Home > Blog
BLOG
Coordination regs headed back to court?
Published on August 31, 2010
Last week, on a bipartisan 5-to-1 vote, the Federal Election Commission approved rules for coordinated communications.
The professional reform lobby promptly objected, and this matter may be headed back to court. Fred Wertheimer, who, as HoltzmanVogel notes, also goes by the nom de guerre Democracy21, stopped just short of threatening a lawsuit challenging the newly-adopted rules in an interview with BNA.
In the interview, Wertheimer blasts the new coordination regulation as "different from the old regulation in name only—and ... is yet again is contrary to law." Actually, though, the regulation is an expansion of the coordination regulations—regulating the "functional equivalence of express advocacy" instead of the old test which only captured "magic words" such as "vote for" and "vote against."
Ed Schulz: Our hero on campaign finance disclosure
Published on August 30, 2010
On his August 25th show, liberal MSNBC host Ed Schulz expressed concern about publication of personal information of people based on their political participation. Said Ed, "A tea party blog in Maine listed the D.C. home addresses of [various prominent Democrats]. Can somebody tell me why? What is the usefulness of this? Do they actually want people to show up outside their door, maybe help them get the morning paper? ... This sets the table for intimidation and harassment..."
Substitute "a federal government website" [the FEC] for "a tea party blog" and you've got campaign finance disclosure.
MoveOn.org launches campaign against Minn. taxpayers
Published on August 27, 2010
GREENBRAE, Calif.—Today, MoveOn.org announced a campaign to boycott Minnesota because its taxpayers donated more than $500,000 to conservative Republican Tom Emmer, who is running for governor.
"Minnesota taxpayers should be ashamed of themselves for supporting the campaign of far-right candidate Tom Emmer," said MoveOn.org executive director Justin Ruben. "We will urge our members and like-minded progressives to boycott Minnesota goods and forgo any travel to the Land of 10,000 Lakes."
MoveOn.org recently launched a similar boycott against Target Corp. because it donated $150,000 to a pro-business political group that supported Emmer. Taxpayers' support of Emmer's campaign is even worse, Ruben said, because it's a direct contribution to Emmer's campaign—not just independent spending.
MoveOn.org's corporate hypocrisy
Published on August 26, 2010
The Institite for Justice's Bert Gall posted an interesting analysis of a video produced by MoveOn.org bashing Target for contributing money to a political group:
In other words, they subscribe to the same condescending attitude that is at the heart of all criticism of Citizens United: Most of the public is made up of idiots, and they'll vote however corporations tell them to. But wait just a second. Those who stay with the video to the very end learn that the advertisement was funded by MoveOn.org—a corporation whose business is to influence elections...
Gall cuts right to the heart of MoveOn.org's opposition to Target's spending:
MoveOn.org thinks it’s okay for the right kind of corporations—those who can always be counted on to promote a progressive political agenda—to engage in as much robust political speech as they’d like.
MoveOn.org isn't really all that coy about this point. In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times responding to the paper's editorial board's criticism of the boycott, MoveOn.org executive director Justin Ruben wrote, "Unlimited corporate spending on elections creates even more formidable obstacles to solving the biggest problems we face, including global warming and economic inequality."
Campaign spending and contribution limits
Published on August 25, 2010
The results of Tuesday's primary elections illustrate that money doesn't always buy voters' love. If that's the case, though—money doesn't buy elections—why do we still have a very low $2,400 contribution limit at the federal level?
Responding to Obama on DISCLOSE
Published on August 23, 2010 11:00 AM
This Saturday's weekly Presidential radio address was devoted to resurrecting the DISCLOSE Act, the bill designed to stifle free speech rights recognized by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.
Reviewing the transcript of his comments, I had a few thoughts:
1. Most noticeable for its absence was any mention of unions. President Obama refers to corporations no fewer than 9 times in his comments, plus the insurance and banking industries. But there's not one mention of unions, even though Citizens United freed them to speak on behalf of their members, a freedom they have embraced with gusto (and it's not like the White House is unfamiliar with this spending). Given the claims by DISCLOSE Act supporters that this bill treats unions and corporations identically, President Obama's focus only on corporations is yet more evidence that the DISCLOSE Act is specifically designed to stifle corporate political speech while leaving unions free to speak.
