Category: Elections: Financing & Voting

PROGRESSIVE SUCCESSES IN THE 2014 ELECTION

ABSTRACT: Perhaps surprisingly, in the context of Republican and conservative candidates’ victories in the 2014 election, many ballot initiatives that were decidedly liberal or progressive passed. Democrats running clearly progressive campaigns for the US Senate won in 3 states. The Republican victories in many very close races were made possible by very low voter turnout. Only 35% of those registered to vote and 25% of those eligible to vote actually voted.

Voters in four Republican states – Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska and South Dakota – raised the minimum wage despite concerted and well-funded opposition. In Richmond, California, progressives defeated mayoral and city council candidates heavily funded by Chevron, the nation’s third largest corporation. In Arkansas, despite a sweep by Republican candidates, a ballot initiative passed that reformed campaign finance and ethics laws. In Tallahassee, Florida, voters also approved reforms in campaign finance and ethics laws. In dozens of communities in four states (Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio), voters overwhelmingly favored ballot measures supporting a federal constitutional amendment that would state that corporations do not have the same rights as human persons and that money is not equivalent to speech and therefore can be regulate in election campaigns.

This all makes it clear that Republican candidates’ election victories do not reflect public opinion on many important policy issues. Rather, they were the result of a failure of many Democrats to campaign on popular progressive policies. Furthermore, the election outcomes reflect Republicans’ successes in changing the rules of our elections to suppress voter turnout and allow the spending of huge sums by wealthy corporations and individuals.

FULL POST: Perhaps surprisingly, in the context of Republican and conservative candidates’ victories in the 2014 election, many ballot initiatives that were decidedly liberal or progressive passed – sometimes even in the same jurisdictions that were electing conservatives. Furthermore, Democrats running for the US Senate who ran some of the most clearly progressive campaigns won: Senator Jeff Merkley (Democrat of Oregon), Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), and incoming Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

The Republican victories in many very close races were made possible by very low voter turnout – the lowest since 1942 – which favors Republicans and conservatives. Only 35% of those registered to vote and 25% of those eligible to vote actually voted. In the Congressional elections, Republicans won 52% of the vote, which represents only 17% of those registered to vote and 13% of those eligible to vote. [1] Hardly a mandate by normal standards. The Republican’s large majority in the US House is largely due to extreme gerrymandering of House districts.

Despite the context, every major progressive or Democratic ballot initiative won, even in Republican states. Every minimum wage increase won and every personhood amendment failed (CO & ND). (These are amendments to state Constitutions that confer personhood and all its rights on embryos at fertilization.) [2] Across the nation, voters also passed measures against fracking, for paid sick leave, for criminal justice sentencing reform, and for gun purchase background checks. [3]

Voters in four Republican states – Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska and South Dakota – raised the minimum wage against the concerted and well-funded opposition of national and local big business groups. This will raise the pay levels for over 1.7 million workers. Alaska and South Dakota linked the minimum wage to inflation, so it will increase automatically in the future. San Francisco and Oakland voters also overwhelmingly increased the minimum wage in those cities. Illinois voters strongly supported a non-binding referendum to raise the minimum wage.

In Richmond, California, progressives defeated mayoral and city council candidates funded by Chevron, the nation’s third largest corporation. Chevron, which owns a huge refinery in the city, poured at least $3 million into the local elections in this working class city of 105,000 people (about $150 for each likely voter). It sought to oust a progressive local government that was requiring it to clean up its pollution, pay more taxes into city coffers, and be a more responsible and accountable corporate citizen. Wall St. corporations also participated in the attempt to throw out the progressives because the city government, faced with a decade of predatory lending and an epidemic of foreclosures and “underwater” mortgages, demanded that Wall Street banks help troubled homeowners save their homes. In the election, community groups, labor unions, the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), and others mobilized a grassroots campaign to re-elect a progressive city government. [4]

A California ballot initiative reformed sentencing laws and one in Washington State expanded criminal background checks for gun purchases. In Arizona, voters defeated a right wing attempt to undermine public employee pensions. In Denton, Texas, the heart of oil and gas country, voters banned fracking, the controversial drilling method for extracting gas from rock formations.

In Arkansas, despite a sweep by Republican candidates, a ballot initiative passed that reformed campaign finance and ethics laws. It bans direct corporate and union campaign contributions to candidates, forbids lawmakers from accepting gifts of any kind from lobbyists, and increases the amount of time departing lawmakers must wait before lobbying from one to two years.

In Tallahassee, Florida, voters overwhelmingly approved an anti-corruption initiative limiting campaign contributions, creating a $25 tax rebate for small contributions, and boosting ethics reforms by creating an ethics panel and a tough conflict-of-interest policy for city officials. In dozens of communities in four states (Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio), voters overwhelmingly favored ballot measures supporting a federal constitutional amendment overturning Supreme Court decisions including Citizens United and McCutcheon. The amendment would state that corporations do not have the same rights as human persons and that money is not equivalent to speech and therefore can be regulated in election campaigns. [5]

This all makes it clear that Republican candidates’ election victories do not reflect public opinion on many important policy issues. Rather, they were the result of a failure of many Democrats to campaign on popular progressive policies. Furthermore, the election outcomes reflect Republicans’ successes in changing the rules of our elections to favor big business and conservative interest groups by suppressing voter turnout and allowing the spending of huge sums by wealthy corporations and individuals. [6]

[1]       Murphthesurf3, 11/20/14, “GOP columnist: The VERY bad news for the GOP in the GOP’s midterm victory,” The Daily Kos

[2]       Ladd, C., 11/10/14, “The missing story of the 2014 election,” Houston Chronicle

[3]       Dreier, P., 11/7/14, “Progressive Midterm Victories You Didn’t Hear About — And Some That Could Still Happen,” The American Prospect

[4]       Dreier, P., 11/7/14, see above

[5]       Blumenthal, P., 11/14/14, “Where campaign finance reformers actually won on election day,” The Huffington Post

[6]       Dreier, P., 11/7/14, see above

Advertisement

2014 ELECTION RETROSPECTIVE PART 1: THE MONEY

ABSTRACT: In the 2014 election, the influx and impact of huge amounts of money was clearly evident and the growth of “dark money” – money where the actual contributor is unknown – was a very significant factor. This was the most expensive non-presidential election ever – estimated at $3.7 billion. Outside spending, that is money not spent by the candidates’ campaigns themselves but by supposedly independent groups and the political parties, was more than the spending by the candidates themselves for the first time. This means that accountability for much of what’s said during campaigns no longer rests with the candidates. One facet of this is that a predominant portion of the ads paid for by outside money are negative ads that attack a candidate. These campaign practices undermine both the functioning of and the faith in our democracy.

Roughly a billion dollars was spent on the 36 US Senate races alone – an average of about $30 million each. In the 11 most competitive races for the US Senate, $342 million of non-party outside money was spent with $203 million of this (59%) being “dark money” where the true donor is unknown. The typical contribution to the 5 largest non-party outside spending entities that disclose donors was over $100,000.

The real money story of this election was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors. By super-sizing contributions that benefit specific candidates, the likelihood of corruption escalates because elected officials are pressured to repay big donors after the election.

The results of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and other decisions couldn’t be clearer. Hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors are flooding our elections. Very wealthy donors are contributing millions of dollars. There is very strong evidence that this money is influencing who wins our elections, because the candidate supported by the most money usually wins. This was true for 94% of US House races and 82% of US Senate races in 2014.

There is also strong evidence that our Congress returns the favor by supporting the wealthy interests that funded their elections and put them in office – to the detriment of the middle and working classes. We need look no further than Wall St. to see the evidence: corporate profits, stock prices, CEO pay, and investors’ wealth have never been higher. Yet, the middle and working class still struggle to make ends meet.

This is not democracy. We need to reverse the Supreme Court’s decisions through a Constitutional Amendment. In the meantime we need much stronger disclosure laws for campaign spending so we know who is trying to influence our votes. More on this next time.

FULL POST: In the 2014 election, the influx and impact of huge amounts of money was clearly evident and the growth of “dark money” – money where the actual contributor is unknown – was a very significant factor.

In this post, I will review the role of money in the 2014 national election. In a subsequent post, I’ll identify ways we can address the corrupting and undemocratic flow of huge sums of money into our elections. Further analysis of the 2014 election in future posts will cover some state and local elections results, as well as the success of progressive candidates and ballot initiatives (despite the general, national success of “conservative” and Republican candidates).

This was the most expensive non-presidential campaign ever – estimated at $3.7 billion. Outside spending, that is money not spent by the candidates’ campaigns themselves but by supposedly independent groups and the political parties, was more than the spending by the candidates themselves for the first time. This means that accountability for much of what’s said during campaigns no longer rests with the candidates. They can – and do – say that they have no control over the outside groups. With increasing amounts of outside spending, and especially the growth of spending by groups that do not have to disclose contributors, accountability for and constraints on what is said vanish. One facet of this is that a predominant portion of the ads paid for by outside money are negative ads that attack a candidate. This tends to discourage people from voting and lowers their opinions of our elected officials and government. These campaign practices undermine both the functioning of and the faith in our democracy.

Roughly a billion dollars was spent on the 36 US Senate races alone – an average of about $30 million each. North Carolina’s Senate race was the most expensive ever with $116 million spent, including $84 million of outside spending – which shattered the previous outside spending record of $52 million. Spending on the 10 most expensive US House races averaged over $16 million each. [1]

In the 11 most competitive races for the US Senate, [2] $342 million in non-party outside money was spent, plus $89 million from the political parties. The non-party, outside spending on just these 11 races is one-third more than the outside spending on all 33 Senate races in 2012. Of the $342 million of non-party outside money, $203 million (59%) was “dark money” where the true donor is unknown. And this “dark money” may have tipped these elections, as winners of these races received twice as much “dark money” as the losers. For the 8 Republican winners, an average of 78% of their non-party, outside money was “dark money.” [3]

Non-party outside spending is NOT funded by regular voters. The typical contribution to the 5 largest non-party outside spending entities that disclose donors was over $100,000. For sake of comparison, this is more than the average household income in the US, which is $73,000. Of the top 20 outside spending groups, which together spent over $300 million, 7 provide no disclosure of donors, 5 provide partial disclosure, and only 8 provide full disclosure (2 of which are the national parties). [4]

To get an idea of the huge amounts these large donors give:

  • The top 20 individual donors to outside groups gave an average of $8.4 million each, while
  • The top 20 organizations donating to outside groups gave an average of $5.8 million each.

All told, these two groups of 40 donors gave a combined $284.7 million, which far exceeds the projected spending of either of the national parties. [5]

This election documented again that money is a deciding factor. When “conservative” outside groups outspent “liberal” groups, the “conservative,” i.e., Republican, candidate won every time. [6] However, the real money story of this election was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors. [7]

A particular type of outside spending that is of special concern is candidate-specific super PACs. Big donors are using these groups to evade limits on contributions directly to candidates. By super-sizing contributions that benefit specific candidates, the likelihood of corruption escalates because elected officials are pressured to repay big outside donors after the election. [8]

The results of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and other decisions couldn’t be clearer. Hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors are flooding our elections. Very wealthy donors are contributing millions of dollars. There is very strong evidence that this money is influencing who wins our elections, because the candidate supported by the most money usually wins. This was true for 94% of US House races and 82% of US Senate races in 2014.

As others have said, we have the best Congress money can buy. There is also strong evidence that our Congress returns the favor by supporting the wealthy interests that funded their elections and put them in office – to the detriment of the middle and working classes. We need look no further than Wall St. to see the evidence: corporate profits, stock prices, CEO pay, and investors’ wealth have never been higher. Yet, the middle and working class still struggle to make ends meet.

This is not democracy. We need to reverse the Supreme Court’s decisions through a Constitutional Amendment. In the meantime we need much stronger disclosure laws for campaign spending so we know who is trying to influence our votes. Unfortunately, Congress is very unlikely to strengthen disclosure laws, so it will be up to each state to do so.

More on what’s being done to address these issues, and on what you can do, in an upcoming post.

