Money in Politics This Week

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 Syed Zaidi.

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. Two recent scandals involving members of the New York State legislature serve as egregious examples of politicians thinking they are above the law. Senator Shirley L. Huntley, D-Queens, is accused of abusing a non-profit that she created to assist parents in navigating the New York City Department of Education. Huntley and several aides were indicted this week on charges of falsifying records, tampering with evidence and grand larceny. However instead of apologizing, Huntley asserts that the case is a politically motivated attempt to reduce her chances of reelection in the upcoming Democratic primary. Similarly, Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, D-Brooklyn, was censured by the Assembly after an investigation revealed that he had sexually harassed two female employees. A secret payment of $103,080 of tax-payer funds was authorized in June to settle a different set of sexual harassment claims against Lopez. “Taxpayers should be funding public education, not to sweep harassment charges aside for bad elected officials,” said Dick Dadey, of Citizens Union.

2. Last week, Reform NY informed readers about 622 campaign committees that had not filed reports detailing their financial transactions with the New York State Board of Elections. This week, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics has released the names of sixty candidates in New York state legislative races who have failed to submit personal income disclosure forms. Candidates for statewide elected office must file a disclosure statement regarding outside employment and income, investments, financial liabilities, political activities and gifts, within ten days of certain election petition and nominating deadlines. Ellen Biben, Executive Director of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, stated that “Financial Disclosure Statements are important tools for the promotion of transparency and accountability amongst those who serve the public and those seeking election to public office. The Joint Commission will continue to use its powers and jurisdiction to ensure compliance with State ethics laws.”

National Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. Political party conventions get $18.2 million every four years from the federal treasury. However, according to a USA Today editorial the conventions will cost three times that amount this year. The Republicans have raised massive funds through corporations and individuals eager to write big checks. Although the Democrats have banned corporate contributions toward the convention, several loopholes such as the donation of in-kind services and office space have been left in place. Disclosure of convention donors has been pushed back to October 15th by both parties. Exclusive post convention events, where donors and lobbyists mingle with politicians—profiled by the Sunlight Foundation—are the real highlight of the political gatherings. For example, in Tampa, Republican Senate candidates were treated to a lavish reception behind a heavily fortified security perimeter, with the cost underwritten by AT&T, AFLAC, and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Former lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, who was charged with fraud, bribery and tax evasion in 2006, and is now a stern advocate for reform, informed ABC News that "Lobbyists and special interests aren't going to be spending their money to promote and support events like this out of altruism and the goodness of their heart. They're doing it because they have an agenda…fed by an improper use of financial resources in a way that tilts it away from members deciding things only on their merits."

2. Outside groups are busy this week fundraising in Tampa. Conservative Super PACs and non-profits are capitalizing on the Republican convention, holding donor meetings and media events that allow delegates, staffers, activists and Republican benefactors to interact and contribute money. The outside groups are allowed to attend the convention but they may not explicitly coordinate with the party on questions such as the type of messages to run. Americans for Prosperity is hosting a reception on behalf of its foundation chairman, David Koch, and Republican donor Art Pope. Restore Our Future, the lead Super PAC behind Mitt Romney, and American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove, are organizing similar fundraisers as well.

3. Not only are outside groups fundraising at the conventions, they are also purchasing thousands of dollars worth of television advertisements to sway public opinion. American for Prosperity, 60 Plus Association, American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS and Restore Our Future have spent a total of $430,000 for ad buys on Tampa’s ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates. Priorities USA, Obama’s primary Super PAC, has purchased $6,730 worth of ads in the Tampa market, while his campaign, Obama for America, has spent more than $200,000 on ads in the city. For the Democratic National Convention, the Obama campaign has already bought $112,000 worth of air time in Charlotte, while American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity have spent a total of $67,300 on ad buys in Charlotte for the same week. Analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project shows that negative advertisements have increased by nearly 60 percent this cycle compared to the 2008 election. Barack Obama and Priorities USA have spent approximately $97 million on negative advertisements thus far, while Romney and Restore Our Future have purchased $83 million worth of negative ads.  

