Blog

WWJD: What Would Jefferson Do?

Published on October 3, 2008
by David Mason

File Under: Enforcement

Barack Obama is upset about lies he thinks are being told about him.  CCP and others are alarmed by threats to resort to criminal and regulatory processes to silence his critics.

In trying situations we sometimes ask what great leaders would do.  In the case of Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party, we don't have to guess.

Jefferson was subject to outrageous attacks on his patriotism (too French), his religious beliefs (allegedly atheist), and his personal life.  His political allies were actually thrown in jail for criticizing the ruling Federalists.  Armed conflict seemed a real possibility.

Jefferson fought back hard, but he used the press and the political process, not threats of prosecution.  Rather than turning the tables once he gained power, he used the experience to show America, and the world, the superiority of free speech over government coercion to combat error.  It's a lesson the Obama campaign should learn.

Defending Nancy Pelosi

Published on October 1, 2008
by David Mason

File Under: Faulty Assumptions, Press

The Center for Competitive Politics welcomes former FEC Commissioner David Mason as an occasional contributor to the blog. His first post follows:

Put me down as opposed to most of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's political aims, but she deserves some defense from a front page ethics attack in today's Washington Times. 

The Times reports dramatically that "Pelosi's PAC pays bills for spouse's firm", referring to $99,000 in payments over the past 9 years.  The problem is, there is no evidence, at least in the Times story or FEC reports, that the PAC is paying bills for Paul Pelosi's apparently successful firm, FLS, much less that Paul Pelosi is "on the payroll" of the PAC as suggested in the story.

What FEC reports do show is a classic Catch-22 that Federal campaign finance law creates: Pelosi's PAC cannot accept free rent from her husband's business, but if she pays rent, as required by law, she's accused of lining her family's pockets.  The kerfuffle has nothing really to do with ethics, and no bearing on any important issue, but it gets front page treatment because the mere hint of corruption is politically powerful.

More after the jump.

Will Frankenstein Return?

Published on October 1, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

A long slumbering, but never dead, enemy of free speech is now able to return.

The Orwellian-titled Fairness Doctrine forced broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance" until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) abolished it in the 1980's.

Initially intended to force broadcast stations to "cover controversial issues of public importance to the community" and "provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those issues," the Fairness Doctrine did just the opposite.

An amendment to an appropriations bill banned the FCC from re-instating the Fairness Doctrine during the last fiscal year.  But today marks the beginning of a new fiscal year and some legislative leaders have already begun touting the merits of the Fairness Doctrine.

More after the jump.

Do Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns Save Taxpayer Dollars?

Published on September 30, 2008

The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) released today an issue analysis refuting the myth that the cost of taxpayer-financed political campaigns can be offset by removing alleged pressures placed on officeholders by so-called ‘special interest' contributors.

"The claim that taxpayer-financed campaigns may actually lead to savings for taxpayers is demonstrably false," said Sean Parnell, President of the Center for Competitive Politics.  "These political welfare schemes continue to show themselves to be a poor use of taxpayer dollars with few discernable positive outcomes."

Advocates of taxpayer-financed campaigns like the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) have claimed in the past that public-financing programs would "accrue enormous savings by reducing wasteful expenditures, such as earmarks."  Common Cause, another advocate of taxpayer-financed campaigns, has stated that such programs save "taxpayer dollars by reducing inappropriate giveaways to campaign contributors."

But CCP's review of the state budgets in Arizona and Maine, the two states commonly cited by proponents as having model public-financing systems, refutes these claims.

More after the jump.

Bauer vs. CCP vs. Wertheimer vs. DOJ re 527 Enforcement

Published on September 29, 2008
by Brad Smith

File Under: Enforcement, Political Committees & 527s

Bob Bauer suggests that this post by CCP Legal Director Reid Cox goes off course in its criticism of Fred Wertheimer, who has been trying to threaten folks - and get the Department of Justice to threaten folks - with criminal prosecution for alleged violations of campaign finance laws.  Here it is Mr. Bauer who has, in a rather unusual slip, gone "off course," and a brief response is necessary. 

The quick background is thus:  Fred Wertheimer is complaining that DOJ is not pursuing criminal actions against alleged violators of campaign finance law.  He bases this on a statement by Craig Donsanto, Director of the Election Crimes branch at the DOJ's Office of Public Integrity, that Justice would not pursue "knowing and willful" violations of campaign finance law for certain activity undertaken by 527 organizations. 

