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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment