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.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND ETHICS NEWS

NEW YORK

Anti-Super PAC Super PACs Target Opponents of Common Sense Reform

Two organizations, Friends of Democracy and Protect Our Democracy, are prepared to utilize advertisements, mailers and pamphlets to promote the issue of fair elections to a more prominent position in ongoing political campaigns. The groups plan to funnel at least $600,000 into two New York State Senate races largely aimed at strident opponents of campaign finance reform. Friends of Democracy, founded by president and deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management, Jonathan Soros, has released ads to support Democratic State Senate candidate Cecilia Tkaczyk in Hudson Valley. Tkaczyk is a proponent of citizen-funded elections. The group has also sent mailers opposing Tkaczyk’s challenger, George Amedore, who currently serves as an Assemblyman for the 105^th Assembly district. Although Amedore has backed calls for greater transparency, he agrees with other major elements of the current system.  Protect Our Democracy, spearheaded by Sean Eldridge, president of Hudson River Ventures, has spent $100,000 on TV ads to support Republican State Senator Mark Grisanti of Buffalo, who is advocate of lower campaign contribution limits. Both groups recognize the irony of their initiatives. “Creating legislative reform is expensive, particularly on an issue like this where the resistance we’d get from special interest groups would be tremendous,” Mr. Eldridge stated. “We’re trying to affect elections from the outside in order to create a different system so that the type of spending we are doing would be less influential,” Soros emphasized.

Op-ed in Times Union urges New Yorkers to Demand Fair Elections

An excellent op-ed by Jessica Wisneski, campaign director for Citizen Action New York, appeared in the Times Union this week. Wisneski pointed out that even though problems for middle-class New Yorkers are growing, with soaring health care costs, mounting debt for housing and higher education, and drastic cuts to school aid, our state politicians are busy amassing campaign funds from large donors and corporations. “Our state government, which should be focused on helping New Yorkers and building our economy, is not doing its job. Why? Because it is sidetracked by the massive influence of big money from corporate donors who are looking for a return on their campaign contribution investment.” Governor Cuomo has entertained the idea of a special legislative session after the elections this year. New Yorkers must urge the Governor and their legislators to utilize the session to remove big money from the political process. To see where your candidates stand on the issue of people-powered elections, visit the Fair Elections website.

Cuomo: Special Session Will Still Include Campaign Finance Reform

This Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo signaled what items he would like to see in a special legislative session post-elections. In some encouraging news, Cuomo reiterated his support for “campaign finance reform” as a major agenda item, and floated reform of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics as another idea. He did not rule out the possibility of a legislative pay raise in exchange for finishing what he termed “the people’s business.”

Poll: Business Leaders Support Campaign Finance Reform

A poll of business leaders in New York State adds a new facet to the campaign for reforming the way we finance our elections. In a survey of 300 business leaders by Zogby Analytics on behalf of the Committee for Economic Development (CED), support for campaign finance reform and a small donor matching system was quite robust. Nearly 70 percent of respondents indicated that they support major changes to the way election campaigns are financed, and the same percentage believe that political contributions from corporations and labor unions have more influence over a candidate than the average voter. Furthermore 82 percent of business leaders support creating a system that encourages candidates to fund their campaigns through a broad base of small donors, and 72 percent insist that citizen-funded elections can provide incentives to encourage small donor contributions. Mike Petro, Acting President of CED, summed it up well: "business leaders are concerned about the effect of current fundraising practices because they believe the system as it exists does not serve the public's best interest or the interests of the business community."

NATIONAL

New Jersey is the 9^th State to Call for Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

New Jersey is the latest state to join a slate of others that have passed resolutions to express discontent with the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court. The New Jersey Assembly Resolution (AR-86) calls on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to insist that “with regard to corporation campaign spending, a person means only a natural person for First Amendment protection of free speech.” The resolution passed 49 to 23, with six abstentions and two members not voting. The New Jersey Senate passed an identical resolution earlier this month. "We applaud New Jersey for standing up for democracy and urge other states to follow suit," stated Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause.