4. The 2012 Republican Party Platform embraces the highly unpopular Citizens United ruling, calls for the repeal of McCain-Feingold and opposes the DISCLOSE Act. McCain-Feingold, also referred to as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, outlawed soft money—unlimited contributions to political parties for the purpose of “party building” activities. The DISCLOSE Act, which was proposed in the Senate this summer but failed to pass, mandates that non-profit “social welfare” organizations which spend more than $10,000 on electioneering communications per year publicly document all donors that contributed more than $10,000. Opposition to these common sense reform measures illustrates the GOP’s dependence on special interests and wealthy donors. “Republicans are proving that they don't just tolerate corruption in politics, they actually embrace it,” Josh Otron, political director at Progressives United, stated. Nick Nyhart, executive director at the Public Campaign Action Fund, has argued that “It is a complete endorsement of the role of big money in politics.”

5. While their campaigns are awash with donations from billionaires, both Presidential candidates are rhetorically supporting campaign finance reform. In an interview with Fox News Sunday Romney said that he would prefer federal matching funds and spending limits but blamed President Obama for rejecting federal funding and “spending an unlimited amount based on what he raised” in the 2008 race. While previously denying that contributions have any effect on his policies, Romney openly admitted that unrestrained contributions “increase the potential of money having an influence in politics.” On his Tuesday foray into the website Reddit, President Obama decried the “flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs,” and emphasized the need for a “constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United.” Obama also voiced his support for the DISCLOSE Act and legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions by lobbyists.  If only the candidates would put their money where their mouth is.

Money in Politics This Week

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 Syed Zaidi.

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. Over the past two months, Reform NY has publicized studies by Gallup and the Freedom Forum that demonstrate broad ranging support for campaign finance reform among Americans. New York State is no exception. A recent Siena Research Institute poll indicates that likely voters in New York State favor public campaign financing and lowering contribution ceilings by a margin of 55 percent to 31 percent. Support for these vital reforms cuts across party lines and other differences: a plurality of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—individuals from every region, religion, age and income group—are in favor the initiatives.

2. State and local candidates, officeholders and political action committees are required to file a report with the New York State Board of Elections every 6 months detailing their financial transactions. However, aninvestigation by the New York Public Interest Research Group shows that 622 campaign committees with a total of $ 12 million in campaign funds failed to report their expenses, while another 1,700 committees with a total of $ 19 million indicated that they had no transactions. Although the Board has levied fines against the late filers, the penalties ranging from $ 100 to $ 1,000 “are not enough to deter candidates who…have no interest in filing on time or, in some cases, ever.” Although the Board has responded, stating that it filed 5,042 lawsuits against candidates for missing reports totaling $ 1.5 million in fines, the defense falls far short of the rigorous enforcement required. Indeed, according to the NYPIRG report inaction has been the norm. Policy and administrative changes are needed to arm the Board with the authority to conduct thorough investigations and penalize blatant violators.

National Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. While Super PACs and non-profits have spent more than $ 90 million in 16 Senate races this year, SenatorScott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren have agreed to a groundbreakingpact to keep out third-party ads. In January, Brown and Warren mutually disarmed, deciding that they did not want interest groups running electioneering ads on their behalf. If an outside group runs an advertisement on television, radio or online, the campaign that benefits has to pay a financial “penalty” to the charity of their opponent’s choice. According to the Boston Globe, ads for the race have been relatively less negative and have concerned the candidates’ own agendas and biographies—unsurprising, given that the candidates are forced to put their own names behind the messages. The pledge has also benefited both candidates; Brown has avoided a flood of attack ads from left-leaning groups—which had spent $ 3 million against him before the agreement—and Warren has been spared from the barrage of negative ads by Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads.

2. The DNC pledged earlier this year to reject all corporate, lobbyist and PAC money for the direct expenses of the convention, limit individual contributions to $ 100,000, and regularly disclose contributors in an attempt to be the “most open and accessible ever.” The policy originally published on the DNC convention committee’s website stated that donors would be revealed “on an ongoing basis.” Indeed, during the 2008 conventions, both political parties disclosed their donors online and regularly updated the information. Not so this time around. The Washington Post writes that thenames of donors will remain secret until the federal deadline of October 15th, long after the public’s attention will have shifted from the convention to Election Day. After an inquiry from The Washington Post, the inaccurate policy statement was removed from the committee’s website. Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director of the Center for Responsible Politics, stated that the refusal to immediately disclose donors runs “counter to the message that this is the people’s convention. You’d think transparency would be something celebrated, not reduced.”

3. Super PACs and non-profits continue to play a pivotal role in the Presidential election. MittRomney’s Super PAC Restore Our Future hauled in $ 7.4 million in July, whileObama’s Priorities USA Action brought in $ 4.8 million. American Crossroads, the major Super PAC backing Romney and Senate Republicans, raised $ 7.7 million in July. Mega-donors,those giving $ 500,000 or more, account for 68 percent of all contributions toSuper PACs. Two Pinterest boards by the Public Campaign Action Fund profile the billionaire backers behind Obama and Romney’s Super PACs. Although federal law bars such outside groups from coordinating with the politicians they hope to elect, according to Politico, the firewall is razor thin, enabling many Super PACs to work intimately with candidates and their campaigns.  

4. Now that the FEC has approved campaign donations via text, theObama campaign has launched a lucrative venture into grass-roots fundraising from small donors. The Obama campaign will allow supporters to send contributions by texting “GIVE” to 62262, which corresponds with the letters O-B-A-M-A. The donations are cappedat $ 10 per text, $ 50 per month and $ 200 in total per candidate. Foreigners, corporations, and people under 18 are prohibited from donating. Third-party aggregators will purchase the contributions and then sell them to the campaign for a fee. It is unclear what percentage of the donations will actually go directly to the campaign. Reformadvocates pushed for the FEC ruling earlier this year, arguing that thisaccessible method of donating could counter the strength of large donors. “With billionaires and super PACs drowning out the voices of hardworking Americans, text message campaign contributions can enhance the role of small donors and, combined with public matching funds, could provide a megaphone for the masses,” stated Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign.

5. The Brennan Center for Justice and Democracy 21 have jointly released areport that seeks to harness the power of small donors in federal elections. The proposal is modeled after the small donor public matching program in New York City. It would match contributions of $ 250 or less at a 5-to-1 rate with public funds to amplify the power of small donations. Participatingcandidates would have to abide by lower contribution limits ($1,250 compared to the current level of $2,500) and raise contributions from a certain number of in-state donors in order to qualify. “We want to provide candidates with an alternative way to finance their campaigns without having to sell their souls to influence-seeking funders” stated Fred Wetheimer, president of Democracy 21. Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan Center, argued that matching funds could “transform candidates into agents of civic participation.”

Money in Politics This Week

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 Syed Zaidi.

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. Last month, Reform NY applauded New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s promise to investigate non-profit “social welfare” organizations that are overtly active in politics. Fundraising groups can legally operate as tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations as long as they spend less than 50 percent of their budget on political activities. Schneiderman has launched a probe into two dozen non-profits, requesting that the organizations disclose their revenues and expenditures. These organizations include conservative ones such as Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, and American Future Fund, as well as their liberal counterparts like Priorities USA, American Bridge and America Votes. According to Bloomberg News, America Votes is the only group that has responded to Schneiderman’s request thus far. Schneiderman may revoke a non-profit’s ability to operate in the state if it makes a false claim about its functions or refer the group to the IRS. 

National Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. In picking Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney seems to be trying not only to rally the Republican base, but also to further boost campaign fundraising numbers. After the Romney campaign publicly declared Paul Ryan as his running mate, it raised over $ 2 million by the end of the day. Paul Ryan is one of the top political fundraisers in Congress with a war chest of $ 5.4 million, $ 2 million more than the next House member. Donations from banks, insurance companies and energy conglomerates populate his FEC forms and inform his policy positions. Ryan is a fervent opponent of Dodd-Frank and has called for its repeal. He has received more than $ 10,000 from Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs each for his 2012 Congressional election campaign. Ryan’s budget plan, popular among House Republicans, would replace traditional Medicare with a voucher based system that would benefit private insurers. Insurance employees and their families have donated $ 815,328 to Ryan’s reelection efforts over the span of his career. Lastly Ryan has been an ardent critic of environmental regulations. Campaign finance records reveal that he has raised $ 41,750 from several sources including the PAC of ConocoPhillips, Exelon Corp., and Wisconsin Energy Corp just as of this week, and $ 65,000 from Koch Industries over his tenure in Congress. Top contributors to Ryan’s Prosperity PAC are outlined by the Fiscal Times.