[1]       Waldman, P., 11/11/14, “This year’s biggest spenders,” The American Prospect

[2]       Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

[3]       Vandewalker, I., 11/10/14, “Outside spending and dark money in toss-up Senate races: Post-election update,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/outside-spending-and-dark-money-toss-senate-races-post-election-update)

[4]       Vandewalker, I., 11/10/14, see above

[5]       OpenSecrets.org, 10/29/14, “Overall Spending Inches Up in 2014: Megadonors Equip Outside Groups to Capture a Bigger Share of the Pie,” Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/10/overall-spending-inches-up-in-2014-megadonors-equip-outside-groups-to-capture-a-bigger-share-of-the-pie/)

[6]       Miller, J., 11/5/14, “Top 5 Senate races where dark money and outside spending ran wild,” The American Prospect

[7]       Choma, R., 11/5/14, “Money won on Tuesday, but rules of the game changed,” Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/money-won-on-tuesday-but-rules-of-the-game-changed/)

[8]       Vandewalker, I., 10/21/14, “Election Spending 2014: 9 Toss-Up Senate Races,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-spending-2014-9-toss-senate-races)

VOTING MATTERS

ABSTRACT: Election Day is just over a week away. Although it’s easy to look at the dysfunction in Washington and the huge amounts of money being spent on campaigns and feel that voting and participating in the election doesn’t matter, that would be wrong. There will be lots of close elections this year all across the country – both for elected officials and for citizen’s initiatives that will be on the ballot. There are vested interests, usually corporations and wealthy individuals, and in many cases the Republicans have been their allies, who are trying to keep or discourage people from voting. Therefore, it is important to get out and vote, and to encourage others to do so, to send a message that these efforts to suppress voting, which are blatantly anti-democratic, won’t work.

There are many good candidates and important citizens’ initiatives on the ballot that deserve and need our votes. Even if there aren’t candidates or ballot questions that are important to vote for in your district, you can make phone calls to encourage people to vote (in your district or others) and you can donate money to out-of-your-district candidates that share your views or to organizations that support your views. If you want to support progressive candidates, an easy way to do so is through the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) at http://boldprogressives.org/. Move On.org is another, similar organization that you can support through donations, signing their petitions on a range of issues, or supporting out-of-your-district candidates through them: http://front.moveon.org/.

This is going to be a close election at the local level and nationally. The implications for our democracy are extremely significant. We need to send a message to our politicians that we, the voters, are the voice of democracy and that we want government that works. They need to know that we want them to represent our interests, not those of large corporations and the very wealthy.

FULL POST: Election Day is just over a week away. Although it’s easy to look at the dysfunction in Washington and the huge amounts of money being spent on campaigns and feel that voting and participating in the election doesn’t matter, that would be wrong.

There will be lots of close elections this year all across the country – both for elected officials and for citizen’s initiatives that will be on the ballot – where a few voters will make all the difference. The results in these races will matter. Moreover, there are vested interests, usually corporations and wealthy individuals, and in many cases the Republicans have been their allies, who are trying to keep or discourage people from voting. They do so because they know that their supporters will vote and the lower they can keep the voter turnout, the more likely they are to win.

They work to keep voting down in two main ways. First, they enact laws and voting procedures that make it harder to vote. These voting barriers primarily affect low income and minority voters. They also disproportionately affect seniors and women. These groups are more likely to vote for progressive politicians and policies, as well as for Democrats. Therefore, these wealthy and corporate interests want to reduce voting by people in these groups. [1] [2] [3]

Second, the wealthy and corporate interests engage in massive funding of negative campaign ads. These discourage voters and make them cynical. They also introduce doubts into voters’ minds about good candidates. The huge number of these negative ads and their repetition drowns out other information and shifts voters’ perceptions even when the message presented is distorted or false. This applies to ballot questions as well as candidates.

Therefore, it is important to get out and vote, and to encourage others to do so, simply to send a message that these efforts to suppress voting, which are blatantly anti-democratic, won’t work. The higher the voter turnout, the closer we are to having the true democracy that is America’s ideal.

There are many good candidates on the ballot that deserve and need our votes. In some cases, it may not be an ideal candidate, but there often are significant differences between the candidates, nonetheless. There also are important citizens’ initiatives or questions on the ballot that will make important policy changes. [4]

Even if there aren’t candidates or ballot questions that are important to vote for in your district, there are two things you can do to help candidates in other districts, if you are so motivated. You can make phone calls to encourage people to vote (i.e., get out the vote or GOTV calls) in your district or others. These are very important because without a Presidential election on the ballot turnout tends to be low, and, as I mentioned above, there are active efforts to keep and discourage people from voting. Therefore, encouragement to get out and vote can make a difference.

The other thing you can do is donate money to out-of-your-district candidates that share your views or to organizations that support your views. Any amount helps. If many people give just $5.00, it can add up to a significant amount.

If you want to support progressive candidates – what some people are referring to as the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party – an easy way to do so is through the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) at http://boldprogressives.org/. Key issues for PCCC are taking back our democracy from wealthy individuals and corporations, expanding Social Security, fixing Wall St., and addressing the burden of student loan debt. If you click on the collage of four faces at the top of their web page, you will get a list of candidates they support. You can easily decide which ones you’d like to support and how much to contribute (as little as $3). If you click on the Call Out The Vote box right next to the faces, you’ll be given information on how you can make GOTV calls.

Move On.org is another organization that you can support through donations, signing their petitions on a range of issues, or supporting out-of-your-district candidates through them: http://front.moveon.org/. They support issues and candidates that are similar to those of PCCC.

This is going to be a close election at the local level and nationally. The implications for our democracy are extremely significant. We need to send a message to our politicians that we, the voters, are the voice of democracy and that we want government that works. They need to know that we want them to represent our interests, not those of large corporations and the very wealthy.

[1]       Moyers, B., 10/24/14, “The Fight — and the Right — to Vote,” Moyers & Company (http://billmoyers.com/episode/fight-right-vote/)

[2]       Boston Globe Editorial, 10/18/14, “Voter ID laws: Study proves the obvious,” The Boston Globe

[3]       Dubose, L., 9/1/14, “The party of Lincoln takes aim at Black voters,” The Washington Spectator

[4]       Hightower, J., Oct. 2014, “Election 2014: A politics that matters is bubbling up,” The Hightower Lowdown (http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/)

DEMOCRATIZING CAMPAIGN FINANCING

ABSTRACT: We need to change our system of financing political campaigns. Candidates need to be able to run viable campaigns based on the financial support of average voters, and without the support of the small number of wealthy donors who dominate current campaign funding. Many people who would make great elected representatives don’t even run for office because they don’t have access to the money needed to run a credible campaign.

We can make small contributions more valuable by matching them with public funds. The Government by the People Act (HR 20) has been introduced in the US House and would match contributions of up to $150 with $6 of public funds for every dollar of private funds. Campaign financing systems that match small contributions are already in place in states from Maine to Arizona and in New York City. They amplify the voice of small donors and blunt the influence of large donors. As a result, the number of people running and the competition for elected offices has increased. To encourage more voters to be contributors, a voucher or tax credit could be provided to each citizen to be used to support a candidate for federal office.

By democratizing campaign financing, we regain democracy by getting our elected representatives to represent us instead of big campaign donors. In previous posts, I mentioned the effort to raise $12 million to fund the Mayday PAC, which would support candidates for Congress who support campaign finance reform. I’m happy to report that the fundraising effort was successful and the Mayday PAC is now selecting the 5 or so races that it will target in 2014.

FULL POST: We need to change our system of financing political campaigns. Candidates need to be able to run viable campaigns based on the financial support of average voters. As long as the support of the small number of wealthy donors who contribute more than $200 (less than 1% of the population) is necessary, our elected representatives are likely to at least lean toward representing those donors’ views and interests, instead of the broader, public interest. Keep in mind that not only does the candidate with the most money usually win, but many people who would make great elected representatives don’t even run for office because they don’t have access to the money needed to run a credible campaign under the current campaign financing system.

One solution would be to remove all private money from public elections. Campaigns would be paid for with public money. Proposals to do this have been put forward and such legislation has been filed in Congress, but this approach is unlikely to garner much support and would almost certainly require a Constitutional amendment.

A more feasible strategy, supported by individuals on both the right and left, wouldn’t remove private money from public elections but would make small contributions much more valuable and make campaigns based on them much more possible.

We can make small contributions more valuable by matching them with public funds. The Government by the People Act (HR 20) has been introduced in the US House and would match contributions of up to $150 with $6 of public funds for every dollar of private funds. Therefore, a $50 contribution would provide the candidate with $350. To qualify for the matching funds, a candidate for Congress would have to raise $50,000 in contributions of $150 or less from at least 1,000 donors in his or her home state. The candidate could not accept contributions of more than $1,000, could not accept PAC money, and would be strictly limited in the use of his or her own money in the campaign. Including these contribution caps is essential to limit the role of wealthy interests and is a reasonable and legal trade-off for receiving public matching funds. A similar bill, the Fair Elections Now Act, has been introduced in the US Senate.

You can get lots more information and all the details of these bills here (http://ofby.us/) and sign on as a citizen co-sponsor here (http://ofby.us/citizen-cosponsor/). Contacting your Representative and Senators to let them know you support this legislation would be valuable as well.

Forty groups have already endorsed this legislation: good government groups such as Common Cause, public interest groups such as the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, labor unions such as the National Education Association and the Communications Workers of America, and civil rights groups such as the NAACP.

Campaign financing systems that match small contributions, as these bills in Congress would, are already in place in states from Maine to Arizona and in New York City. They amplify the voice of small donors and blunt the influence of large donors. They also allow average citizens to run competitive campaigns. As a result, the number of people running and the competition for elected offices has increased where these financing systems are in place. This results in greater representation of the common interest and reduced influence for special interests.

To increase the number of small contributions and to encourage more voters to be contributors, a voucher or tax credit could be provided to each citizen to be used to support a candidate for federal office. The voucher or tax credit, in effect, makes the contribution free for the voter. The Government by the People Act proposes a $25 tax credit. Amounts ranging from $25 to $200 have been proposed. Increased numbers of contributors results in a more engaged and committed public, as well as elected officials who are more responsive to the public good. [1]

Using matching funds, along with a voucher or tax credit, would give candidates a way to fund their campaigns through small contributions. As a result, candidates would have an incentive to work hard   from one election to the next to give the average voter (not just the wealthy ones) a reason to contribute to them. The increased number and value of small-dollar contributions can remove the influence of big money and big donors from campaigns. By democratizing campaign financing, we regain democracy by getting our elected representatives to represent us instead of big campaign donors.

We do need constitutional changes to control the spending outside of candidates’ campaigns. This will require reversing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions by making it clear that corporations do not have the same rights as human beings and that unlimited political spending is not the same as freedom of speech and can be regulated and limited in the interest of preserving democracy and preventing corruption. Resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment have been introduced in both the House and Senate. In the Senate, a constitutional amendment allowing the regulation of money in politics has been approved in a committee and is headed to the floor for a vote of the full Senate.

The Constitutional amendment process is long and difficult. However, right now, we can make enormous progress on the financing of candidates’ campaigns in a much easier and quicker way   through changes in campaign finance laws. To create pressure for politicians to face up to this campaign financing crisis, we all need to communicate with our elected officials and also to support the election of candidates who will address this problem.

In previous posts, I mentioned the effort to raise $12 million to fund the Mayday PAC, which would support candidates for Congress who support campaign finance reform. I’m happy to report that the fundraising effort was successful and the Mayday PAC is now selecting the 5 or so races that it will target in 2014. [2] If you’d like to suggest a candidate it should support or oppose you can do so here: https://mayday.us/suggest-a-candidate/.

Reforms of our campaign finance system are critical to reclaiming democracy and moving back toward the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. In the current system, it’s dollars that matter; money determines who runs, who wins, and what policies are enacted. Right now, big donors – wealthy individuals and corporations – are drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. We must fight back.

[1]       Overton, S., 11/13/12, “The participation interest,” The Georgetown Law Journal (http://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/the-participation-interest/)

[2]       Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58

POLITICAL MONEY AND INFLUENCE OF THE WEALTHY GROWS AND GROWS

ABSTRACT: The political money and influence of the wealthy grows and grows. Wealthy donors making large contributions of up to $2,600 directly to Congressional candidates’ campaigns represent the great majority of candidates’ funding. There had been an overall limit of $123,200 on the grand total any individual could contribute in a two-year federal election cycle. However, the Supreme Court just ruled that this limit is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. A wealthy individual can now contribute roughly $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in every 2-year election cycle.  (This is in addition to the unlimited money they can spend on campaign advocacy outside of candidates’ campaign accounts based on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.)