Unlimited Contributions and Limited Disclosure in Senate Races

Outside money has been steadily pouring into the Senate races. These groups have dropped $189.4 million into Senate races as of the beginning of this week, according to a post by the Sunlight Foundation. Super PACs are responsible for 30 percent of the spending in these races, accounting for $57.7 million of the reported outside expenditures thus far. Party Committees take the smallest share of the pie, spending $50.9 million by comparison. The biggest chunk however has come from 501(c)(4) organizations, what Sunlight refers to as “non-committee non-party organizations.” These entities have dumped $80.8 million into Senate election contests—that is 42.7 percent of all outside money. Non-profit “social welfare” organizations hold two advantages compared to either Super PACs or political parties. Unlike Super PACs they do not have to disclose their donors and only report spending within 60 days of an election. And unlike party committees they can raise unlimited sums of money. The four biggest spenders in the Senate races have been the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Crossroads GPS, Majority PAC, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Sunlight Foundation post details other major players in the game as well as the key states that are being targeted.

Facing Fierce Attack Ads, Congressmen Offer Absurd “Solution”

Amid the barrage of vicious attacks by unaccountable and often untraceable outside groups, some Congressional incumbents are suggesting that the system would be better served with no limits on direct contributions to candidates and political parties. Representative Dan Lungren (R-California) has faced an onslaught of radio advertisements and automated phone calls against his campaign, in what has become one of the most expensive House races in the country. Mr. Lungren has drafted a bill that would remove all limits on individual contributions to candidates and all limits on transfers between candidates and political parties, although it would mandate the immediate disclosure of contributions.“What I’m trying to do is transform the system so people participating as candidates can be held responsible for what is said,” Mr. Lungren stated. Unfortunately, as Public Campaign points out, for someone who can’t afford to contribute $500, let alone $500,000 or $5 million, free speech doesn’t feel all that free. Eliminating contribution limits would place elections more squarely in the hands of a small elite. On the other hand a majority of Americans from across the political spectrum support common sense restrictions on contributions and applaud efforts to raise the voices of regular people in our political process. Rather than trying to collect even bigger checks, Congress would do better to consider the Fair Elections Now Act (HR 1404 and S 750) and the Grassroots Democracy Act (HR 6426), which propose small donor matching systems to finance our elections.

Small Donations via Text Gaining Traction

Six-figure checks by billionaires have received a lot of attention in this election, but small donors appear to be gaining some ground as well. The FEC approved text donations to political campaigns this summer. Analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project illustrates that they are now becoming a notable part of political fundraising. Nearly 10 percent of donors to the presidential candidates have contributed through text messages or smart phone apps. Text donations are limited to $50 per month and $200 per election cycle, making it a convenient and empowering vehicle for small donors. “The fact that in less than a month, 10 percent of donors have contributed this way is impressive,” said Aaron Smith, a research associate at Pew. Disclosure reports suggest that the Obama campaign has been far more aggressive in pulling in money through texts, spending $85,000 on fees to third-party aggregators in September compared to less than $1,200 for Romney.

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.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND ETHICS NEWS

NEW YORK

Corporate Contributions Follow the Party in Power

The Center for Working Families has issued a new report, The Big Switch, which details patterns of corporate contributions in New York State political campaigns. The Big Switch explains how corporate contributions flow to candidates who are in power, rather than candidates of a particular political party or ideology. When the Republicans controlled the New York State Senate in 2008, corporations gave $3.2 million to Republicans and $2.8 million to Democrats. When the Democrats gained control in 2009, however, money flowed to the newly appointed Democratic committee chairs, and the Democrats garnered $3.7 million in corporate contributions, compared to $2.5 million by Republicans. In 2011, as the Republicans regained control, the situation reversed again: Republicans received the majority, $3.2 million, from corporations while Democrats raised $1.4 million. According to Dave Palmer, executive director of the Center for Working Families, the analysis demonstrates that “corporate entities are giving not based on a particular candidate or a particular party, and … that [donors] are hoping to get a return on their investment."