2. TV stations will soon have to disclose purchases of air time by groups jockeying over political ads. A Federal Communications Commission ruling requires[g1]  affiliates of ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC in the top 50 U.S media markets to upload agreements with political advertisers onto an online database. Advertising agreements are already available to the public upon request in the form of hard copies at local stations. However the new ruling modernizes the process and ensures greater access. The rule is now in effect despite complaints and lawsuits to halt the effort by the National Association of Broadcasters. The agency should revamp its website to make it searchable by groups buying advertising time, rather than solely by individual TV stations to make the compilation of records less tedious.

3. The principle that everyone whether rich, poor, weak or powerful is equal before the law is a keystone of American democracy, but judicial elections for state courts continue to undermine the promise of judicial impartiality and fairness. Ninety-five percent of all cases in the U.S. are heard before state courts, whereas only 5 percent are decided by federal courts. Thirty-nine states elect their high court judges. A Center for American Progress report indicates that judicial campaigns now involve enormous sums. In 1990 candidates for state Supreme Courts raised $ 3 million, whereas in 2000 these very same races raised more than $ 45 million. From 2001 to 2003 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent heavily on state judicial elections, with its preferred candidate winning 87 percent of the time. Conservative groups spent $ 8.9 million on state Supreme Court elections in 2010, compared to $ 2.5 million spent by liberal organizations. This injection of campaign funds into the courtroom is eroding justice as well. The report examines 403 cases where individuals sued corporations in six states, and concludes that the courts ruled in favor of corporations 71 percent of the time. The high courts that have seen the most campaign spending are much more likely to rule in favor of big businesses and against individuals who have been injured, scammed, or subjected to discrimination.

4. In 2010 voters were understandably dissatisfied with the Washington establishment, and choose to elect 89 new members to the House of Representatives. Unfortunately analysis by the Sunlight Foundation demonstrates that the freshman have become just as cozy with special interests as their experienced colleagues. Although the freshmen project an image of being political outsiders, more than half have served in political offices, and a disproportionate number are millionaires, similar to the rest of Congress. In 2010, business PACs with lobbying staff donated $ 14.89 million to these Representatives who were challenging incumbents at that stage. This cycle, the same PACs have contributed over $ 26.66 million to their campaigns. Leadership PACs–PACs associated with high-ranking members of Congress—have propped up some of the candidates to the tune of $ 9.59 million. Furthermore outside groups such as Super PACs, nonprofits, labor groups and party committees have spent $ 1.78 million in the districts of these 89 incumbents. Representative Diane Black (R-Tennessee) is emblematic of her class. She touts her background as a small business owner and registered nurse, when in reality she is a veteran Tennessee state legislator and a millionaire with a net worth of $ 49 million. Her assignment to the powerful Ways and Means Committee, and House Budget Committee has brought in donations from the healthcare industry, hospitals and insurance companies. In total she has received $ 566,000 from PACs thus far in 2012.

5. Super PACs have dominated the news since the Citizens United decision, but non-profit “social welfare” organizations are also wielding excessive influence over the political process. The two richest non-profits, Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, headed by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers respectively, have surpassed spending by all Super PACs combined. Non-profits are a popular outlet for wealthy donors that hope to elect their preferred candidate and remain hidden from public view. ProPublica’s analysis of spending data demonstrates that these two conservative non-profits also outspent political parties, unions, trade associations and political action committees. Crossroads GPS has poured $ 41.7 million, while Americans for Prosperity has spent $ 18.2 million on TV ads in favor of Republican presidential candidates. "First of all, it shows how much desire there is for secrecy among huge donors who want to be able to spend money to influence this election without leaving any fingerprints," Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 asserts. "Secondly, it shows that so far, there is an enormous advantage being played in this election by just two groups that are exercising undue influence in the elections."