Furthermore, a donor can gather checks from colleagues and friends and present them to the candidate along with his or her own check. This is a practice known as “bundling.” Often these bundlers pledge to raise $100,000 or more for a candidate.

Candidates spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money. If they can raise money in bigger chunks, they will. Therefore, candidates focus on the few big “funders” of campaigns. These big contributors or bundlers have more than an adequate incentive to contribute because it ensures that candidates hear their particular views and that candidates have an incentive to support big contributors’ views when policy is made.

The result is that our “democracy” is not representing us – the average voter. What we have here in the US is increasingly a plutocracy: government dominated by the small minority that are the wealthiest citizens. Coming up in my next post: strategies for reforming our system of financing campaigns to reclaim our democracy.

FULL POST: The political money and influence of the wealthy grows and grows. Wealthy donors making large contributions of up to $2,600 directly to Congressional candidates’ campaigns represent the great majority of candidates’ funding. Candidates for Congress raise only about 11% of their campaign contributions from donors giving less than $200.

Beyond donations to candidates’ campaigns, wealthy individuals can also give up to $32,400 per year to a national political party. There had been an overall limit of $123,200 on the grand total any individual could contribute in a two-year federal election cycle. However, the Supreme Court just ruled that this limit is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech in its McCutcheon decision.

Although the limit on a contribution to any candidate’s campaign or to a party remains (for now, see below), a wealthy individual can now contribute roughly $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in every 2-year election cycle. [1] Through joint fundraisers and committees, wealthy contributors will now be solicited to write a single check for hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million dollars or more. (This is in addition to the unlimited money they can spend on campaign advocacy outside of candidates’ campaign accounts based on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.)

A court challenge to the contribution limit on donations to party committees has been filed by the Republican National Committee [2] and a challenge to the limit on contributions to individual candidates’ campaigns is likely. If successful, these challenges would allow wealthy individuals, and perhaps corporations, to give unlimited amounts of money directly to political candidates and parties.

Furthermore, a donor can gather checks from colleagues and friends and present them to the candidate along with his or her own check. This is a practice known as “bundling,” and the donor’s sway with the candidate is, of course, enhanced by delivering these large sums to the candidate’s campaign. Often these bundlers pledge to raise $100,000 or more for a candidate – far beyond the individual limit of $2,600.

Imagine you’re a candidate running for political office. You can either try to raise $100,000 from a thousand people in $100 contributions (a big contribution for most people), or you can try to raise $100,000 from 40 wealthy individuals or via one bundler. Candidates spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money. If they can raise money in bigger chunks, they will. Therefore, candidates focus on the few big “funders” of campaigns, because with each big catch they can cover much more of their campaign costs. [3] These big contributors, now more than ever, will be national figures, not ones with any connection to a candidate’s district or state.

Edwin Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics notes that “contribution limits play a crucial role in … increasing the participation rate by small-dollar donors.” [4] So as the Supreme Court eliminates contribution limits as unconstitutional limits on freedom of speech, the candidates focus on fewer and fewer donors who contribute larger and larger amounts. These big contributors or bundlers have more than an adequate incentive to contribute because it ensures that candidates hear their particular views  – about regulation, government spending, limits on lawsuits, trade, workers’ protections, intellectual property right s, or whatever – and that candidates have an incentive to support big contributors’ views when policy is made.

In a recent study from Princeton (the largest empirical analysis of government policy decision making to-date), Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page conclude that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial … impacts on U.S. governmental policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no … influence.” [5]

With candidates dependent on big contributors for the money necessary to run a competitive campaign, it’s not surprising that policies reflect the interests of these contributors and not the average citizen. The result is that our “democracy” is not representing us – the average voter – and therefore is not working as our founders intended. What we have here in the US is increasingly a plutocracy: government dominated by the small minority that are the wealthiest citizens.

Coming up in my next post: strategies for reforming our system of financing campaigns to reclaim our democracy by making our elected officials beholden to us. As a result, they would have incentives to represent us instead of wealthy individuals and corporations.

[1]       Lee, C., 5/5/14, “The fatter the wallet, the louder the voice,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/fatter-wallet-louder-voice)

[2]       Money in Politics Newsletter, 5/29/14, “The aftermath of McCutcheon v. FEC,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/newsletter/money-politics-newsletter-mccutcheons-aftermath-primary-fundraising)

[3]       Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58

[4]       Bender, E., 5/13/13, “Evidencing a republican form of government: The influence of campaign money on state-level elections,” Montana Law Review (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/Evidencing_a_Republican_Form_of_Government.pdf)

[5]       Gilens, M., & Page, B., 4/9/14, “Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens,” (http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf)

THE RISE OF DARK MONEY IN CAMPAIGNS

ABSTRACT: An increasing amount and proportion of election spending is coming from non-profit organizations that do not disclose their donors. This so-called “dark money” keeps voters in the dark about who is trying to influence their votes. Legislation to require disclosure of donors to “dark money” groups has been introduced at the federal level and in a number of state legislatures.

We need Representatives and Senators in Congress who will reform our campaign finance system. Ironically, there is a super PAC being formed to elect Congress people who will reform our campaign finance system. I urge you to join this effort now. Please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old) to participate.

FULL POST: An increasing amount and proportion of election spending is coming from non-profit organizations that do not disclose their donors. They claim to be social welfare organizations [501(c)(4)s] or professional trade associations [501(c)(6)s] despite spending millions of dollars on political activity. [1] This so-called “dark money” keeps voters in the dark about who is trying to influence their votes.

In the 2014 election cycle to-date, three times as much dark money has been spent as had been spent at this point in 2012, even though that was a presidential election year. Furthermore, 2014 dark money spending to-date is almost 20 times that of the last mid-term election in 2010. [2] If the 2014 spending pattern is the same as in 2010, over $400 million of dark money will be spent by election day.

So far in the 2014 election cycle for the US Senate, groups outside and supposedly independent of candidates’ campaigns, are responsible for 59% of the TV ads aired, a big increase from 2012. More than half of those ads have been paid for by “dark money” groups that don’t disclose their donors. [3]

Legislation to require disclosure of donors to “dark money” groups has been introduced at the federal level and in a number of state legislatures. The federal DISCLOSE Act was filibustered in the US Senate in September 2010. (There were 59 votes in favor, a clear majority, but one short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster.) A new version of the bill was introduced in 2012 but is stalled in the Senate.

In Massachusetts, and in some other states as well, legislation is progressing that would increase the disclosure of donors to political spending and the timeliness with which it must occur. The MA law would require disclosure of all donors promptly, before the election, so voters would know who was trying to influence their votes. [4] (If you live in Massachusetts, now would be a good time to call your legislators and urge them to support the timely disclosure of contributors to political spending). Super PACs are already running ads focused on the November election for Massachusetts’ Governor. [5] And in last year’s contest for Mayor in Boston, organizations independent of the candidates’ campaigns spent over $3.8 million, much of it dark money. This spending was more than two-thirds as much as the campaigns of the two finalists spent on their own ($5.4 million). [6]

The use of dark money is growing in part because wealthy individuals’ millions of dollars of campaign spending is receiving increased attention. Many of these wealthy individuals prefer to remain anonymous and therefore prefer to channel their exorbitant campaign spending through groups that do not report their donors. [7] Corporations similarly prefer to remain anonymous when they engage in political spending. So they are channeling their contributions through dark money groups as well. [8]

The Open Secrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/) has been digging into the money spent in the 2012 campaigns by Super PACs and non-profit organizations. It has now documented a web of over a dozen such organizations that transferred money among themselves. This served to hide the true sources of campaign spending, delay any reporting of it, and circumvent IRS limits on political activity by non-profit, tax exempt organizations. [9] (See my post of 2/28/14 for more details.)

We need Representatives and Senators in Congress who will reform our campaign finance system to:

  • Require timely reporting of all political spending and contributors, so voters know before they vote who is spending money to influence their votes;
  • Severely limit political activity by non-profit, tax exempt organizations; and
  • Improve enforcement of existing campaign finance laws.

Ironically, there is a super PAC being formed to elect Congress people who will reform our campaign finance system. I urge you to join this effort now, as there is a July 4th deadline for raising $5 million to get this effort off the ground. Please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old) to participate. If you’d like to make a contribution or pledge to this effort, you can do so through my pledge page at: https://my.mayday.us/t/35e1-John-Lippitt#_=_. (See my post of 6/10/14 for more information on the MAYDAY Super PAC.)

[1]       Center for Responsive Politics, 4/30/14, “OpenSecrets.org provides testimony, data for Senate Rules hearing on dark money,” https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/opensecrets-org-provides-testimony-data-for-senate-rules-hearing-on-dark-money/

[2]       Maguire, R., 4/30/14, “How 2014 is shaping up to be the darkest money election to date,” https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/how-2014-is-shaping-up-to-be-the-darkest-money-election-to-date/

[3]       Center for Responsive Politics, 4/30/14, see above

[4]       Phillips, F., 6/18/14, “Bill would increase super PAC disclosures,” The Boston Globe

[5]       Miller, J., 4/28/14, “Super PAC launches ads against Charlie Baker, Common Cause decries outside spending,” The Boston Globe

[6]       McMorrow, P., 11/12/13, “Citizens United comes to local races,” The Boston Globe

[7]       Gold, M., 5/30/14, “Attacks drive GOP donors to stealth nonprofits,” The Boston Globe from The Washington Post

[8]       Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58

[9]       Maguire, R., 12/3/13, “At least 1 in 4 dark money dollars in 2012 had Koch links,” OpenSecretsblog (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/12/1-in-4-dark-money-dollars-in-2012-c.html)

THE RISE OF SUPER PACs AND THE DEMISE OF DEMOCRACY

ABSTRACT: The rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) in the last four years and their ability, along with that of wealthy individuals and organizations, to spend unlimited amounts of money in US political campaigns are dramatically reshaping our politics. This is a new version of a very old game  –  pay to play – where private interests buy access and influence in our political system and policy making. As a result, independent spending – spending on political campaigns separate from and independent (theoretically) of the candidates’ campaign committees themselves – skyrocketed in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to over $400 million, ten times its level in 2008.

In the two-year 2012 election cycle, 132 wealthy Americans provided 60 percent of the Super PAC money raised. Super PACs have become the primary vehicle through which the wealthy elite exert political influence that overwhelms the common good and the voice of the vast majority of the people. Super PACS are just the latest, but certainly the most toxic, in a trend of increasing spending and influence by wealthy special interests in our political system.

FULL POST: The rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) in the last four years and their ability, along with that of wealthy individuals and organizations, to spend unlimited amounts of money in US political campaigns are dramatically reshaping our politics. This is a new version of a very old game  –  pay to play – where private interests buy access and influence in our political system and policy making. [1]

First, a little historical background on the rise of political spending and influence by wealthy individuals and corporations. In 1976, the Supreme Court (in the Buckley vs. Valeo decision) declared that the First Amendment gave rich people the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political elections –  so long as that influence was “independent” of a political campaign. It also allowed them to spend unlimited sums on their own campaigns if they ran for an elected office.

In 2010, the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case gave corporations, unions, and other organizations the same right to spend unlimited money in political campaigns that it had given to rich people. In March, 2010, another court ruled that if rich people could spend as much as they want independently of any political campaign, they should also be free to contribute as much as they want to any independent political action committee. Thus the Super PAC was created – free to accept and spend unlimited amounts of money, so long as it did not coordinate with any candidate’s campaign (at least not openly). As a result, independent spending – spending on political campaigns separate from and independent (theoretically) of the candidates’ campaign committees themselves – skyrocketed in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to over $400 million, ten times its level in 2008.

In the two-year 2012 election cycle, 132 wealthy Americans provided 60 percent of the Super PAC money raised. That number will go up in 2014. If it goes up to say 3,000, the funders of these Super PACs will still represent only a tiny minority of the 300 million Americans.

Super PACs have become the primary vehicle through which the wealthy elite exert political influence that overwhelms the common good and the voice of the vast majority of the people. That’s the “democracy” we have now –  a political system that has corrupted the intended representative democracy spelled out in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.