A Few New Yorkers Serve as an ATM for Politicians

As public concern grows over the unprecedented flow of outside money into politics, Common Cause has revealed that New York State is a rather popular source of funds for federal political campaigns. According to the report, New York State’s role as an ATM for politicians should be no source of pride; rather it illustrates the urgent need for campaign finance reform, both in Albany and Washington. A quarter of the nation’s donors that contributed over $1 million to Super PACs are New Yorkers. In addition 99 New Yorkers have given $25,000 or more to Super PACs for a sum of $30.7 million. And 74 of those 99 have also contributed at the state level for a total of $8.9 million to candidates and committees since 2009. “As long as politicians are accountable to the corporations, lobbyists, and wealthy individuals who finance their campaigns, they're never going to be accountable to the people who elect them,” states Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York.

Outside Money Floods New York State Senate Races

Advertisements funded by outside groups targeting candidates in New York State Senate races are becoming increasingly common. A handful of Senate races, particularly in Queens, Westchester County and Rochester, will be instrumental in determining the partisan leaning of the chamber. Outside groups are projected to funnel at least $2 million into just these three races by Election Day. The independent spending highlights New York State’s lax campaign finance and disclosure laws, which do not require all groups running ads to fully identify themselves. “The average voter would be hard-pressed to identify who is behind many of the advertisements and mailers financed by third-party groups,” reports The New York Times. The Times has investigated two entities engaged in these deceptive ads and mailers. First, it determined that VOTE/COPE Committee, which has attacked Republican Assemblyman Sean T. Hanna’s positions on hydraulic fracturing, women’s health and gun control, is actually the political arm of the teacher’s union, New York State United Teacher. VOTE/COPE Committee is targeting Hanna for his support of pension reform. The Times also reported that Common Sense, which has produced mailers critical of Democratic Assemblyman Goerge S. Latimer for his support of gay marriage, is based in Virginia, and is directed by Republican strategist Christopher LaCivita. LaCivita also advised the shadowy Swift Boat Veterans for Truth back in 2004. After the landmark ethics overhaul enacted last year, the State Board of Elections has developed rules for the disclosure of spending by outside groups, but those that don’t explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate are exempt from this requirement. “You don’t need to hire a team of campaign-finance lawyers to figure out how to evade disclosure under the Board of Elections regulation,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s as simple as pie. And all you do is leave out the ‘vote for’ or ‘vote against.’”

NATIONAL

FEC Deadlocked Once Again

The Federal Election Commission has been hamstrung by partisan deadlock for much of this election season, effectively allowing some Super PACs, non-profit “social welfare” organizations and political campaigns to evade campaign finance laws. Last week the American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4), requested an advisory opinion from the FEC regarding joint fundraising activities. The group asked if it could engage in fundraising events with Political Action Committees and Super PACs. The FEC commissioners split on the issue 3 to 3 along party lines. The Democratic commissioners raised concerns that American Future Fund’s proposal would amount to “corporate facilitation,” while the Republican commissioners voted for a draft that raised no concerns about corporate facilitation.

Connecticut’s Clean Elections are a Successful Example of Reform

Campaign filings from Connecticut State elections demonstrate the effectiveness of the state’s citizen-funded elections program. The Citizens’ Election Program utilizes revenue from the general fund, proceeds from sales of abandoned property and donations to offer grants to statewide candidates based on their level of grassroots support. To qualify, a candidate cannot accept any contribution over $100. For House candidates to enroll, they must garner $5,000 in contributions of $5 to $100, from at least 150 individuals in their respective districts. Senate candidates have to raise $15,000 in contributions of $5 to $100, from at least 300 residents in their districts. House candidates can receive up to $26,850 in lump sum grants, while Senate candidates can get $91,290. Most of Connecticut’s legislative candidates have qualified for such grants. Clean elections have changed the game in Connecticut, and they can do the same in New York.

