Contribution Limits
While all voters are equal in the voting booth, all voters are not equal in their ability to influence elections and policy. A $5 contribution from a low-income constituent may represent a much greater commitment than a $10,000 contribution from a millionaire, but in our system, the latter usually has more power to influence the outcome of the election and to secure access to the candidates once elected to office.That's where contribution limits come in-limiting the influence of big donors over elected officials and motivating candidates to cultivate a wide base of public support. Effective contribution limits are set low enough to encourage a broad-based fundraising strategy but high enough to allow candidates to run effective campaigns. They must also be comprehensive, regulating the flow of money between individuals, candidates, political parties and their affiliates, and political action committees.
The Brennan Center counsels states on creating and strengthening contribution limits and conducts research measuring the breadth and effectiveness of state limits.
Citizens United v. FEC (Amicus Brief)
The Brennan Center for Justice - serving as counsel for itself and several new media journalists - filed a supplemental amicus curiae brief in Citizens United v. FEC. The brief urged the Supreme Court to preserve landmark precedents that support limits on corporate spending in elections.
SpeechNow v. FEC (Amicus Brief)
The Brennan Center for Justice has submitted an amicus brief supporting the District Court decision to reject the constitutional challenge of Plaintiffs to contribution limits for organizations whose major purpose is the election or defeat of candidates for federal office.
Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission
The Brennan Center filed a brief amici curiae in Republican National Committee v. FEC defending the limits on raising and spending “soft money” imposed by the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
Citizens United discussion at Bill Moyers Journal
Campaign Finance Reform expert and Brennan Center staff Monica Youn was joined by Professor Zephyr Teachout from Fordham Law to discuss the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and what it means going forward. Watch now.
No Time To Wait for the Effects of Citizens United
As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens predicted in his eloquent dissent on the Citizens United case, “[w]hen citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy.” With the 2010 election season looming, we must act quickly to restore public faith in our democratic process.
A bad call on campaign finance
Two approaches to curbing the tide of campaign money that will follow in the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United v. FEC.
Illustrations by Risko
BC | Fair Elections Now Act Would Break Special Interest Grip on Congress
Brennan Center release. Bipartisan bill introduced introduced in both houses of Congress. The proposal would provide qualified congressional candidates Fair Elections funding to run a viable campaign in exchange for agreeing to take no contribution larger than $100.
Fair Elections Now Act Would Break Special Interest Grip on Congress
Bipartisan bill introduced introduced in both houses of Congress. The proposal would provide qualified congressional candidates Fair Elections funding to run a viable campaign in exchange for agreeing to take no contribution larger than $100.
Challenge to RNC Attempt to Reverse SCOTUS Decision on Soft Money
RNC seeks to overturn McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy’s Testimony for the Committee on House Administration Hearing
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy presented this testimony at the hearing titled “Defining the Future of Campaign Finance in an Age of Supreme Court Activism”.
Monica Youn’s testimony for the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Monica Youn presented this testimony at the hearing titled “The First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform after Citizens United”.
Letter to Senator Charles Schumer: 4-point plan to respond to Citizens United
The Brennan Center lays out a four-point plan response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, including actions: public campaign funding plans, voter registration modernization, better accountability, and taking a voter-centric view of the First Amendment.
President Obama on the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United
The President makes a practical, powerful (and brief) statement on money in politics in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. FEC.
Giving corporations an outsized voice in elections
Corporations are pitching a bizarre product—a radical vision of the 1st Amendment. It would give corporations rather than voters a central role in our electoral process by treating corporate political spending as protected speech. If this vision becomes reality, businesses and other big-money players will spend billions either hyping their preferred candidates or running attack ads against elected officials who don’t support their preferred agenda.
WBAI Radio | Ciara Torres-Spelliscy on NY’s Campaign Finance Reform Proposal
The Brennan Center’s Ciara Torres-Spelliscy appears on WBAI Radio’s evening news to discuss the NY Governor Paterson’s new ethics reform and campaign finance reform proposals.