6. Many Super PACs have also paired up with non-profits, in an effort to keep their donors anonymous. The Las Vegas-based It’s Now or Never Super PAC has raised $ 171,900 thus far for Utah and Nevada state political offices, with $ 160,900 from the It’s Now or Never 501(c)(4) non-profit. Although the Super PAC and non-profit share the same leadership, location and even name, the key difference is that the non-profit does not have to disclose its donors, so the source of the Super PAC funds cannot be tracked. The Fight for the Dream Super PAC, which is active in Pennsylvania GOP primary races, has a similar set-up, deriving donations from an affiliated non-profit called Restore the Dream. According to Paul Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, the use of 501(c)(4) groups as “straw donors” may run afoul of federal prohibitions on non-profits engaging in electoral politics as their primary purpose. "If the (c)(4) is only serving the purpose of being a conduit for funds to the super PAC, then the (c)(4) is breaking federal tax law," he stated. Furthermore both groups have also failed to file their July quarterly reports electronically with the FEC.

Money in Politics This Week

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 Syed Zaidi.

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. New York State’s campaign finance rules allow lawmakers wide latitude to use campaign funds for covering legal fees, restaurant tabs, season tickets to professional sporting events, or in the infamous case of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a $1,300 pool clean-up. Unfortunately the State Board of Elections only exacerbates the problem with lax enforcement of the law. The New York Public Interest Research Group examined the board’s rulings over the past five years and found that “they never take action on anything.” New York needs an overhaul of its campaign finance system, and an independent and robust enforcement body to oversee it.

2. New York City’s exemplary small-donor matching fund system should serve as a model for reform in New York State. But, while matching funds are an important feature of the City’s system, any reform being considered in Albany that hopes to replicate the City’s success should include lower contribution limits and an overhaul of administration and enforcement, writes Bill Mahoney of the New York Public Interest Research Group. Among other reforms, New York State’s sky-high contribution limits need to be lowered across the board for both participating and non-participating candidates, and loopholes that allow Limited Liability Companies to be treated as “individuals” and corporate affiliates to be treated as separate entities subject to their own limits must be eliminated. Comprehensive reform should also incorporate lower limits on party fundraising and deal with “housekeeping committee” accounts. Finally, Mahoney writes, administration and enforcement of a new campaign finance regime should not remain in the hands of the State Board of Elections, which has been mired in partisanship and has proven itself to be an ineffective enforcement body. Several individuals that donated above the legal threshold annually faced no consequences from the Board. In addition, the Board failed to draft rules for the disclosure of independent expenditures by Super PACs, which it was supposed to finish by January of 2012. The citizens of New York State deserve better.

3. In New York City executives that are engaged in business with the city government have discovered roundabout methods to avoid strict campaign contribution limits. Bundlers, the intermediaries that deliver donations from multiple donors to a candidate, can skirt campaign finance rules which restrict city contractors and lobbyists to just $ 400 in contributions per candidate. Jay Kriegel of Related Companies is an active bundler and a registered lobbyist. In March of this year, Kriegel contributed $ 400 to each of Christine Quinn, Bill de Blasio, Bill Thompson, and Scott Stringer’s campaigns for mayor. Although as a lobbyist Kriegel isn’t eligible to receive matching funds for his own contributions, the contributions he bundles are matchable. Data from the New York City Campaign Finance Board shows that between October 2007 and July 2012 Kriegel bundled a combined total of $100,000 for the same four candidates. Nearly half of his funds went to Quinn who, as City Council Speaker, voted to allow Related Companies to proceed with the western phase of its 12 million-square-foot Hudson Yards complex in Quinn’s district. The New York World analyzed the financial disclosures of six prospective mayoral candidates—Quinn, Stringer, de Blasio, Thompson, John Liu, and Anthony Weiner—and found that 60 bundlers, who were engaged in business with the city, bundled almost $1 million for the prospective 2013 mayoral candidates. If these candidates choose to opt into the city’s public financing program, the contributions from bundlers will be matched 6-to-1 for the first $175 of each donation. Advocacy organizations such as Citizens Union and New York Public Interest Research Group have recommended that contributions bundled by lobbyists should not be eligible for matching funds.

National Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. More shocking still than the flow of Super PAC money into presidential and legislative contests is the potential for their involvement in races for state courts. In North Carolina, State Supreme Court Associate Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, is up for re-election this November. Sam Ervin, a Democrat, is expected to challenge Justice Newby for the position. Supporters of Ervin, such as the North Carolina Judicial Coalition, will run issue ads to buttress Ervin’s campaign. Such issue ads and campaign spending create the appearance of bias and can even undermine judicial impartiality and independence. To ensure that judicial candidates “don’t have to dial for dollars from the very lawyers and parties who may appear before them in court” neighboring West Virginia has instituted a public financing program for judicial elections. Recognizing the importance of judicial independence, the Brennan Center for Justice has filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, on behalf of Allen H. Loughry II, a Republican candidate for the West Virginia Supreme Court. Loughry is the only one of four candidates competing for two Supreme Court seats who opted to participate in West Virginia’s public financing program. The law states that Loughry is entitled to receive additional funds if any non-participating candidate surpasses a certain spending threshold, but the State Election Commission has failed to release the additional funding.

2. Although small donors have been increasing their presence in the Presidential race, Politico illustrates that 14 percent of donors—wealthy contributors—still account for 82 percent of the total funds raised by campaign committees. Susan Daole, a librarian in Lexington, Kentucky, gave $ 100 to President Obama to counter the flood of million-dollar checks supporting Mitt Romney. Unfortunately it would take 100,000 Susan Daole’s giving $ 100 each just to match the $ 10 million donation from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. In an election purportedly being driven by the economic concerns of the middle class, the top 0.07 percent of American donors are more valuable to the candidates than the bottom 86 percent.  

3. Political party conventions typically provide lobbyists with ample opportunity to access lawmakers and influence politicians. This year however a combination of factors is leading many lobbyists to stay in D.C. First, fewer members of Congress are attending the conventions. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel has advised fellow Democrats in competitive districts to skip the convention and focus on reelection efforts. The DNC has also pledged to reject all corporate, lobbyist and PAC money for the direct expenses of the convention. Individual donations have been limited to $ 100,000. A few financial firms and automakers are even cutting lobbying costs.  Meanwhile lobbyists for wealthier corporations fear that political trackers fielded by opposition groups may gather footage of them scheming with politicians. “It’s becoming more and more dangerous to have your name out there,” a Republican consultant said. “It’s better to be under the radar.”

4. Elizabeth Warren explains in a Politico op-ed that lenient campaign finance laws skew the political system in favor of big businesses. Small business owners cannot afford the armies of lobbyists in D.C. that large corporations can. “The game is rigged to work for profitable oil companies, who made $137 billion in profits last year — and still collected billions of dollars’ worth of government subsidies. The game is rigged to work for big multinational corporations, which get tax breaks to ship U.S. jobs overseas and park investments abroad. The game is rigged to work for hedge fund managers and billionaires, who pay lower tax rates than their secretaries.” But for the tens of millions of working families and small businesses left to pay the price, it’s not a game.

Money in Politics This Week

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 Syed Zaidi.

For more stories on an ongoing basis, follow the Twitter hashtag #moNeYpolitics and #fairelex.

New York Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. NewYork City is bracing for the “Super PAC” effect in the coming elections for 59 major offices in 2013 by requiring very rigorous disclosure of independent expenditures. While Citizens United prevents the City from limiting independent political spending, disclosure is an important step to protect New York City’s public financing system, which has served as a model for reform advocates.

2. In a Times-Union op-ed, Richard Kirsch, of the Roosevelt Institute, praises Governor Cuomo’s new pledge for Fair Elections as the most significant long-term solution for economic equality in New York. “We won’t have an economy that works for everyone as long as our government is captive of super-rich campaign contributors and corporations.” If we wonder why some corporations can get away with lower tax rates than minimum wage earners, we need to look no further than the tax loopholes designed by our policy makers. Since 2010 the Business Council of New York State, a lobbying group for big business, has donated over $ 1.9 million to state senators and political parties to secure such legislation. However even in this system, public financing provides a reasonable alternative to hold institutions accountable to ordinary citizens. Under a Fair Elections public financing system, candidates compete for office by raising small contributions matched by public funds. Politicians are elected and rewarded for their grass-roots outreach and work at the community level, rather than the amount of money they can collect from a few big donors.  

