Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign finance laws can be crafted to promote more open, honest, and accountable government and to bring the constitutional ideal of political equality closer to reality. The Brennan Center supports disclosure requirements that inform voters about potential influences on elected officials, contribution limits that help to mitigate the real and perceived influence of donors on those officials, and public funding that preserves the significance of voters' voices in the political process and levels the playing field among serious candidates, regardless of their wealth or wealthy connections. A combination of well-crafted reforms, including public funding of judicial, legislative, and executive elections, could enhance the speech of millions of Americans who today are locked out of true political participation.
The Brennan Center defends federal, state, and local campaign finance and public funding laws in courts across the country. We also give legal guidance and support to state and local campaign finance reformers through informative publications, direct counseling, legislative drafting, and testimony in support of reform proposals.
Daily updates from the press and blogosphere on our issues.
March 27, 2010
Money in Politics 2009: New Horizons for Reform
May 8, 2009 – The Brennan Center hosted "Money in Politics 2009: New Horizons for Reform," a one-day conference focused on campaign finance reform. Lawrence Lessig, Micah Sifry, Sam Waterston, and a host of others participated in the lively event. You can get details and watch video of the presentations here.
Green Party of Connecticut v. Jeffrey Garfield
On July 13, 2010 the Second Circuit issued two important decisions, upholding the majority of Connecticut's recently-enacted campaign finance reform system - including its groundbreaking public financing system - against a sweeping constitutional challenge.
The Brennan Center successfully defended Arizona’s Clean Elections system before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the Clean Elections Institute Inc.
In Doe v. Reed the Supreme Court decided whether the state of Washington can mandate the disclosure of the names of citizens who sign petitions for ballot initiatives. In an amicus brief that supports neither side, the Brennan Center for Justice urges the Supreme Court to craft a resolution to the case without impinging upon existing constitutional doctrine regarding disclosure laws in the sphere of money in politics.
Why can 41 senators crush popular will to temper money in politics?
Yesterday the threat of filibuster in the Senate killed — at least for the moment — a transparency bill the country both needs and wants. This is another example of how the continual threat — and use — of the filibuster is bringing our democracy to a halt. Tuesday’s victim? Americans who might want to know who is funding political ads in our elections.
The Citizens United Confirmation
The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan provided a miniature seminar on constitutional law. Kagan was asked over 500 questions and she discussed topics as diverse as gun rights to partial birth abortion. But front and center has been the January 2010 Supreme court case, Citizens United v. FEC. This was the case that granted corporations the same right to spend money on elections as a living, breathing human being. . . .
RNC v. FEC: A Win for Democracy
On Tuesday, the Court summarily affirmed the lower court’s decision in Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission (a.k.a., “RNC v. FEC”), thereby refusing to consider the newest challenge to campaign finance regulations. While this order has not made headlines, it represents a small but important victory for our democratic process.
Illustrations by Risko
New York–Spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled in the past decade, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009, and deep-pocketed special interests play a dominant role in choosing state jurists, according to a report released today.
With Corporations’ New Outsize Voice, Can Shareholders Speak?
New policy proposal based on British law shows congressional leaders how to give corporate shareholders a voice in election spending.
Testimony on the DISCLOSE Act for the House Admin. Committee
The DISCLOSE Act closes longstanding loopholes that have permitted veiled political actors to escape full transparency. We urge Congress to pass this legislation as quickly as possible in order to ensure the source of corporate money in the upcoming election is fully self-evident.
Testimony for the New York Senate Elections Committee
On April 23, 2010, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy provided testimony for the New York Senate Elections Committee on the impact Citizens United may have on New York’s elections. The testimony states that Citizens United is an invitation to make New York’s already bad campaign finance system even worse, but that there are fixes that the State can adopt to blunt the impact of Citizens United as well as fixing long standing problems with the ways that campaigns are funded in New York.
Letter from Warren Langley to Speaker Pelosi
Warren Langley, President (ret) of the Pacific Stock Exchange addressed a letter to Speaker Pelosi on the need for the Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790).
Briefing Memo Supreme Court’s Injunction of Trigger Matching Funds Provision of Arizona’s Public Fin
The Supreme Court’s injunction of the Trigger Funds Provisions in Arizona’s Public Financing System does not cast doubt on the constitutionality of public financing systems, including the Fair Elections Now Act, H.R. 1826.
Citizens United: The Aftermath, an Issue Brief for the American Constitutional Society
The American Constitution Society asked Brennan Center Counsel Monica Youn to provide them with an issue brief explaining the political impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The brief explores potential responses that “would buttress existing campaign finance safeguards from further attacks and mitigate some of the harmful effects of [the decision].”
Like the Lochner v. New York decision from 1905, Citizens United is similarly driven by a particular brand of conservative ideology to achieve a certain result.