CCP was critical of Wertheimer, with Cox stating:

"Wertheimer does not want the criminal enforcement of the campaign finance laws as they were enacted by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court.  Instead, Wertheimer wants to see criminal investigations based on previous FEC enforcement actions that are not-and have never been-supported by either congressional legislation or court interpretation."

Bauer interprets this as CCP arguing, "that disputed rules can be disregarded because some, moved by constitutional scruples, don't like them."  If that were true, then of course CCP would have gone off course.  But that is not what CCP says. 

For more, click the headline... 

The criminal proclivities of Democracy 21

Published on September 25, 2008

An effort to chill independent issue advocacy efforts during the 2008 election by Democracy 21 relies on an unfounded reading of campaign finance law, according to a memo released by the Center for Competitive Politics.

Democracy 21 sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice last week suggesting that independent groups and their major donors should worry about the possibility of a criminal investigation before speaking out ahead of the upcoming election.

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer specifically asked that U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey "make it clear to the public that knowing and willful violations of the campaign finance laws by 527 groups will be subject to potential Justice Department investigation and prosecution."

"But Wertheimer does not want the criminal enforcement of the campaign finance laws as they were enacted by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court," observed Reid Cox, Legal Director at the Center for Competitive Politics and author of the memo.  "Instead, Wertheimer wants to see criminal investigations based on previous FEC enforcement actions that are not-and have never been-supported by either congressional legislation or court interpretation."

"Criminal prosecutions based on independent issue advocacy are rare for good reason," Cox continued.  "Consistent legal precedent ensures protected space for independent issue speech.  There also remains much dispute that the FEC exceeded its authority in bringing those enforcement actions based on new and discredited regulations absent additional legislation from Congress or new decisions from the Supreme Court.

"One would hope that an independent non-profit like Democracy 21, which is ‘dedicated to making democracy work for all Americans,' would be less hostile to free speech," Cox concluded.

Cox's memo is the fifth in a series of analysis produced by the Center for Competitive Politics examining the legal and political issues surrounding the advocacy activities of independent groups in the 2008 election.

CCP's memo regarding The Criminal Proclivities of Democracy 21 is available HERE and additional memos published as part of the Election 2008 Free Speech Project can be found HERE.

Big pharma veers to the left

Published on September 24, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: Faulty Assumptions

Jeanne Cummings' story on a shift in the political giving of the pharmaceutical industry in Tuesday's Politico underscores an important point too often ignored in campaign finance debates: campaign contributions primarily follow ideology and do little to influence the way a legislator votes.

Cummings reports that Republican's are "being denied the lion’s share of the industry’s donations for the first time in six election cycles."

Why?

Click the headline to find out.

CCP Chairman joins The Arena

Published on September 24, 2008

Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley Smith has joined Politico's new feature "The Arena."  The Arena is billed as "Politico's daily debate with policymakers and opinion shapers."

As a "player" in The Arena, Smith will be able to weigh-in daily on the hot policy topics of the day.  But please note that The Arena delves into a great deal more than just campaign finance issues and the opinion's expressed at The Arena only represent Smith's personal opinions.

Guess it depends on who's listening

Published on September 23, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

On Sunday, the New York Times took the Real Truth About Obama to task for its effort to run its scripted advertisements critical of Sen. Barack Obama's position on abortion.

The Times likened RTAO's efforts as "Swift Boat campaigning" that smears the Democratic nominee. The Times further "warned" against the potential "open season for countless stealth groups to flood the remaining weeks of the campaign with underhanded attack ads" if RTAO is granted permission from the courts to run its advertisements.

"Voters do not need a repeat of operatives from both parties running nonprofit shadow operations, fobbing off the most vicious attack ads as innocent issue messages," instructs the Times with utmost moral authority.

But why should citizens fear citizens groups battling back and forth on the airwaves?

In fact, the RTAO issue offers a good example as to why we should not fear the advocacy efforts of outside groups. 

More after the jump.

Pay no attention to those 30,000 people behind the curtain…

Published on September 23, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Taxpayer Financing

There is no shortage of misleading research on issues related to campaign finance, as is demonstrated by the latest bit of methodological manipulation by Public Campaign, a leading voice in the fight for taxpayer-funded political campaigns.

A few days ago I came across this: All Over The Map: Small Donors Bring Diversity to Arizona's Elections. The study purports to show that "Arizona's qualifying contribution donors have a different profile than typical big donors giving to Arizona campaigns for those candidates who opt into the private system."

Sadly for anyone hoping to glean useful information, a careful parsing of the language and close look at the methodology and data source reveals that all Public Campaign managed to do is cloud the issue while wasting some vast number of trees and electrons in the process of distributing this nonsense.

Click on the headine above to read more

Next 10