Super PACS are just the latest, but certainly the most toxic, in a trend of increasing spending and influence by wealthy special interests in our political system. As they learn to effectively coordinate campaigns without technically coordinating (because that would be illegal), they are becoming a critical component of any effective political campaign. Candidates quickly learn the dance that assures that funding gets directed to the Super PACs that support them. However, there is, in effect, no accountability for the statements or actions of these Super PACs, as the candidates can claim a lack of knowledge and control of their actions.

The single greatest fear of any candidate, particularly any incumbent, is that thirty days before an election, some anonymously-funded Super PAC will spend $1 million against him or her. Therefore, candidates work to ensure that a Super PAC will be there to support them if needed. Candidates will position themselves as the kind of elected official a Super PAC wants to support and protect from a last minute assault.

My next post will discuss the growing presence of secret donors and “dark” money in our political campaigns because of Super PACs that do not disclose their donors. I’ll also review the increasing ability of wealthy donors to contribute large sums directly to candidates’ campaigns and the impact that all of this big money in our politics has on who runs for office. Then, I’ll present solutions to this corruption of our democracy, in addition to the MAYDAY Super PAC strategy, which I described in my previous post on 6/10/14.

 

[1]       Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58 (This blog post is, in large part, a summarized excerpt from this article.)

A SUPER PAC TO END SUPER PACs – YOU CAN HELP!

ABSTRACT: We need to elect US Senators, Representatives, and ultimately a President who will support an end to Super PACs and unlimited money in our political campaigns. Lawrence Lessig is undertaking an innovative and counter-intuitive strategy to do so: creating a Super PAC to elect Congress people who will support the needed changes in our campaign financing laws. Lessig and his organization, Rootstrikers (http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/), have developed a well thought out plan to do this, and you can be part of it.

 

In the 2014 elections, they plan to target a small number of races with the goal of winning at least 5 of them – if they can raise the $12 million needed to fund their plan. The plan raises half of the $12 million using a crowd-funded, kickstarter-type approach. Lessig has pledged to find a match for the $6 million raised through crowd-funding. The initial campaign was launched on May 1. In thirteen days, the targeted $1 million was raised, with 13,000 contributors giving an average of $87 per contribution. In June, the second round was launched with the goal of raising the other $5 million by July 4.

For more information and to participate in this effort, please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old). If you’d like to make a contribution or pledge to this effort, you can do so through my pledge page at: https://my.mayday.us/t/35e1-John-Lippitt#_=_.

FULL POST: We need to elect US Senators, Representatives, and ultimately a President who will support an end to Super PACs and unlimited money in our political campaigns. However, this seems like a Catch-22 because these elected officials have been successful using the current system. For any candidate to single-handedly fight the current system is like unilateral disarmament; it’s essentially guaranteed to be a losing strategy.

So how do we solve this conundrum? Harvard Law School Professor and campaign reform advocate, Lawrence Lessig [1], is undertaking an innovative and counter-intuitive strategy: creating a Super PAC to elect Congress people who will support the needed changes in our campaign financing laws.

Lessig and his organization, Rootstrikers (http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/), have developed a well thought out plan to do this [2], and you can be part of it.They are creating a Super PAC to literally end Super PACs. In the 2014 elections, they plan to target a small number of races with the goal of winning at least 5 of them – if they can raise the $12 million needed to fund their plan. This would allow them to learn what it takes to win campaigns and, second, by winning, to convince others to take this effort seriously. Then, they plan to undertake a much larger effort in 2016.

The plan raises half of the $12 million using a crowd-funded, kickstarter-type approach. The money will be raised in two stages – first, by raising $1 million in thirty days, and then, if that goal is met, raising another $5 million in the next thirty days. Lessig has pledged to find a match for the $6 million raised through crowd-funding, so that by July 4 the Super PAC would have the $12 million needed for the targeted 2014 campaigns.

The initial campaign was launched on May 1. This is “May Day,” which evokes the distress call, “MAYDAY,” and provides the name of the Super PAC: the MAYDAY PAC. In thirteen days, the targeted $1 million was raised, with 13,000 contributors giving an average of $87 per contribution. (I contributed $25.) In June, the second round was launched with the goal of raising the other $5 million by July 4. If that’s successful and the additional matches are found, the campaign will be kicked off with a goal of winning at least five races in 2014. This will build the momentum needed for a much bigger Super PAC and campaign in 2016. [3]

For more information and to participate in this effort, please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old). If you’d like to make a contribution or pledge to this effort, you can do so through my pledge page at: https://my.mayday.us/t/35e1-John-Lippitt#_=_.

I do believe that our campaign financing system is at the root of the problems of our democracy and our society. I’ll share more information about the current state of our campaign finance system and background on this MAYDAY effort in subsequent posts. You can find past posts on this topic by clicking on the Campaigns: Financing & Voting category in the right sidebar of my blog (below the list of recent posts, the monthly archives, and the FOLLOW button).

[1]       For more information about Lawrence Lessig, see http://www.lessig.org/about/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig.

[2]       Listen to Lessig’s 14 minute TED talk at http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_walk_to_political_reform?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+TEDTalks_video+(TEDTalks+Main+(SD)+-+Site)&utm_content=TED+talks&utm_term=NTechMedia.

[3]       Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58 (This blog post is a summarized excerpt from this article.)

HOW MONEY IS CORRUPTING OUR POLITICS

ABSTRACT: Huge contributions and expenditures from wealthy special interests were front and center in the 2012 campaigns because of the unlimited spending allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The 32 biggest donors to Super PACs spent as much money as the total of all the donations by the 3.7 million Americans who made small donations to the Obama or Romney campaigns.

The Open Secrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/) investigates and reports on money in campaigns. It has now documented a web of over a dozen organizations that transferred money among themselves to hide the true sources of campaign spending, so-called “dark money.” Dark money has been used in state, local, and national campaigns. Adding an international element to the dark money issue, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman illegally funneled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell corporations.

The amounts of money that candidates for Congress have to raise for their campaigns is staggering. A member of the US House needs to raise, on average, $15,000 each and every week; a Senator needs to raise $33,000 every week. Time spent fundraising is time that doesn’t get spent working on legislation or listening to and representing average constituents.

The dominance of money in campaigns, and of wealthy special interests in providing this money, skews the priorities and policy positions of elected officials. It corrupts the making of public policy. Reforms of our campaign finance system are needed and can be done now (within the context of the Supreme Court’s rulings) that:

  • Amplify the voices of average citizens and their small contributions to campaigns,
  • Require timely reporting of all campaign spending and contributions, and
  • Severely limit political activity by tax exempt organizations.

FULL POST: Huge contributions and expenditures from wealthy special interests were front and center in the 2012 campaigns because of the unlimited spending allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Private watchdog groups are continuing to trace and expose the sources and convoluted paths of money going from wealthy donors to campaign spending. This both exposes the donors (who often wish to remain secret) and illustrates the need for reform. Here are a few examples of their extensive findings.

The 32 biggest donors to Super PACs spent as much money as the total of all the donations by the 3.7 million Americans who made small donations to the Obama or Romney campaigns. [1] The two Koch brothers, billionaires due to their oil and industrial corporations, spent at least $400 million on campaigns in 2012, which is more than John McCain’s entire presidential campaign spent in 2008. [2] And fewer than 300,000 individuals (one-tenth of one percent of the 300 million Americans) provided the majority, roughly 60%, of the money raised by Congressional candidates from individuals. [3]

The Open Secrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/) investigates and reports on money in campaigns. It has been digging into the money spent in the 2012 campaigns by Super PACs and social welfare groups (tax exempt 501(c)(4) organizations). It has now documented a web of over a dozen organizations that transferred money among themselves to hide the true sources of campaign spending, delay any reporting of it, and circumvent IRS limits on political activity by non-profit, tax exempt organizations. It has also documented that at least one quarter of the so-called “dark money” – money where the source was hidden – was linked to the two Koch brothers. [4]

Dark money was used in state as well as national campaigns. In California, an $11 million campaign contribution of dark money by a non-profit, tax exempt organization opposing a tax increase sparked an inquiry by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a grand jury investigation into violations of campaign finance laws and money laundering. A judge forced the Americans for Responsible Leadership, the apparent source of the contribution, to reveal the original source of the money. The money had come from the Center to Protect Patient Rights, another Arizona non-profit, which received the money from Americans for Job Security, a Virginia non-profit. Both of these organizations are connected to the Koch brothers’ political money network. The organizations have agreed to disgorge the $11 million contribution and pay a record $1 million fine. The investigation also uncovered a separate $4.1 million illegal contribution that now will also be disgorged. California is working to improve disclosure of campaign contributions and strengthen laws and regulations to stop dark money activity. [5]

Dark money has arrived at the local level as well. In the recent Boston mayoral election, organizations independent of the candidates’ campaigns spent over $3.8 million, much of it dark money. This spending had a significant impact as it was more than two-thirds as much as the campaigns of the two finalists spent on their own ($5.4 million). As a result, Massachusetts elected officials are working on laws that would tighten regulation of campaign spending, and, in particular, require disclosure of all donors promptly, before the election, so voters would know who was responsible for the spending. [6][7]

Adding an international element to the dark money issue, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman illegally funneled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell corporations. This is the first known instance of a foreign national exploiting the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to spend money on U.S. elections. The allegations surrounding Jose Susumo Azano Matsura, the owner of multiple construction companies in Mexico, include bankrolling a handful of southern California candidates. The scandal involves a U.S. congressman, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign firm, and the consequences of the Citizens United decision. That decision, which gives corporations the right to funnel donations to US candidates, allowed Matsura to obscure the true source of the donations and, therefore, the citizenship of the donor. [8]

The amounts of money that candidates for Congress have to raise for their campaigns is staggering. In 2012, the average cost of a wining campaign for the House was over $1.6 million and over $10.4 million for the Senate. That means that a member of the House, who runs for re-election every two years, needs to raise, on average, $15,000 each and every week. And a Senator needs to raise, on average, $33,000 every week. Newly elected members of Congress are typically told to spend four hours each day raising money. Time spent fundraising is time that doesn’t get spent working on legislation or listening to and representing average constituents. [9]

The dominance of money in campaigns, and of wealthy special interests in providing this money, skews the priorities and policy positions of members of Congress, and other elected officials, to favor the wealthy and special interests over the common good. In other words, it corrupts the making of public policy. Democracy – government of, by, and for the people – is perverted by the current role of money in our political system, where big money drowns out the voices and overwhelms the interests of average citizens.

Reforms of our campaign finance system are needed and can be done now (within the context of the Supreme Court’s rulings) that:

  • Amplify the voices of average citizens and their small contributions to campaigns;
  • Require timely reporting of all campaign spending and contributions (including bundling), so that voters know before they vote where the money is coming from;
  • Limit contributions that elected officials can receive from interests they oversee, from political committees, and from lobbyists;
  • Prohibit fundraising by elected officials during normal working hours;
  • Severely limit political activity by tax exempt organizations and require them to report donors; and
  • Improve enforcement of existing campaign finance laws.

[1]       U.S. PIRG, 2/5/14, “US PIRG applauds the introduction of the Government by the People Act,” U.S. PIRG

[2]       Hight, C., 2/6/14, “Government by the people, not the polluters,” The Huffington Post

[3]       Lioz, A., Feb. 2014, “The Government by the People Act,” Demos (http://www.demos.org/publication/government-people-act)

[4]       Maguire, R., 12/3/13, “At least 1 in 4 dark money dollars in 2012 had Koch links,” OpenSecretsblog (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/12/1-in-4-dark-money-dollars-in-2012-c.html)

[5]       Blumenthal, P., 10/24/13, “California settles ‘dark money’ case,” The Huffington Post

[6]       McMorrow, P., 11/12/13, “Citizens United comes to local races,” The Boston Globe

[7]       Levenson, M., 11/12/13, “Bill would order fast disclosure of donors,” The Boston Globe

[8]       ManfromMiddletown, 2/13/14, “This is how Citizens United dies,” Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277252/-This-is-How-Citizens-United-Dies#)

[9]       Jan, T., 5/12/13, “They go to lead, but courting cash is now job 1,” The Boston Globe

STOPPING THE CORRUPTION OF MONEY IN POLITICS

ABSTRACT: There’s good news on multiple fronts in the effort to stop the corruption of big money in US political campaigns. In the US House, the Government by the People Act (HR 20) has been introduced. It would match small donations – up to $150 – from individuals 6 to 1 so that, for example, a $25 donation would be worth $175 to a candidate running for Congress. In addition, every person who files an income tax return could get a $25 credit for small donations to Congressional candidates. A similar bill, the Fair Elections Now Act, has been introduced in the US Senate.