Top Ethics Scandals in Congress

From false tax returns to organized crime, to misusing campaign funds, there is no shortage of scandals in Congress. Politico has listed the top five scandals that plague Congressional candidates still engaged in races this year. In New York Representative Michael Grimm (R-NY) topped the list, while Representative Tim Bishop (D-NY) received an honorable mention. Grimm is being investigated by the Justice Department for his dealings with his former business partner and for potentially accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. Bishop is alleged to have provided a fireworks display permit to a Wall Street executive in return for a campaign donation.

Republicans Criticize Citizens United

Two Republicans critical of the Citizens United decision authored op-eds this week. Edgar Heiskell, a former West Virginia Secretary of State, as well as the former State Republican Chairman and member of the George H. W. Bush National Steering Committee, asserts that the fundamental underpinnings of our democracy have been wounded by the Supreme Court. Unrestrained corporate political spending poses an existential threat to American democracy, he states. Candidates that had hitherto enjoyed grassroots support from constituents find themselves overwhelmed by cash infusions from undisclosed donors, laundered by Super PACs.  In such races “the odds are heavily in favor of the Big Money that can purchase more ‘free speech’ than you or I.” Jim Leach, a former Republican Congressman from Iowa, concurs. He considers Citizens United to be the second-gravest historical error by the Supreme Court. “When I first ran for public office, the joke was that no smart candidate should ever argue with those who buy ink by the barrel, the press. Today, a not-so-funny corollary is that a smart candidate should never argue with those who buy ads by the bushel.” Leach further argues that neither money and speech, nor corporations and individuals are equated with one another in the founding documents. Money is not speech, at least not in terms of what a “strict constructionist could conceivably believe the First Amendment addresses.” Corporations are not individuals, for to “vest with constitutionally protected political rights an inanimate entity makes mockery of our individual-rights heritage.” Corporate contributions are essentially investments in candidates, a quid pro quo for favorable policies.

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.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND ETHICS NEWS

NEW YORK

Fair Elections New York Releases New Video Staring Sam Waterston

Fair Elections New York, a coalition of reform organizations, is blasting a new video across the net, advocating for the adoption of public financing in New York State. The goal is to reach over a million New Yorkers with the message. The video stars actor Sam Waterston, famous for his role in Law and Order and the HBO series The Newsroom. “Today in our broken system, political candidates raise huge contributions from a few wealthy donors. You can bet those fat cat CEOs, millionaire lobbyists and multi-billion dollar corporations have their own interests in mind. Middle-class working Americans’ interests? Not so much,” Waterston states in the video. Waterston encourages citizens to demand clean elections from politicians in Albany. You can view where your Representative and Senator stand on the issue at the Fair Elections New York website.

Democrat and Chronicle Editorial Criticizes Business as Usual in Albany

This Monday, an editorial in the Democrat and Chronicle lamented business as usual in Albany, asserting that campaign finance reform is necessary to restore trust and accountability in government. The article criticized the status quo, which only benefits incumbents and the special interests that fill their campaign coffers. Governor Cuomo and state legislators should pledge to make this the last election with excessive financial advantages for incumbents. “Campaign finance reform should be a top priority for any post-election legislative session.” Although recent court decisions complicate the issue and some remedies inevitably lie at the federal level, state leaders have no excuse for not getting their own house in order. New York’s campaign contribution limits—the highest in the nation—need to be lowered, and the state’s lax disclosure requirements need to be strengthened to restore public trust in our democratic institutions.

Frackers Spend Big on Lobbying Politicians in Albany

As the New York Department of Environmental Conservation studies the ecological consequences of hydraulic fracturing, the American Petroleum Institute has been spending $265,054 on lobbying legislators since January. In the prior two years combined, API spent only $190,000 by comparison. Among its expenses, the API listed $61,000 worth of payments to organizations for “grass-roots advocacy,” including $47,387 to XRM LLC. Greg Sovas, an outspoken supporter of hydrofracking, is the owner of XRM LLC and the former head of the Mineral Resources Division at the Department of Environmental Conservation. Sovas has submitted affidavits in lawsuits regarding “home rule”—whether local governments have the right to ban gas drilling and hydrofracking within their borders. It remains to be seen if Albany’s decisions about gas exploration will be centered on the scientific analysis of fracking and its consequences, rather than all the money pouring in.