National Campaign Finance and Ethics News

1. As the Presidential race heats up, both candidates have charted an aggressive and historically unprecedented course of fundraising. The Republican and Democratic parties are seeking to maximize donations from the wealthy within the bounds of the existing legal framework, often closely skirting campaign finance violations. Although individuals are limited to $ 2,500 in contributions to Romney for President and $ 30,800 to the Republican National Committee, rich donors can also contribute to the Republican parties of Idaho, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Vermont through Romney Victory Inc., a joint fundraising committee. This money can later be redistributed to state parties in presidential battlegrounds as Romney and the RNC see fit. Romney Victory has $ 57.7 million remaining on hand. It has already transferred $ 15.7 million to Romney for President, $ 53 million to the RNC and $ 20,000 each to the Republican parties of Idaho, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Vermont. The Obama campaign is employing a similar strategy. The Obama Victory fund has amassed $ 9 million and will likely allocate portions to state party committees in swing states such as Colorado, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin.

2. Last month, ReformNY informed readers about broad popular support for campaign finance reform among the general public. This week’s new Gallup poll shows that Americans view reducing government corruption as the second-highest priority for the next President, after economic concerns. Nearly 87 percent of respondents indicated that reducing corruption in the federal government should be an “extremely important” or “very important” objective for the next President. Ninety-two percent said the same about revitalizing the economy. Both Republicans and Democrats regard government corruption as one of the top five national priorities for the next administration.

3. In a welcome development, due to a federal district court ruling, the FEC has issued a statement requiring disclosure for electioneering communications by non-profits. Shadowy 501(c)(4) groups running more than $ 10,000 in issue ads that reference particular candidates will now have to divulge the names and addresses of donors that provided more than $ 1,000 to the effort. The mandate is in effect until the Van Hollen lawsuit is resolved on appeal or the FEC delineates new disclosure regulations. However key groups are already attempting to evade the requirements. Hiding behind the guise of “protecting contributors from intimidation” Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have stated that they will alter the language of their ads to avoid reporting to the FEC. Another shortcoming of the rule is that even if organizations violate the regulations, prosecution is not likely until after the election.

4. The grass-roots push for campaign finance reform is gaining momentum among lawmakers in state capitals and D.C. This week the House Democratic leadership held a rally in support of the DARE – disclose, amend, reform and elect – agenda. Prominent attendees included House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, and President of the Public Campaign Action Fund Nick Nyhart. The proposals recommend legislation to overturn Citizens United through a Constitutional Amendment, initiate a system of public campaign financing and small-donor matching funds, and direct clandestine political advertising groups to disclose their donors. "Politicians should be accountable solely to their constituents, the people who elect them, and not to the handful of people who can write them absolutely gargantuan checks” Nick Nyhart stated. In further solidarity with the movement for reform, Massachusetts is the latest state to offer a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, Rhode Island and Maryland have already passed similar resolutions. These resolutions have been introduced in 26 states and more than 288 cities and towns nationwide.

5. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the 2012 legislative and Presidential elections will be the costliest thus far. A graph on Open Secrets illustrates that the total cost of elections in 2012 has already reached $ 5.8 billion, compared to $ 5.4 billion for the entire 2008 cycle. Furthermore, outside money now constitutes a higher proportion of overall spending: $ 508 million in 2012, relative to $ 286 million in 2008. A CBS report outlines the top Super PAC donors this political season. Yet exact figures on contributions and expenditures by non-profit groups remain largely unknown—it is estimated that $ 172 million has been spent on radio, television, and internet advertising by these organizations.

6. Apologists for Citizens United are wrong on the law and the facts, argues Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center. Prior to Citizens United there were strict contribution limits on how much an individual could donate to PACs. Now Super PACs—the progeny of the Citizens United decision—can raise and spend egregious sums without adhering to any boundaries. These entities have accrued $ 298 million as of this year, with $ 53 million accumulated in June alone. It is no surprise that Super PAC contributors are anticipating rewards for their investments. As Senator Bob Dole (R-Kansas) stated in 1983, “when people contribute to political action committees they expect something in return other than good government." For example, the Huffington Post  reports that the Koch Brothers—who have contributed $ 3 million to Restore Our Future, Romney’s Super PAC—favor a Republican administration and Congress that will abolish laws and dismantle regulatory agencies seeking to protect the environment. On the other side of the political spectrum, the AFL-CIO and teachers’ unions have donated heavily to liberal Super PACs. They hope to preserve collective bargaining rights and benefits for public and private workers.