Meanwhile, last November, the IRS put out proposed regulations to severely limit political activity by tax exempt, non-profit organizations, which spent $300 million on political activities in the 2012 elections. Such regulations would be a huge step toward ending the huge amounts of “dark money” – where the source was hidden – that flowed into campaigns in 2012.

These reforms of our campaign finance system are a critical step in moving back toward the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. In the current system, it’s dollars that matter. In various ways, big donors buy election results. The Supreme Court has ruled that the money of the wealthy and corporations cannot be limited or regulated, because it is speech. Therefore, we must amplify the voices of the rest of us and require disclosure of all campaign contributions and spending. Otherwise, the integrity and legitimacy of our democracy is threatened, and people will justifiably conclude that the system is rigged and that their voices and interests are being drowned out by the money of wealthy individuals and corporations.

FULL POST: There’s good news on multiple fronts in the effort to stop the corruption of big money in US political campaigns. Bills have been filed in Congress to amplify and encourage the voices and money of small donors. The IRS has proposed rules that would require greater disclosure and limit political spending by tax exempt groups.

In the US House, the Government by the People Act (HR 20) has been introduced with 130 House members as co-sponsors (out of 435 total members). It would match small donations – up to $150 – from individuals 6 to 1 so that, for example, a $25 donation would be worth $175 to a candidate running for Congress.

To qualify for the matching funds, a candidate would have to raise $50,000 in contributions of $150 or less from at least 1,000 donors in their home state. The candidate could not accept contributions of more than $1,000, could not accept PAC money, and would be strictly limited in the use of their own money in the campaign.

In addition, every person who files an income tax return could get a $25 credit for small donations to Congressional candidates. (A similar tax credit existed from 1972 to 1986.) Disclosure laws would be tightened so the source of all contributions would have to be publicly disclosed. [1][2]

A similar bill, the Fair Elections Now Act, has been introduced in the US Senate. It shares the goal of super-sizing the influence of small donors and allowing candidates to run competitive races for Congress while relying on small donations from regular people.

You can get lots more information and all the details of these bills here (http://ofby.us/) and sign on as a citizen co-sponsor here (http://ofby.us/citizen-cosponsor/).

Forty groups have already endorsed this legislation: good government groups such as Common Cause, public interest groups such as the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, labor unions such as the National Education Association and the Communications Workers of America, and civil rights groups such as the NAACP.

Campaign funding systems that match small contributions, as the bills in Congress would, are already in place in states from Maine to Arizona and in New York City. They amplify the voice of small donors and blunt the impact of large donations. This allows average citizens to run competitive campaigns. As a result, the number of people running and the competition for elected offices has increased where these matching systems are in place. This results in greater representation of the common interest and reduced influence for special interests.

Meanwhile, last November, the IRS put out proposed regulations to severely limit political activity by tax exempt, non-profit organizations. Abetted by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, non-profit, tax exempt “social welfare” organizations spent $300 million on political activities in the 2012 elections. They can accept unlimited donations and do not have to disclose donors. They can run political ads, engage in other political activities, and make grants to other “social welfare” groups. Although the tax code says these organizations, known as 501(c)(4)s, cannot be engaged primarily in political activity, they easily got around this by claiming the ads and other activities were not political and had some kind of educational or civic purpose.

After ignoring this political activity for years, the IRS has now proposed excluding “candidate-related political activity” from the definition of social welfare activities. This would ban a wide range of political activities, unless they meet a strict nonpartisan test. Such regulations would be a huge step toward ending the huge amounts of “dark money” – where the source was hidden – that flowed into campaigns in 2012. These regulations on political activity should apply to any group, organized under any section of the IRS rules, that doesn’t have to disclose contributors, including business leagues (such as chambers of commerce) and unions. [3]

These reforms of our campaign finance system are a critical step in moving back toward the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. In the current system, it’s dollars that matter; 84% of the time the candidate with the most money won election to the House in 2012. Money also determines who runs and big donors drown out the voices of ordinary citizens in campaigns. In various ways, big donors buy election results.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the money of the wealthy and corporations cannot be limited or regulated, because it is speech. Therefore, we must amplify the voices of the rest of us (which the two bills in Congress will do) and require disclosure of all campaign contributions and spending. Otherwise, the integrity and legitimacy of our democracy is threatened, and people will justifiably conclude that the system is rigged and that their voices and interests are being drowned out by the money of wealthy individuals and corporations.

My next post will give examples of campaign spending that illustrate the need for reforms.

 

[1]       Hight, C., 2/6/14, “Government by the people, not the polluters,” The Huffington Post

[2]       Lioz, A., Feb. 2014, “The Government by the People Act,” Demos (http://www.demos.org/publication/government-people-act)

[3]       The Editorial Board, 2/18/14, “Change the rules on secret money,” The New York Times

ENDING THE CORRUPTION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

ABSTRACT: Whatever your politics – Democratic, Republican or independent; conservative, moderate, or progressive – most people are frustrated that issues they believe are important aren’t being addressed by Congress. The fuel that is really driving this paralysis is Big Money in our political campaigns. It is distorting the operation of government and corrupting our democracy. This corruption is the result of concentrated wealth and power in corporations and wealthy individuals who use their money to buy influence over our government and its politics and policies. Many members of the House and Senate spend more time meeting with lobbyists and special interest groups and fundraising for their next campaign than they do on legislation and representing the people who voted to send them to Washington.

The most immediate action we can take is to push for passage of a carefully designed law that reduces and exposes the flow of political money and influence without violating the Supreme Court’s rulings on freedom of speech. The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA) is a bold, comprehensive law that does this. I urge you to support it by learning more about it (see below for a summary) and becoming a citizen co-sponsor at http://anticorruptionact.org.

FULL POST: Whatever your politics – Democratic, Republican or independent; conservative, moderate, or progressive – most people are frustrated that issues they believe are important aren’t being addressed by Congress. For some it’s fracking or climate change. For others it’s the federal debt, income inequality, gun violence, immigration, health care, regulation of the financial industry (or other corporations), military spending, trade treaties, or something else. Each is an important issue that can evoke strong debate and real passion.

All of these issues deserve a full and open debate, require compromise, and should receive votes on meaningful pieces of legislation. None is receiving it. The system is broken. The pundits and the media say this dysfunction and gridlock in Congress reflect the deep partisan divide in the U.S. However, the fuel that is really driving this paralysis is Big Money in our political campaigns. It is distorting the operation of government and corrupting our democracy.

This corruption is the result of concentrated wealth and power in corporations and wealthy individuals who use their money to buy influence over our government and its politics and policies. We cannot expect action on important issues until we end this corruption, which is deep and pernicious, and threatens the heart of our democratic system. Today, many members of the House and Senate spend more time meeting with lobbyists and special interest groups and fundraising for their next campaign than they do on legislation and representing the people who voted to send them to Washington.

The most immediate action we can take is to push for passage of a carefully designed law that reduces and exposes the flow of political money and influence without violating the Supreme Court’s rulings on freedom of speech. The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA) is a bold, comprehensive law that does this. The campaign to promote it has been launched nationally by a nonpartisan group, Represent.Us (https://represent.us).

Here is what the American Anti-Corruption Act would do:

1)  Prohibit members of Congress from a) receiving contributions from the interests they oversee, and b) fundraising during congressional working hours;

2)  Build the influence of small contributors by creating a $100 tax rebate that registered voters can use to contribute to federal candidates;

3)  Require candidates to disclose the names of individuals (known as “bundlers”) who gather and package together multiple contributions, thereby presenting large sums of money to candidates;

4)  Limit the amount that lobbyists and their clients can contribute to federal candidates, political parties, and political committees to $500 per year;

5)  Limit political action committees’ contributions and their coordination with political campaigns and parties;

6)  Mandate full, timely reporting of all spending of $10,000 or more on political activities;

7)  Expand the legal definition of a lobbyist so anyone trying to influence our lawmakers has to play by the lobbying rules;

8)  Close the “revolving door” through which former elected officials and their staffs capitalize on their connections and influence in high-paying lobbying jobs when they leave office; and

9)  Strengthen enforcement of campaign finance laws.

I urge you to support the American Anti-Corruption Act by learning more about it and becoming a citizen co-sponsor at http://anticorruptionact.org.

SUPREME COURT UPDATES

ABSTRACT: Here are three quick updates related to the US Supreme Court. First, issues with the conduct and ethics of a couple of the Justices have arisen in part because Supreme Court Justices are not covered by the Code of Conduct that applies to all other US judges. A Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 is being proposed in Congress that would require the Court to adopt a code of conduct similar to the one for other judges.

Second, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg recently articulated what many legal scholars have been saying: that the current Court is “one of the most activist courts in history” based on its “readiness to overturn legislation” and judicial precedents.

Third, the Supreme Court will be considering cases in the upcoming year that will produce major decisions. These will give further indications of how the Court is balancing precedent and deference to legislative intent with ideology and activism. On the campaign financing front, the Court will consider a case that challenges the total, or aggregate, contribution limit of $123,200 on what an individual can give directly to all candidates for federal offices combined over the 2 year election cycle.

FULL POST: First, issues with the conduct and ethics of a couple of the Supreme Court Justices have arisen. The Supreme Court Justices are not covered by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. A number of situations have occurred with Supreme Court Justices that under the Code would have been prohibited or would have required Justices to refrain from participating in certain cases due to apparent conflicts of interest. For example, Justice Thomas’s wife is a highly paid lobbyist who works on issues (health care for example) that have come before the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas and Scalia have attended and spoken at fundraisers and events for groups that are politically active on issues that have come before the Court. Neither has refrained from participating in any cases despite these apparent conflicts of interest.

Therefore, a Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 is being proposed in Congress that would require the Court to adopt a code of conduct similar to the one for other judges. The Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, are, of course, opposed to the proposed legislation, asserting that they are capable of policing themselves. [1]

Second, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg recently articulated what many legal scholars have been saying: that the current Court is “one of the most activist courts in history.” Her comment was based on the Court’s “readiness to overturn legislation”. Others have also noted its readiness to overturn judicial precedents, including ones of previous Supreme Court rulings. As examples of activism, Ginsburg highlighted the overturning of the Voting Rights Act and the ruling that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care) was not a constitutionally allowed use of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. [2] Other examples of activism cited by other legal scholars include the Citizens United decision (and others) on campaign financing, decisions on affirmative action, and the decision stopping the recounting of ballots in Florida for the 2000 presidential election. The reasoning given with these decisions is, in many cases, so convoluted that it is hard to view them as anything but ideological activism.

Third, the Supreme Court will be considering cases in the upcoming year that will produce major decisions. These will give further indications of how the Court is balancing precedent and deference to legislative intent with ideology and activism. Front and center among these cases will be ones on campaign financing and affirmative action.

On the campaign financing front, the Court will consider a case known as McCutcheon versus the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that challenges the total, or aggregate, contribution limit of $123,200 on what an individual can give directly to all candidates for federal offices combined over the 2 year election cycle. This amount is well over twice the income of the average American family. (Anyone can give unlimited amounts to Political Action Committees that are, at least theoretically, independent of the candidates themselves.) [3]

If this aggregate limit is thrown out, our campaign financing and our elections will be even further skewed toward wealthy individuals. The Supreme Court has previously upheld these aggregate contribution limits because they address both the reality and appearance that our elected officials are corrupted by the influence of money. In our democracy, every citizens’ vote and voice is supposed to be equally heard and represented. [4][5]

[1]       Mencimer, S., 7/31/13, “Democrats to introduce Supreme Court ethics bill,” Mother Jones

[2]       Liptak, A., 8/25/13, “Ginsburg calls court one of most activist,” The New York Times

[3]       Jones, J., 9/11/13, “Supreme Court Preview: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission,” League of Women Voters (http://www.lwv.org/blog/supreme-court-preview-mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission)

[4]       Kennedy, L., 9/10/13, “Stop the Next Citizens United,” Demos (http://www.demos.org/publication/stop-next-citizens-united)

[5]       Lioz, A., 7/26/13, “Is McCutcheon v. FEC the Next Citizens United?” The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/article/mccutcheon-v-fec-next-citizens-united)

MOVING FORWARD ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE

ABSTRACT: A serious effort for campaign finance reform is moving forward in New York State. The citizen / public campaign financing system that is in place in New York City is a great model for the state’s efforts and others.