Wall Street Gears Up to Oppose Disclosure Rules in New York State

This year New York State enacted ethics regulations requiring for-profit and tax-exempt groups—those that spend more than $50,000 a year and at least 3% of their budgets on lobbying—to publicly identify all sources of funding above $5,000. Although Political Action Committees have to disclose their funding sources, tax-exempt “business leagues” and 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups do not, according to federal law. The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics approved the new regulations and is currently awaiting public comments on the rules. Wall Street groups such as the Bankers Association and the Life Insurance Council are opposing the measure, insisting that it will curb their free speech. Reform groups on the other hand are lauding the effort. According to Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, there “should be no reason to hide from public scrutiny the funders…that affect how our democracy functions."

NATIONAL

State Contribution Limits Reinstated in Montana

Last week, Reform NY reported that U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena struck down Montana’s low campaign contribution limits on the grounds that they violate free speech rights by restraining effective campaigning. Montana’s campaign finance laws restrict individual and PAC contributions to $630 for gubernatorial candidates, $310 for other statewide offices and $160 for local candidates. The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved an emergency stay of Lovell’s ruling, stating that it needs to see his full reasoning to review the case. Montana’s campaign donation limits have been reinstated for now.  Nick Nyhart, President and CEO of Public Campaign, welcomed the decision. "The 9th Circuit has stopped unlimited donations for this year's elections in Montana—a good idea now and for the future. Montana voters approved these laws, they want these laws, and the history of corruption in the state proves that unlimited contributions are incompatible with a government of, by, and for the people."

New York Times Op-Ed Debunks Notion of “Independent” Groups

Defenders of the status quo assume that “independent” expenditures by outside groups are indeed independent, and further assert that such spending does not have the capacity to corrupt politicians. In an excellent op-ed in the New York Times, Joe Nocera exposes logical flaws in these arguments in light of reality. After Watergate, Congress “instituted a system for presidential elections that combined small contributions from individuals ($1,000 or less), public financing from the taxpayers and a cap on how much the candidates could spend.” Consequently in the Gerald Ford-Jimmy Carter election of 1976, the two candidates were allowed to spend only $35 million each. Compare that to $181 million—the amount that Obama raised just in the month of September. Of course this figure doesn’t even account for the money being spent by Super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations on the candidates’ behalf, a phenomenon Nocera characterizes as “campaign money-laundering”—that is “allowing wealthy people to contribute millions toward supposedly ‘independent’ spending on campaign advertising, polling and other expensive campaign goodies.” In reality the assumption that Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s are independent from campaigns, as the Supreme Court has iterated, is far from true. Karl Rove, the former strategist from the Bush Administration, is well aware of the most pressing needs of the Romney campaign, as is Rahm Emanuel with respect to the Obama campaign. After all, Emanuel served as Obama’s first chief of staff. Furthermore, this much money in politics from a small number of wealthy donors has the potential to corrupt. “In Congress we see it every day. A congressman gets on an important committee, begins to raise money from the companies that care about the committee’s issues — and, suddenly, the congressman is writing legislation the company wants… This can’t be good for Democracy.”

Congressional Ethics Committees Protect Legislators

Reviews of Congressional deliberations reveal the dire state of affairs in Congress with respect to ethical violations. First, lawmakers are free to employ information they gather through committee investigations in the stock market and direct federal money to projects that coincide with their financial interests. Second, when Congressmen do break loose ethics rules, they rarely face prosecution. In February, the Washington Post reported that 33 lawmakers directed more than $300 million in earmarks and other provisions to projects within two miles of their own property. Another 16 Congressmen crafted legislation to award tax money to companies, colleges or community programs where their family members worked or served on boards. The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent and investigative arm of Congress, has probed 32 cases of possible wrongdoing by lawmakers, and subsequently referred them to the House Ethics Committee. However, only two of these cases have led to sanctions. For example, in 2010, the OCE called for an investigation of Representatives John Campbell (R-CA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Tom Price (R-GA), who held fundraisers with Wall Street firms on the eve of their vote on the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. Nevertheless, the House Ethics Committee ruled that there were no ethical violations because the politicians had already staked out positions on the bill.  

