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.
New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1.
At the close of the legislative
session, faith leaders from across the
religious spectrum came together to provide momentum for the campaign finance
reform movement as it moves into the break between sessions.
In a letter to Governor Cuomo
and the state legislature that
draws on lessons from the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an, 56
religious leaders across the state urged Albany to enact reform legislation,
which would use public financing to match small donations at a six-to-one
ratio. “Our ancient traditions recognized the power of gifts to corrupt public
officials and tip the scales of justice towards the wealthy and powerful,” the
letter said, emphasizing that the problems with the status quo have long been
evident. Next year’s legislative session provides another opportunity to fix this
perennial problem.
2. Ethics issues continue to swirl around Michael Grimm,
Staten Island’s representative to Congress. Less than a month ago, Grimm was
cited for violating House ethics rules on fundraising. Now, the FBI and the
U.S. Attorney’s office are investigating allegations that Grimm’s 2010 campaign
pressured contributors to give more than the legal limit,
according to a report the New York Daily News. Questions about how Grimm raised money for his first run
for office arrive as he prepares to run for a second term this fall.
National
Campaign Finance and Ethics News
1. Unlimited spending is good, and non-disclosure is
better—or so independent expenditure groups seemed to think in 2010. A recent
study from the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive
Politics
reveals that 501(c)(4) groups
spent roughly $95 million in the 2010 election, $30 million more than Super PACs that disclose their
donors. 501(c)(4) groups are “social welfare” organizations that cannot have electing
a candidate as a primary purpose. Many of the groups operate in a gray area
between social welfare and politics, but so long as the IRS classifies a group
as a 501(c)(4), it need not disclose its donors. While Super PACs have outspent
501(c)(4) groups in the current election cycle, more robust disclosure rules
and enforcement of bans on coordinated expenditures are plainly needed for both
types of organizations.
2. The FEC should act quickly
on a petition from President
Obama’s campaign that alleges a
high-spending 501(c)(4) organization is required to disclose its donors. Last
week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a 501(c)(4) organization
must disclose its donors if its “major purpose” is to elect a candidate for
office. Whether or not the FEC agrees with the Obama campaign, it should issue
a prompt decision to give teeth to the Fourth Circuit’s decision. A slow
response will implicitly encourage 501(c)(4) groups to skirt the laws now,
knowing consequences will come only after the November elections have passed
and the damage has been done.
3. With
the Supreme Court soon to decide whether to hear a case that could be the sequel to
Citizens United, federal legislators are
not content to leave reform in the hands of the nine justices.
Proponents of the DISCLOSE Act
are once again pushing the reform measure, which would “increase transparency in corporate donations
to political action committees, allow shareholders to vote on whether a company
should be spending money on politics and require CEOs to stand by ads if they
are primary sponsors of the PACs running them.” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the
lead sponsor of the Act, aims to bring the bill before the full Senate’s
attention prior to the November elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment