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.
Although the clock on this
legislative session is winding down, reform advocates remain confident that
New York’s legislators will enact new campaign finance rules in the near
future. “The question about campaign finance reform and public funding of
elections is whether it will be adopted soon or sooner,” said Susan Lerner of
Common Cause. While government officials are hesitant to say that anything will
pass before the end of the current session, multiple reform bills have been
introduced. Grassroots activists continue
to pressure reluctant legislators to support reform, and civic leaders such as former
New York City Mayor Ed Koch are pushing for change.
2.
The campaign finance reform movement heard from some important labor allies this
week. Numerous
unions voiced their support for bringing reform to New York and urged
Albany to enact the proposed public financing bill, which will match small
donations at a six-to-one ratio. “It is imperative that we address this issue
during the 2012 legislative session,” wrote New York State United Teachers in
its memorandum of support.
3.
New York has a lot of room for improvement when it comes to enhancing its
disclosure rules. A
new report by the Corporate Reform Coalition gives the Empire State a score
of 10 out of 100. This makes New York second to last among the fifty states,
just ahead of North Dakota. The Coalition recommends both stronger enforcement
of current state disclosure rules and adoption of important reforms, including mandating
the disclosure of “electioneering communications” (spending that is intended to
influence an election but that steers clear of so-called “magic words” such as
“vote for” or “vote against”) and requiring political advertising to include
information about the ad’s sponsor.
4.
The New York Times reports that the
Committee to Save New York, an advocacy group that has supported a number of
Governor Cuomo’s policies, received significant donations from groups seeking
to bring casinos to New York. The article questions the timing of the donations
and Governor Cuomo’s public support for growing the gambling industry, while the
Cuomo camp denies that the contributions in any way affected his policies. An
editorial in The New York Times urges
Governor Cuomo to ask his supporters to voluntarily disclose their
contributions to the Committee, even though the state ethics board has yet to
issue rules that would mandate such disclosure.
National
Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1.
Calls for stricter enforcement of IRS rules grow as advocacy groups walk a fine
line in their efforts to keep donors anonymous. An
editorial in The New York Times argues that the IRS has been too lax in defining
what it means for a 501(c)(4) non-profit to have a “primary” purpose of
political activity, which would force such groups to give up their (c)(4)
status and either pay taxes on donations or convert to a Super PAC and disclose
donors. A more stringent rule on how
these groups can spend their money, the editorial contends, will benefit the
public through either increased tax dollars or increased disclosure.
2.
The potentially corruptive tie between campaign contributions and candidates
was a theme this week. After a jury acquitted John Edwards of one count of
receiving illegal contributions and the judge declared a mistrial on five other
counts, speculation
continues as to whether the government will retry the former presidential
candidate. The
Supreme Court declined to take an appeal of former Alabama Governor Don
Siegelman, meaning that his conviction for illegally accepting $500,000 in
campaign contributions intended as a bribe will stand. And now, the Justice
Department has indicted a lobbyist for illegally funneling campaign
contributions to Senator Harry Reid. Senator Reid has not been accused of any
wrongdoing.
3.
Record amounts of money were spent in the Wisconsin recall election, according
to an
article from The New York Times. In total, the election cost $63.5 million. The
two candidates spent $32.2 million, and issue ad groups and independent
expenditure groups spent the rest. Governor Scott, who outspent his opponent
$29.3 million to $2.9 million, prevailed on Election Day.
No comments:
Post a Comment