2. The White House is still peddling xenophobia, referring to the alleged danger that "foreigners" might influence elections.
New York union stifled by 'byzantine' campaign finance laws
Published on August 20, 2010 02:15 PM
A quick read of today's coverage of the New York union expenditure decision boggles the mind. Does New York really prevent PACs from making expenditures? How could that be? Or as my kids say, WTF ("why the face?")?
The judge who rejected a New York union's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction yesterday issued no written opinion, which doesn't help alleviate the confusion. No, for an explanation of what did—and didn't—happen, you need to dig into New York's state campaign finance laws more deeply. And that's a path fraught with peril. So, I did it, and now you don't have to!
CCP testimony supports political freedom in Pa.
Published on August 19, 2010 12:07 PM
Earlier this week, the Pennsylvania Senate State Government Committee held a field hearing in Meadville, Pa. to discuss two pieces of legislation regarding contribution limits and enhanced disclosure requirements.
I testified on behalf of CCP in support of preserving the state's free system of allowing citizens to contribute to candidates of their choice without arbitrary government restrictions.
The Ground Zero mosque, DISCLOSE, and the abuse of power
Published on August 19, 2010
On August 18, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a rather incredible comment. With polls showing roughly 70 percent of Americans believe the Cordoba Project mosque near Ground Zero is a bad idea (though a constitutionally protected one), and further that the apparent support voiced by the President and various liberal commentators for the mosque was causing a bleeding in Democratic support barely two months before the next election, the Speaker suggested that it would appropriate to have an investigation into the sources of political opposition to the mosque location. No further analysis of these grossly inappropriate remarks is necessary. As lawyers would say, res ipsa loquitur—"the thing speaks for itself." Or, as the rest of America might say, "'nuff said."
Or maybe not. What DISCLOSE and Speaker Pelosi's comments have in common is an intention to intimidate speakers opposed to the agenda of the ruling party, by threatening to misuse the power of government against them if they continue to speak.
Nancy Pelosi in desperate need of refresher on First Amendment
Published on August 18, 2010 01:15 PM
The Center for Competitive Politics has avoided getting dragged into the fray over the proposed Cordoba House project (AKA "Ground Zero Mosque") in New York City. The focus of the Center is on the First Amendment political rights of speech, assembly, and petition, and the discussion and debate raging over the appropriateness of the Cordoba House location definitely fall outside of our areas of interest and expertise.
But it is worth noting when political figures, addressing the Cordoba House controversy, stumble into those areas of the First Amendment that the Center does address. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in no uncertain terms stumbled (trampled?) over the First Amendment right of free speech in comments yesterday when she seemed to suggest that opponents of Cordoba House should be investigated:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.
Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."
"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"
The chilling effect of government investigations into citizens who dare to dissent from whatever agenda Speaker Pelosi approves of would be severe. That the third highest ranking official in the land, second in line to the presidency behind Vice President Joe Biden, would casually suggest government investigations of political opponents is stunning and should be deeply disturbing and offensive to any American who values the First Amendment's guarantees of free and unfettered political speech.
Speaker Pelosi should immediately repudiate, in full and without qualification, her call for investigations into those who do not share her perspective on the appropriateness of the Cordoba House location.
DISCLOSE back from the dead?
Published on August 17, 2010 01:58 PM
Yesterday, the Hotline reported that Senate Democrats plan to force another vote on the DISCLOSE Act "to score political points."
This is not exactly a surprise, as Schumer has said he planned to bring up DISCLOSE multiple times: "[W]e will go back at this bill again and again and again until we pass it," he told The Hill last month after the DISCLOSE Act failed to clear a procedural vote in the Senate.
Shadowy group says it will spend millions on Connecticut elections
Published on August 14, 2010
"Shadowy group says it will spend millions on Connecticut elections"
Hartford Courant
Aug. 14, 2010
With Connecticut's gubernatorial and state legislative elections less than three months away, a shadowy group is promising to spend millions of dollars from undisclosed contributors this fall in an effort to influence the state's elections.
The shady group, which calls itself "The State of Connecticut," has pledged to spend as much as $46 million this cycle.
"This is a flagrant, outrageous violation of the spirit of Connecticut's law," said Washington, D.C. lobbyist Fred Wertheimer of the reform group Democracy 21. "Nobody knows where this money is coming from. It's time for Connecticut to pass real reform and require the disclosure of who is really behind the big money in campaigns."
Lawmakers stick it to the poor in return for campaign funds
Published on August 13, 2010 04:28 PM
Licking their chops at the prospects of reaping millions in campaign dollars, Connecticut lawmakers today overrode Governor Jodi Rell's veto of the state's revised "clean elections" law, despite calls to spend the money on social services.
CREW's curious FEC lawsuit
Published on August 13, 2010 01:31 PM
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission after the FEC declined to pursue two CREW complaints.
CREW has a history of filing FEC complaints against candidates as part of its advocacy campaign to increase political speech regulation. Many, if not most, go nowhere-unsupported by law or evidence. Like some of these complaints, the current lawsuit looks less like a serious attempt to address a legal issue and more like a P.R. gambit.
For starters, CREW's lawsuit seems premature. In one of the matters CREW cites, the FEC notified CREW July 23 that the matter had been closed. As even CREW recognized, the FEC has 30 days from that date—Aug. 22—to make public commissioners' reasons and other materials. Nonetheless, CREW filed its lawsuit Aug. 11.
CREW is right that some Statements of Reasons have been late. Yet CREW never bothered to bring this issue to the FEC. They never, so far as we can discern, contacted commissioners about these concerns, and when the FEC held open hearings about agency procedures in Jan. 2009, no one from CREW bothered to show up.
This complaint isn't exactly frivolous, but it's unclear what sort of remedy CREW hopes for beyond a P.R. boost to its effort to raise its profile as a member of the pro-regulation community. In its complaint, CREW seeks an order declaring the FEC's actions "contrary to law" and another order "compelling the FEC to explain the basis for complaints within 60 days of any dismissal." Good luck with that. What does CREW think a federal judge is going to do? Head down to 999 E Street NW and sit on the 9th floor until all the commissioners finish their homework?
FPPC expands express advocacy regulation
Published on August 12, 2010 04:50 PM
As expected, Dan Schnur announced today that the era of "magic words" in California is over.
At a Fair Political Practices Commission hearing commissioners voted to direct staff to craft a regulation that would interpret the definition of "express advocacy"—ads containing an appeal to vote for or against a candidate—as including the "functional equivalent" of express advocacy.
As CCP has explained, Schnur's reasoning is "fundamentally flawed."
MoveOn.org “reformers” mask legal requirement as virtue
Published on August 10, 2010 11:50 AM
Today I learned via e-mail that there will be a "rally" in Albany, New York to urge Senators Schumer and Gillibrand to "Fight Corporate Corruption of Washington" (curious italicization choices in the original). The message appears to be part of a nationwide campaign led by MoveOn (formerly MoveOn.org, of course) to push for a handful of campaign finance and ethics "reform" measures. Other organizations supporting today's "rallies" (you'll see why I'm using quotation marks around that term in just a second) include the Service Employees International Union, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, and Democracy for America.
The release breathlessly announces that "Over 100 folks have already signed up" (114 according to this MoveOn site) for the Albany, New York event today.
The site also reveals that there are 167 similar events across the country today, and typing in random zip codes from across the country would seem to indicate that attendance at most will amount to tens and tens of citizens. A handful of events have managed to make it past 100 in the number of people signed up to attend, but there are more with expected participants in single digits.
These numbers would seem to fall somewhat short of expectations for a rally that proclaims that it represents the 98 percent of Americans who aren't corporations (I'm not sure exactly what they mean by that, but then neither do they I'd wager). Using the term "rally" to describe the 11 registered attendees for today's event at 255 E. Temple Street in Los Angeles seems not quite right, though. Ditto for the three individuals scheduled to show up at Representative Joe Wilson's office in West Columbia, South Carolina, and the seven hardy souls signed up to go to Senator Olympia Snowe's office in Augusta, Maine also seems to not quite justify the "rally" designation. Maybe "basketball team with a couple of subs" would be a better descriptor?