We need campaign finance reform because, for example, in the 2012 federal election campaigns over $7 billion was spent with the bulk of the money coming from wealthy individuals and corporations. One third of the roughly $1 billion spent by groups other than the candidates’ campaigns themselves was secret funds anonymously funneled through front groups created to launder the money and hide its source. The voices of average citizens – the 99% of us – are drowned out in the campaigns and in policy making by the megaphones and mega-dollars of the wealthy. Money in campaigns does matter. In 2012, more than 80 percent of US House candidates and two-thirds of Senate candidates who outspent their general election opponents won. As Justice Brandeis stated, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

New York City has a system of citizen funding for campaigns for city offices. It provides matching public funds that give candidates the opportunity to run for public office without dependence on large contributions from wealthy donors. Participants in these city races are getting the majority of their funding from a broad spectrum of small contributors, while candidates for the state legislature from the same area, without the citizen funding system, get the majority of their funding from large contributors.

At least 10 states and 7 cities have citizen / public campaign financing for at least some elections. You can find information on campaign financing and whether there is a reform effort in your state at the Public Campaign website (http://www.publicampaign.org/).

Citizen / public campaign financing is an essential step in making our elected officials accountable and responsive to the 99% of us, as opposed to wealthy campaign contributors.

FULL POST: A serious effort for campaign finance reform is moving forward in New York State. The citizen / public campaign financing system that is in place in New York City is a great model for the state’s efforts and others. [1]

We need campaign finance reform because, for example, in the 2012 federal election campaigns over $7 billion was spent. We have the best democracy money can buy and the bulk of the money came from wealthy individuals and corporations. Of course this means it isn’t a democracy at all, for the golden rule of US politics is that he who provides the gold, rules.

Each of the presidential candidates raised and spent over $1 billion. President Obama broke all records by attending a fundraiser on average every two and a half days throughout the long campaign. Is this really how we want our President – and our other elected officials – spending their time? The 435 races for the House of Representatives cost over $1 billion, or an average of $2.3 million per seat. The races for the 33 Senate seats up for election cost over $700 million, or an average of $21 million each.

One third of the roughly $1 billion spent by groups other than the candidates’ campaigns themselves was secret funds anonymously funneled through front groups created to launder the money and hide its source. For the Super Political Action Committees (PACs), which could raise and spend unlimited sums because of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the top 32 donors gave an average of $10 million each and just 159 people donated 60% of their funds.

The great bulk of the $7 billion spent on the federal races in 2012 came in large amounts from wealthy individuals and corporations. The voices of average citizens – the 99% of us – are drowned out in the campaigns and in policy making by the megaphones and mega-dollars of the wealthy.

So there is no question that we need comprehensive campaign finance reform if we want government of, by, and for the people. As Justice Brandeis stated, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

New York City has a system of citizen funding for campaigns for city offices. It provides matching public funds that give candidates the opportunity to run for public office without dependence on large contributions from wealthy donors. Someone running for citywide office or for city council who wants to participate in the voluntary citizen financing system has to raise a qualifying amount in small contributions. A mayoral candidate has to raise $250,000 from at least 1,000 city residents. A City Council candidate has to raise $5,000 in small donations from at least 75 in-district residents.

Once a candidate has achieved the qualifying threshold, any contribution up to $175 is matched six to one by public funds. So a $25 contribution is worth $175, a $100 contribution is worth $700, and a $175 contribution is worth $1,225. Only contributions by residents of the City or district are matched, and any amount over $175 is not matched. In addition to the qualifying thresholds and matching funds, there are per election spending limits ($161,000 for City Council and a little over $6 million for Mayor) and disclosure requirements. [2]

Participants in these city races are getting the majority of their funding from a broad spectrum of small contributors, while candidates for the state legislature from the same area, without the citizen funding system, get the majority of their funding from large contributors. This citizen funding allows candidates to focus their attention on ordinary citizens, not those with deep pockets, and still raise an amount of money that’s sufficient to run a credible, competitive campaign. And it engages citizens, because somebody who contributes $10 to a campaign, is more likely to volunteer, is more likely to show up and vote, and is more likely to follow and engage with what happens in government after the campaign than someone who doesn’t contribute – because they don’t believe their small contribution matters.

This blunts the influence of the big money in multiple ways. Beyond the base amount needed to run a credible campaign, additional money has a diminishing marginal return (to use a term from economics). In other words, after a point, additional campaign spending just doesn’t have that much impact. That’s one of the reasons all the Super PAC money wasn’t as effective as many thought it would be in the 2012 elections – people just got tired of hearing the same message over and over.

But money does matter. In 2012, more than 80 percent of House candidates and two-thirds of Senate candidates who outspent their general election opponents won. And although money doesn’t often literally buy elected officials’ votes, it does corrupt some of them and it certainly gets their ears and may well get them to lean toward the interests of their contributors.

At least 10 states and 7 cities have citizen / public campaign financing for at least some elections. A serious effort to implement broad citizen / public financing of elections is underway in New York for state elections. You can find information on campaign financing and whether there is a reform effort in your state at the Public Campaign website (http://www.publicampaign.org/).

Citizen / public campaign financing is an essential step in making our elected officials accountable and responsive to the 99% of us, as opposed to wealthy campaign contributors. It was important before the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited spending by wealthy interests, and it’s even more important now.

[1]       The majority of the content for this blog post is a summary of Bill Moyers’ show of 2/15/13, “The fight to keep democracy alive.” You can watch it at http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-the-fight-to-keep-democracy-alive/. A podcast is also available. As I probably don’t need to tell you, Bill’s shows are fantastic and I urge you to watch or listen to them regularly if possible, or whenever you can find the time.

[2]       Migally, A., & Liss, S., 2010, “Small donor matching funds: The NYC election experience,” Brennan Center for Justice, http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/public-financing

SHAMEFUL FAILURE TO ADDRESS GUN VIOLENCE

ABSTRACT: A filibuster in the US Senate just blocked passage of a law to require background checks on most gun buyers, despite the fact that 90% of Americans support these background checks; even 74% of National Rifle Association (NRA) members support them!

This reflects the power of money in politics – the money of the gun and ammunition makers and sellers. Their well-funded front organization, the NRA, only has about 2 million members, but wields outsized influence.

The facts make this failure to address gun violence shameful. In the four months since the Newtown massacre of 20 young children and 6 adults, over 3,500 people have died from gun violence. Roughly 30,000 people die each year from gun violence in the US. This is ten times as many as died on September 11th, but we spend far more time and money to prevent violence by terrorists than we do to prevent gun violence.

Contrary to the NRA’s rhetoric, guns do NOT make you safer: 1) For every use of a gun in self-defense at home, there are 11 suicide attempts, 7 assaults or murders, and 4 gun accidents; 2) Gun death rates are over three times higher in states with high gun ownership; and 3) Despite the claim that more armed civilians would stop mass shootings, this hasn’t happened once in the last 30 years.

In 1996, Australia banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons, required strict permitting and tracking of gun purchases, and purchased and destroyed about 700,000 firearms. The results are:

  • 59% decrease in firearm murders (without an increase in non-firearm murders)
  • 65% decrease in firearm suicides (without an increase in non-firearm suicides)
  • No gun massacres in the 16 years since enactment of the law compared with 13 massacres (in which 4 or more people died) in the 18 years before enactment
  • The murder rate has dropped to 1 per 1 million people. (The US rate is 33 times higher.)

The votes in the US Senate are profiles in cowardice. There is no reason for anyone other than law enforcement and the military to have automatic and semi-automatic weapons with magazines that hold over 10 bullets. I urge you to call, email, and / or write your federal and state elected officials and demand reasonable gun laws that will prevent future gun massacres.

FULL POST: A filibuster in the US Senate just blocked passage of a law to require background checks on most gun buyers. Although there was a majority of 54 votes in favor, the Republicans, abetted by four Democrats, obstructed progress. This occurred despite the fact that 90% of Americans support these background checks; even 74% of National Rifle Association (NRA) members support them! The Senate also failed to pass a provision banning the sales of assault weapons; there were only 40 votes in favor, even though 45% of gun owners support a ban on these weapons. [1]

This reflects the power of money in politics – the money of the gun and ammunition makers and sellers. While their lobbyists operate behind the scenes, their well-funded front organization, the NRA, operates in public. Although it only has about 2 million members (out of 300 million people in the US), which is only 5% of gun owners, and 30% of gun owners have an unfavorable opinion of the NRA, it wields outsized influence. Together, the money, the private lobbying, and the public publicity have banned federal research and data sharing on gun violence and perpetrated myths about guns and gun violence.

The facts make this failure to address gun violence shameful. In the four months since the Newtown massacre of 20 young children and 6 adults, over 3,500 people have died from gun violence. Roughly, 30,000 people die each year of gun violence in the US, 12,000 murders and 18,000 suicides. This is ten times as many as died on September 11th, but we spend far more time and money to prevent violence by terrorists than we do to prevent gun violence. There is also far more focus, effort, and resources spent to keep illegal immigrants out of this country than there is to keep guns out of the hands of illegal gun purchasers.

Contrary to the NRA’s rhetoric, guns do NOT make you safer:

  1. For every use of a gun for self-defense at home, there are 11 suicide attempts, 7 assaults or murders, and 4 accidents with a gun. Six times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than were murdered by strangers. A women’s chance of being killed by her abuser is 7 times higher if he has access to a gun.
  2. Gun death rates are over three times higher in states with high gun ownership. The state with the highest gun ownership (Wyoming, over 60% of households) also has the highest rate of gun deaths (over 15 per 100,000 people). The state with the lowest gun ownership (Hawaii, less than 10% of households) also has the lowest rate of gun deaths (less than 5 per 100,000 people). The other states clearly demonstrate this relationship that more guns means more gun deaths.
  3. Despite the claim that more armed civilians would stop mass shootings, this hasn’t happened once in the last 30 years.
  4. Civilians in the US own roughly 310 million guns while law enforcement and the military have 4 million guns. Roughly a third of Americans own a gun, down from about half in 1973. The average gun owner has 8 guns. [2]

In terms of evidence to support the effectiveness of legislation to prevent gun violence, there is a very relevant example from Australia. In 1996, 35 people were killed in Australia by a gunman in a massacre reminiscent of those we have experienced recently here in the US. In response, Australia, under Conservative Prime Minister John Howard, banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons, required strict permitting and tracking of gun purchases, and purchased and destroyed about 700,000 firearms in a gun buyback program. [3]

The results are: [4][5]

  • 59% decrease in firearm murders (without an increase in non-firearm murders)
  • 65% decrease in firearm suicides (without an increase in non-firearm suicides)
  • No gun massacres in the 16 years since enactment of the law compared with 13 massacres (in which 4 or more people died) in the 18 years before enactment
  • The murder rate has dropped to 1 per 1 million people, a fortieth of what it was. (The US rate is 33 times higher.)

The votes in the US Senate are profiles in cowardice. Colorado, New York, and Connecticut have recently passed meaningful gun violence prevention laws. There is no reason for anyone other than law enforcement and the military to have automatic and semi-automatic weapons with magazines that hold over 10 bullets. Sensible gun laws, as evidenced by the Australian experience, would make a difference. (See my post of 12/16/12 for more detail.)

I urge you to call, email, and / or write your federal and state elected officials and demand reasonable gun laws that will prevent future gun massacres. I also encourage you to participate in on-line or local actions to express your support for common sense gun violence prevention laws.

It’s past time to take serious steps to reduce gun deaths and violence, as well as hopefully, eventually, to eliminate the occurrence of gun massacres – as Australia did. We must insist that our elected officials pass sensible gun violence prevention laws.

[1]       Jan, T., & Viser, M., 4/18/13, “Wider checks on guns rejected,” The Boston Globe

[2]       Gilson, D., March/April 2013 issue, “Hits and myths: Ten pro-gun claims that don’t stand up to fact-checking,” Mother Jones

[3]       An equivalent buyback program in the US would need to purchase and destroy 40 million guns.