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.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND ETHICS NEWS

NEW YORK

Public Financing Can Stem Corruption in Albany

As the public stands appalled by the shameful behavior of their representatives in Albany, Lawrence Norden, senior counsel at the Brennan Center, offers a solution to re-engage citizens in the political process in the Press and Sun Bulletin. Currently New York State’s sky-high contribution limits drown out the voice of regular voters. A recent analysis of state election funds from NYPIRG found that 127 donors gave $50,000 or more to statewide candidates and political parties over the past year, for a total of nearly $17 million. Under a Fair Elections system, candidates that abide by lower contribution limits and enhanced disclosure rules would receive public matching funds for every small donation they raise. New York City, as well as Maine and parts of Connecticut serve as thriving examples of effective public financing systems. “The cost to the public is miniscule, while the effects of a broken Albany cost taxpayers every day.” Although Governor Cuomo has publicly pledged his support for campaign finance reform, members of the New York legislature have yet to act. It is time we demand that Albany take action.  

Brennan Center Hosts Panel Discussion on Campaign Finance Reform

This Tuesday, the Brennan Center hosted a panel of legal scholars, advocates and experts in the field of campaign finance reform. The panelists discussed the impact of small donor matching funds on civic participation and rejuvenating our democracy. The panelists included: 

•  Lawrence Lessig, professor of law at Harvard Law School, director of the Edmund J. Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and author of Republic, Lost: Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It;

•  Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21, whom the New York Times described as “the country’s leading proponent of campaign finance reform,”and co-author of the new report Empowering Small Donors in Federal Elections, with the Brennan Center's Adam Skaggs;

• Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School and author of numerous publications on campaign finance reform and election law; and

• Monica Youn, the inaugural Brennan Center Constitutional Fellow at the NYU School of Law and former director of the Brennan Center's Money in Politics program.

Professor Lessig asserted that the “pattern of influence” of large donors in America amounts to “corruption relative to the Framer’s baseline.” He demonstrated that the Framers gave us a Republic with a branch that would be “dependent on the people alone” as Federalist52 states. “The problem is Congress has evolved … a dependence upon the funders. This is dependence too, but it is different and conflicting with dependence upon the people so long as the funders are not the people.”

Reformers Unite in Manhattan to Push for Public Financing

 On Thursday Citizen Action, the Center for Working Families, Communications Workers of America, SEIU 1199, Sierra Club, NAACP and the Brennan Center, among others, gathered in Manhattan for a summit to discuss the next steps for fomenting the transition to a clean money system. Larry Norden, senior counsel at the Brennan Center lauded the benefits of campaign finance reform, presenting original research that indicates how small donor matching and public funding of elections has increased political participation and competition in New York City elections.

NATIONAL

Presidential Candidates Fail to Debate the Elephant in the Room

The first Presidential debate took place on Wednesday (October 3^rd) at the University of Denver in Colorado. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney highlighted their differences on job initiatives, regulatory policies, taxation, deficit reduction, and healthcare. Obama blasted Romney for supporting $4 billion in “corporate welfare” for oil companies, and Romney fired back alleging that Obama “provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world.” Despite these accusations of cozy relationships with special interests, the moderator Jim Lehrer did not pose any questions about our broken campaign finance system. Before the debates, Public Campaign recommended asking five questions from each candidate regarding their campaign financing tactics and lobbyist connections. In response to ignoring this elephant in the room, Chris Kluwe, football player for the Minnesota Vikings, tweeted “You know what I want to see debated? Campaign finance reform. Citizens United. Term limits. Tax reform. Cure the disease, not the symptoms.”