Rules for Radical Election Change
Published on August 9, 2010 10:30 AM
Tara Ross
The Center for Competitive Politics is pleased to offer this guest blog post by Tara Ross
"Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. . . . [M]aintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
Straightforward advice from a liberal icon of a bygone era. Saul Alinsky doubtless intended to change the world, but one has to wonder if even he would be surprised at how far his "Rules for Radicals" have strayed from their roots in local Chicago politics. Today, some of his principles even seem poised to eliminate an institution that was once thought to be untouchable without a constitutional amendment: the Electoral College.
Perhaps Alinsky would not be surprised at the rapid changes that have overtaken our nation in the past few years. Multiple crises have been generated. The opposition has been hit from many angles, simultaneously. No one can focus on or respond to everything at once. And now, in the midst of health care debates, financial regulatory changes, climate and energy crises, and massive tax and spending conflicts, arrives a little-noticed effort to turn the Electoral College into a relic of history, threatening to effectively nullify part of the Constitution if action is not taken to defend it.
Tax financing program challenged in Maine
Published on August 6, 2010 02:59 PM
Yesterday, CCP detailed developments across the country affecting tax financed campaign programs. Challenges to these systems are proceeding in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida and Wisconsin (where CCP is challenging the judicial program).
Today, the James Madison Center for Free Speech, run by campaign finance lawyer James Bopp, Jr., sends word that it's representing a group of plaintiffs challenging Maine's system.
As in the other state's, Maine provides additional government funding to participating candidates when they're outspend by candidates who decline the taxpayer subsidies.
Death of a thousand cuts for tax financed campaigns?
Published on August 5, 2010 10:57 AM
It hasn't been a good few weeks for supporters of government leveling the political playing field.
The Supreme Court has prevented the state of Arizona from distributing so-called matching or rescue funds to candidates who accept tax subsidies facing candidates who opt out of the system. The Court will decide whether to take up the case on the merits this fall.
An appellate court recently ruled a similar system unconstitutional in Connecticut, using the rationale of a 2008 Supreme Court decision—Davis v. Federal Election Commission—to hold that a state may not punish a candidate for spending privately-raised money by matching her spending dollar-for-dollar with a government check.
The Connecticut legislature attempted to salvage the program by simply increasing the base grant from $3 million to $6 million, but Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a past supporter for Connecticut's program, vetoed the change and derided the changes as turning the "Citizens' Elections Program" into a "welfare program for politicians." She has called for a special session and proposed a bill that would maintain the base grant level; it would also implement a discriminatory contribution limit for lobbyists (which is quite possibly unconstitutional).
Another important development is that an appellate court prevented the state of Florida from distributing rescue funds to Attorney General Bill McCollum, a gubernatorial candidate. Rick Scott, another Republican gubernatorial candidate, argued that Florida's tax financing program has similar constitutional flaws to the other programs that were struck down, and the 11 Circuit issued a ruling preventing McCollum from collecting a state check to supplement his campaign coffers as Scott prepares to spend more than the $24.9 million threshold from his personal wealth.
Enhancing voter choice through Instant Runoff Voting
Published on August 4, 2010 01:00 PM
Rob Richie, Patrick Withers, and Alec Slatky
The Center for Competitive Politics is pleased to offer this guest blog post by Rob Richie, Patrick Withers, and Alec Slatky of FairVote
The national mood as we head into Election 2010 appears to signal a good year for Republicans. Between the rising Tea Party movement, President Obama's falling approval ratings, and polls from key races, it seems likely that Republicans will increase their numbers in Congress and state houses.
In a small-"d" democratic republic such as the United States, that's the way things are supposed to work—the voting public decides how they feel about certain policies and candidates, votes accordingly, and those elected more closely reflect the interests and desires of the public, at least at that particular moment.
But an oft-ignored flaw of American democracy, plurality voting, potentially stands in the way of having a government that more closely reflects the intent of the voters. Given policymakers' failure to pass statutes to accommodate increased voter choice with voting methods like instant runoff voting, this could be another election seasons dominated by talk of "spoilers"—harkening back to Ross Perot's presidential bids in 1992 and 1996 and last year's special congressional election in New York.