[4]       Matthews, D., 8/2/12, “Did gun control work in Australia?” The Washington Post

[5]       Editorial Board, 12/18/12, “Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S.,” USA Today

CAMPAIGN SPENDING: THE FUTURE

ABSTRACT: The huge sums of money in our political system are corrupting it, in subtle and not so subtle ways, and are undermining the promise of democracy of, by, and for the people. We the people need to work to blunt the impact and eventually stop the flow of these huge amounts of money. Steps that could and should be taken include: 1) Legislation at the federal and state levels should be enacted promptly that requires disclosure on a timely basis of all political spending and the sources of the funds; 2) Lobbyists’ contributions to candidates must be severely restricted and perhaps prohibited; 3) Tougher rules and enforcement are needed of the ban on coordination between Super PACs or other groups and candidates’ campaigns; and 4) Ultimately, a Constitutional Amendment is needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

 I urge you to communicate to your elected representatives at the federal and state levels your concern about the corrupting influence of huge amounts of money in our political system. Ask them what remedies they support and encourage them to support the steps listed above.

FULL POST: The huge sums of money in our political system are corrupting it, in subtle and not so subtle ways, and are undermining the promise of democracy of, by, and for the people. Despite the fact that all the outside money and all the advertising it bought were less effective in the 2012 election than was anticipated and than was hoped for by those paying for it, the big spenders learned some valuable lessons. They won’t give up on their efforts to influence and control government and its policy making. They will find more effective ways to use their money and will have substantial impacts in the future. [1] Therefore, we the people need to work to blunt the impact and eventually stop the flow of these huge amounts of money.

First, some of the lessons the big spenders learned:

  • Advertising, and particularly negative advertising, has diminishing returns as the amount of it and repetition of it increases.
  • Grassroots efforts to identify and turn out supporters can have a big impact.
  • Grassroots, person-to-person communications can be more effective than advertising.
  • Untested candidates or ones with extreme positions are more likely to lose.
  • Money can have a bigger impact in less visible, lower cost races.

The less visible, lower cost races include primary, US House of Representatives, and state office races (as opposed to the final Presidential election and final US Senate races). In the Republican Presidential primary, the big money from Super PACs clearly had an effect. Money from the Super PAC supporting Romney deluged state primary elections with negative advertising against whichever competitor was threatening Romney at that point. This clearly allowed Romney to win state primaries he wouldn’t have won otherwise. Huge Super PAC expenditures by extremely rich individuals single-handedly kept Gingrich and Santorum in the primary race longer than they would have been otherwise. [2]

In lower cost races, a given amount of money (e.g., $100,000) is more significant, may overwhelm other campaign spending, and can have a disproportionate impact, especially if spent late in the election period and as a surprise. State office races such as those for Governor, state legislative seats, and elected judges can be dramatically affected by relatively small amounts of money. State ballot initiatives can also be significantly altered by relatively small sums of money.

Given the corrosive effects of huge amounts of money in our political system, a New York Times Editorial stated, “A backlash against the damaging power of big money cannot come too soon.” [3] Steps that could and should be taken include:

  • Legislation at the federal and state levels should be enacted promptly that requires disclosure on a timely basis of all political spending and the sources of the funds. The DISCLOSE Act that has been introduced in Congress is one example. (It was filibustered by Senate Republicans multiple times.) Disclosure must cover all entities engaged in political spending, including non-profit, “social welfare” groups, known as 501(c)(4)s to the IRS.
  • Lobbyists’ contributions to candidates must be severely restricted and perhaps prohibited, especially for an elected official sitting on the legislative committee that oversees the special interest the lobbyist represents. The definition of a lobbyist must be expanded to cover all individuals and entities that work to influence government policies, rules, and regulations. The ability of lobbyists and others to deliver aggregated contributions from multiple individuals or groups, often referred to as “bundling,” and which can occur through fundraising events organized by a lobbyist, should be banned or at least fully disclosed.
  • Tougher rules and enforcement are needed of the ban on coordination between Super PACs or other groups and candidates’ campaigns. The overlap and connections between candidates’ current and former campaign staff and the staff of the supposedly independent groups, and the use of the same consultants, provide clear evidence that these groups are not, in fact, independent. [4]
  • Ultimately, a Constitutional Amendment is needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, to make it clear that corporations are not persons with Constitutional rights, that money is not the same as speech, and that corporations and political spending can be regulated.

 I urge you to communicate to your elected representatives at the federal and state levels your concern about the corrupting influence of huge amounts of money in our political system. Ask them what remedies they support and encourage them to support the steps listed above.

[1]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[2]       Boston Globe Editorial, 11/8/12, “Billionaires: Now, mind your own business(es),” The Boston Globe

[3]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[4]       Boston Globe Editorial, 9/29/12, “As super PACs link arms, mega-donors’ clout increases,” The Boston Globe

WHY LIMITED SUCCESS FOR CAMPAIGN SPENDING

ABSTRACT: So why were all the outside money and all the advertising it bought less effective than was anticipated in the recent election? First, the great bulk of the outside money was spent on advertising, largely negative advertising. Voters were overwhelmed and simply tuned them out. The advertising lost effectiveness and experienced diminishing returns. Second, the huge amounts of money and advertising drew lots of attention. So fact checkers were very active and the mainstream media became active in covering the money, the advertising, and the fact checking. This gave voters information that may have led them to question or resist the messages of the ads.

Third, the big money and advertising appears to have been less effective than good old fashioned grassroots organizing. Finally, Democratic candidates and messages appear to have resonated better with voters than Republican candidates and messages. Despite the outside money’s lack of success in electing desired candidates, I doubt that it will go away. My next post will examine likely future effects and what can be done to better monitor and control potential negative impacts.

 FULL POST: So why were all the outside money and all the advertising it bought less effective than was anticipated – and than hoped for by those paying for it – in electing specific candidates in the recent election? I think there are four major reasons.

First, the great bulk of the outside money was spent on advertising, largely negative advertising. And it bought lots of ads. But voters know that ads are marketing and hype, and that their goal is often to deceive and obfuscate (especially negative ads) rather than to inform. [1] Also, voters were overwhelmed by the din and repetition of all the ads and simply tuned them out. [2] Advertising markets where the Presidential race or other races were competitive were literally saturated; all the available air time was purchased for political ads. In short, because there was so much advertising, it lost its effectiveness and experienced diminishing returns. [3]

Second, the huge amounts of money and advertising drew lots of attention. So fact checkers were very active in analyzing the accuracy of the ads. And the mainstream media became active in covering the money, the advertising, and the fact checking. This included reporting on who had funded the ads or that the actual funders were veiled in secrecy. This coverage of the ads, their accuracy and their funding, gave voters information that may have led them to question or resist the messages of the ads. Although negative advertising has historically depressed voter turnout, that did not happen in this election. Perhaps there was an actual voter backlash against the negative advertising.

Third, the big money and advertising appears to have been less effective than good old fashioned grassroots organizing – voter outreach, identification, and get out the vote efforts. The ground game appears to have been more effective at producing votes than the airwaves. [4] In addition, efforts to make it harder to vote or to suppress voting appear to have generated a backlash in some places that resulted in high voter turnout that blunted the impact of negative advertising.

Finally, Democratic candidates and messages appear to have resonated better with voters than Republican candidates and messages. The extreme positions and statements of some Republicans, particularly Tea Party types, generally did not sit well with voters, both within their states or districts and beyond. And the advertising blitz could not overcome these differences between the parties.

Despite the outside money’s lack of success in electing desired candidates, it did have significant impacts. (See 11/14/12 post.) I doubt that it will go away, and there are good reasons to be concerned about big money in political campaigns. My next post will examine likely future effects and what can be done to better monitor and control potential negative impacts.

[1]       Carroll, J., 10/29/12, “America’s kidnapped politics,” The Boston Globe

[2]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[3]       New York Times Editorial, 10/7/12, “The cacophony of money,” The New York Times

[4]      New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, see above

THE IMPACT OF ALL THE CAMPAIGN SPENDING

ABSTRACT: Roughly $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections for federal offices. Although complete data isn’t yet available, an unprecedented $1.3 billion plus of this amount was “outside” money. Roughly a quarter of this outside money was “dark” money – money where the actual source of the money cannot be identified. About 80% of the outside money was spent opposing a candidate, typically through negative advertising. And over 70% of the outside money was spent trying to elect Republicans. The big outside money donors are large corporations and very wealthy individuals who have very specific, special interests in government actions that provide them substantial benefits.

Although the deluge of outside money achieved only limited election results, it had other significant, if somewhat more subtle, impacts. First, the great majority of the outside spending was on negative advertising, which changed the tone of the campaigns and demeaned the whole electoral process – candidates, voting, and the role of government. Second, the unlimited contribution amounts increase the influence these contributors have with elected officials; it creates a sense of obligation. Third, candidates had to spend even more of their time than before raising money. Finally, certain issues were not even discussed during the campaign for fear of alienating large donors.

FULL POST: Roughly $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections for federal offices according to the best estimates; a truly staggering sum. Although complete data isn’t yet available, an unprecedented $1.3 billion plus of this amount was “outside” money, namely spending by entities other than the candidates’ campaigns themselves. And roughly a quarter of this outside money was “dark” money – money where the actual source of the money cannot be identified. [1]

About 80% of the outside money was spent opposing a candidate, typically through negative advertising. And over 70% of the outside money was spent trying to elect Republicans. This Republican advantage in outside money was offset in part by Obama’s and other Democratic candidates’ ability to out raise Republicans in direct contributions to their campaigns (i.e., in “inside” money). [2]

Beyond the general concern about the influence of large amounts of campaign money on candidates and elected officials, these unprecedented levels of outside money raise particular concerns. The outside money comes almost exclusively from large donors (i.e., $100,000, $1,000,000, and multi-million dollar contributions). The outside money donors are large corporations and very wealthy individuals who have very specific, special interests in government actions that provide them substantial benefits.

The good news is that all this outside money didn’t buy successful election results to the extent I and many others thought it would. Clearly, outside money significantly affected the Republican Presidential primary.[3] It also had a notable impact on some Congressional primary races. And presumably the large sums that flowed into competitive Congressional races, particularly in the last few days before the election, did affect the outcome of some of those races. [4] [5]

Although the deluge of outside money achieved only limited election results, it had other significant, if somewhat more subtle, impacts.

First, the great majority of the outside spending was on negative advertising, which changed the tone of the campaigns, particularly in competitive races. This negativity demeaned the whole electoral process – the candidates, voting, and the role of government. The ads were often misleading and sometimes clearly false. This occurred because candidates cannot be held accountable for the ads, given that the outside money is independent and outside of the candidates’ control (at least in theory). [6] The negative advertising forces candidates to spend time and money defending themselves rather than discussing issues. Note that in the Massachusetts Senate race there was very little of the negative advertising that was common elsewhere because the candidates had an enforceable agreement to ban outside spending on advertising.

Second, the unlimited contribution amounts, newly unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, increase the influence these contributors have with elected officials when they are in office. The big contributions by large corporations (which have far deeper pockets than any of the other players) and very wealthy individuals, create a sense of obligation. [7] For example, Sheldon Adelson and his wife have given over $36 million to Super PACs and unknown tens of millions to non-profit groups that don’t have to report donors. He has a clear policy agenda and makes it known that he views giving to these groups, who then support specific candidates, the same as giving to the candidates directly. [8]

Third, candidates had to spend even more of their time than before raising money. This diverts their time and attention from interacting with voters and discussing issues. [9] The huge amounts of money in general, turn campaigns into an arms race. The unlimited outside spending exacerbates this, requiring candidates to build up huge war chests to be able to counter last minute outside expenditures. [10]

Finally, certain issues and issue options were not even discussed during the campaign for fear of alienating large donors. For example, the issues of global warming and meaningful regulation of the financial industry effectively disappeared from the presidential and many other campaigns. It’s hard to believe that the deep pockets and big campaign spending of companies and executives in the oil, gas, and coal corporations and of those from Wall Street didn’t contribute to the lack of discussion of these issues.

So why were all the spending and all the advertising less effective than was anticipated – and than hoped for by those paying for it – in electing specific candidates? That will be the topic of my next post.