Voters in Battleground Districts are Disgusted by Money in Politics

A new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner in competitive Congressional districts demonstrates that voters are extremely concerned about the corruption of our democratic system by the over-sized role of money in campaigns. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Citizens United, voters believe that big donations to Super PACs involve a corrupting quid pro quo with politicians by a 2-to-1 margin. Citizens understand that big money has an influence over the policy platforms of Congressional candidates. Furthermore, 64 percent of respondents believe that big donor sand secret money control which candidates the public gets to hear from, compared to only 29 percent who think that voters decide this matter. The most important finding perhaps is that voters are willing to take this message to the ballot box. Seventy-eight percent of respondents state that it is important that their Congressional candidates devise a plan to dramatically reduce the amount of money in politics and the influence of Super PACs.

District Court Upends Contribution Limits for Montana State Races

Montana’s low campaign contribution limits for state candidates have been struck down by U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena. Lovell said the laws violate free speech rights under the First Amendment by preventing candidates “from amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.” The Montana campaign finance laws restrict individual and PAC contributions to $630 per gubernatorial candidate, $310 for other statewide offices, and $160 for district or local candidates. Now the opportunity for unlimited donations by individuals, political parties, and political action committees to candidates for office in Montana is a dire reality, unless an emergency stay of the ruling is approved while the order is appealed to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney General Steve Bullock, who is running for governor this year, stated that it “is a destructive ruling for Montana’s citizen democracy, and disturbing for those of us who believe that democracy is not for sale and politics is about values and issues, not money.” Jonathan Motl, a Helena attorney who drafted the 1994 voter initiative which reduced contribution limits, said the restrictions allowed smaller donors more power in the political process.“It’s a sad day, because it takes political power away from the average Montanan,” he stated.

Deadlocked FEC Fails to Issue a Regulation on Disclosure

This summer, Reform NY informed readers about the Van Hollen v. FEC case, where the D.C. District Court ruled that the Federal Election Commission’s interpretation of McCain-Feingold was incorrect and consequently that the law mandated the disclosure of all donors to non-profits engaged in "electioneering communications." In September however, the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the District Court’s orders. The FEC was given two options by the Appeals Court; either construct a new regulation or defend the current regulation in the District Court.  Yesterday the FEC, in its constant state of partisan gridlock, failed to craft a new regulation regarding outside spending disclosure. Now the Van Hollen lawsuit is back in the D.C. District Court, where Van Hollen’s legal team will be arguing that current the FEC regulation, which doesn’t mandate full disclosure of contributions, is “arbitrary and capricious.”

FEC Releases New Electronic Tools to Track Expenditures and Filings

The Federal Election Commission has developed two new technological tools, the Candidate and Committee Viewer and the Electronic Filing RSS Feed, to ease public access to campaign finance data. The Candidate and Committee Viewer is a search portal that consolidates campaign finance activities of all federal candidates, political committees, independent expenditure report filers or other report filers. This data is readily available in aggregated, graphical, or spreadsheet format, the latter of which is downloadable. The Electronic Filing RSS Feed allows subscribers to receive notification of new electronic filings, monthly filings, quarterly filings, presidential filings, congressional filings and PAC and party filings. Alternatively subscribers can also customize feeds based on committee identification number, state or district.

Spending on TV ads Remains a Mystery

One extraordinary feature of the post-Citizens United era is the barrage of outside groups, funded by deep-pocketed interests, unleashing ads across the country. But disclosure of these donations and expenditures remains a mystery in many cases because of porous disclosure rules, with reporters often quoting contradictory figures. Media reports about the TV ad wars have thus far relied upon the Federal Election Commission or the Kantar Media Group. However aggregated figures for the same groups from the two sources are contradictory. For example, Americans for Prosperity has purchased $36 million worth of TV ads as of September 20^th, according to Kantar, but $28.5 million according to the FEC. “Less than two months away from electing a president, we don’t really have a handle on how much outside groups are spending on television campaign ads to influence that choice.” Notable differences in methodology between Kantar and the FEC explain the differences, but legal loopholes in FEC and Federal Communication Commission reporting requirements also liberate non-profits from the responsibility of disclosure. The Sunlight Foundation and Free Press will be introducing Political Ad Sleuth to garner a more notable count of spending on political ads.