New push for taxpayer-funded campaigns

by Jeff Patch

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Contributions & Limits

Lawrence Lessig recently announced on The Huffington Post he intends to wage a new campaign of "combating corruption in Congress."

As Lessig sees the problem, renewed campaign finance restrictions are necessary to achieve larger ends. "...progress will be stifled on every big issue until we solve the threshold problem: big-money interests having disproportional clout in our public debates," he writes.

Never mind that Lessig, like most so-called reformers, just trots out buzz words like ‘big-money interests' with absolutely no justification or context. Activists complaining about supposedly nefarious special interests often cannot see beyond their own hypocrisy on the issue. Congress is not a direct democracy. Organized interests, including the newly created Change Congress Lessig formed with Democratic activist Joe Trippi, are an essential part of our political system. Issue groups, unions, trade associations and other groups combine resources to advocate for policies they support in Congress. Each member of a teacher's union or small business owner cannot spend her time in Washington, so they hire people to advocate for them or raise money for politicians that support their principles.

(more)

Published on January 5, 2009 05:00 PM

Anti-big-money-in-politics political group doesn't get big money, may fold

by Sean Parnell

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Contributions & Limits, Faulty Assumptions, Taxpayer Financing

Big contributions in politics, we are told, are bad for a variety of reasons and must be eliminated. Democracy 21, for example, says that their mission is to "...eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics and to ensure the integrity and fairness of government decisions and elections."

So it was with some interest that I read about the troubles of the Clean Elections Institute (CEI), the Arizona organization focused on defending and promoting the Copper State's scheme of taxpayer-funded political campaigns. Christian Palmer of the Arizona Capitol Times writes about the financial difficulties of CEI, reporting that

The Clean Elections Institute, a privately-funded interest group, is reportedly broke and has issued a call for contributions to help protect the state's system of publicly-funded political campaigns.

To read more about this anti-big-money-in-politics political group's own big money problems, click the headline above

Published on January 5, 2009

The Lobbyists are Coming

by Brad Smith

File Under: Lobbying Regulation

In a recent post on his indispensible blog, Bob Bauer poked a bit at Newsweek columnist Robert Samuelson, who had written that big government gives birth to lobbying.  A thrust of Samuelson's column was that we should expect to see a lot more lobbying in the next few years, given Barack Obama's announced goals to greatly expand the role of the government into our lives, and in particularly to greatly increase government spending, beginning with an enormous porkbarrell spending er, stimulus bill. 

Bauer makes a legit point that not only does big government create lobbyists, but that sometimes lobbyists create big government. Bauer goes on to note that an administration that favors "ambitious goals" and "strong government" must be especially attentive to appropriate regulation of lobbyists, including adequate disclosure and avoidance of conflicts of interest. 

But we should not let Mr. Bauer's legit point about particular lobbyists blind us to the bigger picture.  Click the headline for more.

Published on December 28, 2008

Wall Stree Journal Praises "Yes on Term Limits v. Savage:" CCP Served as Co-Counsel

File Under: Disclosure, Enforcement, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Other

The Wall Street Journal today praises the 10th Circuit's opinion in Yes on Term Limits v. Savage, striking down as unconstitutional an Oklahoma law limiting the political speech and association rights of non-resident petitioners, and urging Attorney General Drew Edmondson to drop his plans to appeal.  The case struck down an Oklahoma law that placed burdens on the rights of Oklahoma citizens to petition government for redress of grievances by limiting their ability to hire out of state workers to assist them in their efforts.  Such laws, in addition to damaging rights of speech and association, tend to lock in the status quo by making it harder for dissidents to gather the resources to seek change.  As the Journal notes, "Public officials claim residency laws are necessary to police the petition process, but these laws only serve to discourage its use." 

CCP, through Vice President Steve Hoersting, was proud to serve as co-counsel for the victorious appellants-plaintiffs in the case.  Read our Press Release here and the full opinion here.

Published on December 26, 2008 12:29 PM

Brad Smith and John Lott in Wall Street Journal on Some Downsides to Disclosure

File Under: Disclosure

CCP doesn't take formal positions on legislation, but it's no secret we're generally in favor of political deregulation - indeed, that's our reason for being.  One issue that has long vexed deregulationists is the question of disclosure of campaign contributions and other political activity.  Certainly disclosure has some benefits, at least in some cases.  But far too often disclosure is set forth, even by those generally favoring less government regulation of campaign finance, as an unalloyed good.  Today in the Wall Street Journal CCP Chairman Brad Smith and economist John Lott note some of the downsides to unmitigated disclsoure.  Click here to link to the full article, or on the headline above for excerpts.

Published on December 26, 2008 12:00 PM

A Bundle of Noise: The Overwrought Reaction to the FEC's Bundling Rules

by Brad Smith

File Under: Disclosure, Enforcement, Lobbying Regulation

Pretty much like clockwork, if the FEC does something, it is criticized by so-called "reform" organizations for not being tough enough.  Such is the predictable response of the "reform" lobby to the FEC's new rules on bundling.  But that response tells us more about the ultimate interests and Kafkaesque rules the reform lobby would like to t see in place than it does about the FEC's rules or the ultimate interest of the public - such as it may be - in bundling regulation.  Click the headline to read more.

Published on December 23, 2008 05:00 AM