually lifts up poor communities – and, not incidentally, prevents an increase in crime - shows the need for a shift in our public priorities.
According to Alan Jenkins, executive director of the Opportunity Agenda, redirecting settlement funds could also have a racially discriminatory impact: “If you dump all of these funds into the general coffers, the African-American homeowners are not going to benefit in any real way because they represent such a small percentage of the larger state.” Yet, in many cities, black homeowners were disproportionately impacted by the foreclosure crisis. In Atlanta, for example, properties in African-American neighborhoods were almost five times more likely than homes in white neighborhoods to lack a “for sale” sign. In New York City, a map of distressed homeowners illustrates starkly that this foreclosure crisis is concentrated in communities of color.
It is imperative that State governors and legislators recognize the importance of using the settlement as it was intended – to provide immediate relief to distressed borrowers, and to lift up our hardest hit neighborhoods. Diverting the money will hurt state economies in the long run, and will hurt those who most need the settlement funds today.
Tags: Justice, Economic Opportunity, Civil Legal Aid
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 Molly Alarcon – 05/16/12
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.
Rachel Levinson-Waldman, counsel to the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, writes in the Huffington Post about how the conviction of Tarek Mehanna, an American citizen who became involved with terrorists, puts our First Amendment liberties in question.
“Advocacy groups spending millions of dollars to influence the 2012 election now face the prospect of having to reveal their secret donors, after a federal appellate court panel refused to block a lower-court order requiring the disclosure” – Los Angeles Times.
The Huffington Post counts down the top 5 voting law changes “that make people angry,” citing Brennan Center research on the detrimental impact voter ID laws and limitations on voter registration drives can have.
The New York Daily News editorial board says “I told you so” with respect to malfunctioning voting machines in the Bronx. The Brennan Center has been active in bringing this problem to the attention of elections officials and the general public.
Dafna Linzer at ProPublica profiles the failure of the Department of Justice’s pardon office to obtain justice for one man, Clarence Aaron, and systemic problems in the office that could be fixed by creating a bipartisan review panel that would report directly to the president.
Tags: What We're Reading Today
Page 1 of 119 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Permalink