[1]       Schere, M., Elliott, J., & Barker, K., 11/2/12, “Dark money rises,” ProPublica

[2]       Sunlight Foundation, retrieved 11/13/12, “Outside spenders’ return on investment,” http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/return_on_investment

[3]       Boston Globe Editorial, 11/8/12, “Billionaires: Now, mind your own business(es),” The Boston Globe

[4]       Calvan, B.C., 11/5/12, “Spending on congressional races soars,” The Boston Globe

[5]       McGinty, J.C., 10/29/12, “Donors make last-minute investments in House races,” The New York Times

[6]       Eggen, D., & Farnam, T.W., 11/8/12, “Spending by independent groups had little election impact, analysis finds,” The Washington Post

[7]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[8]       Boston Globe Editorial, 9/29/12, “As super PACs link arms, mega-donors’ clout increases,” The Boston Globe

[9]       Eggen, D., & Farnam, T.W., 11/8/12, “Independent groups’ big money had little impact on vote results,” The Boston Globe

[10]    Eggen, D., & Farnam, T.W., 11/8/12, “Spending by independent groups had little election impact, analysis finds,” The Washington Post

CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING: BIG VS. SMALL CONTRIBUTORS

ABSTRACT: Although every campaign likes to tout the importance and number of its small contributors, it’s large donors who give the bulk of the money. A few big contributors (0.1% of all contributors) give more than the millions of small contributors (90% of all contributors). As of June, 26% of the $469 million raised for the Obama campaign and affiliates (including Super PACs) was from contributions of $200 or less, while 7% of Romney’s $362 million was contributions of $200 or less. 112 so-called “mega-donors” (1 out of every 3 million Americans) have each contributed over $500,000. Super PACs have raised a total of $298 million for the 2012 election cycle; 70% of these contributions come from the 112 mega-donors.

Justice Posner, a Republican and not a judicial liberal, said recently that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (which allows these huge campaign contributions) has created a political system that is “pervasively corrupt [where] wealthy people essentially bribe legislators.”

Despite all of this, I encourage you to send your small contributions to candidates. I do believe that candidates and office holders listen a bit more closely to contributors. However, it will be essential to stay engaged and active after the election to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.

FULL POST:

Although every campaign likes to tout the importance and number of its small contributors (typically those contributing $200 or less to a federal office campaign), the truth is that it’s the large donors who give the bulk of the money. As of June, 2.5 million small contributors have given $148 million to the 2012 presidential candidates; this is not a small amount but it accounts for less than 18% of the total raised. On the other hand, 2,100 donors of $50,000 or more have given $200 million to the candidates’ campaigns and affiliated groups, including Super PACs. This means that these few big contributors (0.1% of all contributors) give more than the millions of small contributors (90% of all contributors).

Clearly, from a campaign fundraiser’s perspective, it is more cost effective to schmooze a few hundred rich people than to try to cultivate a few hundred thousand small contributors. Although the overall pattern is similar, there is a noticeable difference between the fundraising of Democrat Obama and Republican Romney: as of June, 26% of the $469 million raised for the Obama campaign and affiliates (including Super PACs) was from contributions of $200 or less, while 7% of Romney’s $362 million was contributions of $200 or less. [1]

Large campaign donors, the 1 out of every 400 Americans who give over $200 to Congressional campaigns, have a disproportionate impact on our elections, both on who gets to run (see 8/6/12 post) and who wins. But there’s an even smaller group that is having a truly outsized impact on the current elections: 112 so-called “mega-donors” (1 out of every 3 million Americans) have each contributed over $500,000. They are led by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson who through June has given $38 million to Super PACs. Super PACs had their biggest fundraising month so far in June when they raised $54 million. This brings the total amount they have raised for the 2012 election cycle to $298 million; 70% of these contributions come from the 112 mega-donors. [2] And this is just the part of the iceberg we know about. (See my 8/10/12 post on non-profit organizations that don’t have to disclose contributors and are outspending the Super PACs.)

Justice Posner of the US 7th Court of Appeals, a Republican and not a judicial liberal, said recently that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (which allows these huge campaign contributions) has created a political system that is “pervasively corrupt [where] wealthy people essentially bribe legislators.” [3]

Despite all of this, I encourage you to send your small contributions to candidates. They do make a difference and do identify you to the candidate (and hopefully office holder) as an engaged citizen. I do believe that candidates and office holders listen a bit more closely to contributors than non-contributors. However, given the reality of where the bulk of the campaign money comes from, it is essential to stay engaged and active after the election to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.

[1]       Vogel, K.P., 8/7/12, “Election 2012: The myth of the small donor,” Politico

[2]       Blumenthal, P., 7/27/12, “Super PAC mega-donors surpass 100, June best Super PAC month ever,” Huffington Post

[3]       Moyers, B., & Winship, M., 7/17/12, “Presto! The DISCLOSE Act disappears,” Moyers & Company

CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING: THE PERFECT STORM

ABSTRACT: The unprecedented spending and the unprecedented secrecy in the current election campaigns are creating the perfect storm and it’s battering our democracy. They are the result of three factors: 1) great concentration of wealth, 2) unlimited campaign contributions, and 3) secrecy through weakly regulated non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations don’t have to report contributors and are spending tens of millions of dollars on political activity. These non-profit organizations have accounted for two-thirds of the outside spending to-date – close to $100 million. The Internal Revenue Service has, so far, failed to exercise its oversight responsibilities. Corporations, in particular, like the secrecy.

The DISCLOSE Act in Congress would require disclosure of contributors of over $10,000 by all organizations. Senate Republicans have filibustered it (including a watered down version) multiple times. We need to demand that our elected officials require disclosure of campaign contributors. And we need a Constitutional Amendment that will reverse the Citizens United decision and allow limitations on contributions to political campaigns. Otherwise, the voices of we the people are drowned out by the purchased – not free but purchased – speech of wealthy individuals and corporations.

FULL POST: The unprecedented spending in the current election campaigns and the unprecedented secrecy about who’s contributing to the campaigns are creating the perfect storm and it’s battering our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “we can have a democracy or we can have great wealth in the hands of a comparatively few, but we cannot have both.” This perfect storm is the result of three factors:

  • The greatest concentration of wealth in more than a century,
  • Unlimited campaign contributions (thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that allows unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and other groups), and
  • Secrecy for many of the contributors, especially corporations, through weakly regulated non-profit organizations. [1]

In addition to the Super PACs, which have to disclose contributors, there arenon-profit trade associations (such as the US Chamber of Commerce) and non-profit “social welfare” organizations [501(c)(4)s] that don’t have to report contributors. Politics is not supposed to be the primary purpose of these organizations. However, the US Chamber of Commerce is spending tens of millions of dollars on political activity, while refusing to disclose its contributors. Republican strategist Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, for example, is a 501(c)(4) that is raising and spending tens of millions of dollars on political activity in close alliance with his Super PAC, while refusing to disclose its contributors. [2]

So far in the 2012 election, these non-profit organizations have accounted for two-thirds of the outside spending – close to $100 million spent primarily on advertising. Back in 2010, they spent $130 million, outspending Super PACs 3-to-2. The Internal Revenue Service has, so far, failed to exercise its oversight responsibilities for these non-profit entities. It has no clear test for what constitutes excessive political activity and these tax-exempt groups are permitted to raise and spend money before being officially reviewed and approved. The tax exempt status of Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS is still pending more than two years after being created and after having spent tens of millions back in the 2010 elections. [3]

Corporations, in particular, like the secrecy these non-profit groups provide. For example, insurance giant Aetna secretly gave $3 million to a non-profit running ads attacking Obama’s health care plan, while publicly supporting the President. Not a single Fortune 500 company has been reported as contributing to a Super PAC, but they are giving millions to non-profit organizations where their contributions can be kept secret. [4]

At the time of the Citizens United decision, eight of the nine justices made it clear that transparency on contributions for political activity was important and that it was Congress’s responsibility to require appropriate disclosure. The DISCLOSE Act in Congress would require disclosure of contributors of over $10,000 by all organizations, Super PACs, trade associations, unions, and 501(c)(4)s. However, Senate Republicans have filibustered it (including a watered down version) multiple times. Many of the Republicans filibustering the DISCLOSE Act previously supported disclosure, including Senator McCain and Senate Minority Leader McConnell, and 14 Republicans who supported it just a couple of years ago. [5]  “[T]he essence of free speech, and democracy, is openness and accountability. … but Republican leaders remain adamantly opposed, and for an obvious reason. Republicans raise far more secret money than the Democrats and have far more to hide.” [6]

We the people are going to have to weather this perfect storm as best we can in this election. And then we will need to demand that our elected officials require disclosure of campaign contributors so we know who is trying to influence our elections. Ultimately, we need a Constitutional Amendment that will reverse the Citizens United decision and allow limitations on contributions to political campaigns. Otherwise, the voices of we the people are drowned out by the purchased – not free but purchased – speech of wealthy individuals and corporations who have amounts of money that far exceed that of everyone else.

[1]       Reich, R., 7/13/12, “The selling of American democracy: The perfect Storm,” RobertReich.org

[2]       Roberts, C., & Roberts, S.V., 7/18/12, “Shine a light on political donations,” Daily Times Chronicle

[3]       McIntire, M., & Confessore, N., 7/7/12, “Corporate money funneled to nonprofits with an agenda,” The New York Times

[4]       Moyers, B., & Winship, M., 7/17/12, “Presto! The DISCLOSE Act disappears,” Moyers & Company

[5]       Moyers & Winship, 7/17/12, see above

[6]       Roberts & Roberts, 7/18/12, see above

CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING: WHO RUNS FOR OFFICE

ABSTRACT: Because of the way we fund campaigns, we have two elections every cycle, the money election and the voting election. For Congressional races, fewer than 1 in 400 people contribute $200 or more to a campaign. This one-quarter of 1% of the population determines who will show up on the ballot for the voting election. Consequently, these campaign contributors, this 1 out of 400 people, have the power to block candidates from getting on the ballot and, therefore, the power to block – to veto – issues and policies from even getting on the agenda. There are many ways to change the funding of campaigns and broaden who can afford to run.

The current elections will have huge amounts of money spent on negative advertising. Voters will be turned off and disillusioned by the whole process and therefore will not bother to vote. We the voters must stay engaged and elect the best candidates we can find. And then we must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions after they are elected.

FULL POST: Because of the way we fund campaigns, we have two elections every cycle, the money election and the voting election. If you don’t win the first, or at least show that you’re competitive, you don’t even get to the second one. For Congressional races, fewer than 1 in 400 people contribute $200 or more to a campaign. This one-quarter of 1% of the population determines who will show up on the ballot for the voting election, the one everyone thinks is the real election. To succeed as a Congressional candidate, you must gain the support of these large contributors.

Consequently, these campaign contributors, this 1 out of 400 people, have the power to block candidates from getting on the ballot and, therefore, the power to block – to veto – issues and policies from even getting on the agenda. This tilts our democracy toward plutocracy, where the wealthy rule and the rest of us try to hold on for the ride. “[A] nation in which so few have the power to block change is not a nation that can thrive.” [1]

And the proof is in the pudding; it’s not what candidates say on the campaign trail, it’s what they do in office. There’s plenty of winking and nodding that goes on during the campaign, where the one quarter of 1% know that it’s just rhetoric and that they don’t have to worry that action will follow.

There are many ways to change the funding of campaigns and broaden who can afford to run. One that is in place in Arizona, Maine, and a few other places is to match small campaign contributions from individuals with public funds. Presidential elections used to have a mix of private and public funds until the public funding got overwhelmed by huge sums of private money. A newer idea is to give every taxpayer a voucher that can only be used to contribute to campaigns. Another approach would be to reduce the cost of campaigns and the importance of money by requiring broadcasters – who get to use the public airwaves – to provide free air time to candidates so they don’t have to spend small fortunes on advertising.

The current elections will have huge amounts of money spent by supposedly independent groups outside of the candidates’ own campaigns. The bulk of this money will be spent on negative advertising. The small number of wealthy individuals and corporations that are funding these outside groups hope, in part, that voters will be turned off and disillusioned by the whole process and therefore will not bother to vote.

We, the voters, cannot fall into this seductive trap of cynicism and apathy. We must stay engaged and active in the election, and elect the best candidates we can find, even though they are rarely if ever perfect. And then we must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions after they are elected.

[1]       Lessig, L., 7/13/12, “Big campaign spending: Government by the 1%,” The Atlantic

CITIZENS UNITED ACTION (Part 2)

Here’s issue #29 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 5/9/12. It continues from the previous issue the arguments supporting local resolutions calling for the overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

With the 2012 election season underway, the consequences of the Citizens United decision are becoming clear. The unlimited, super political action committee or “Super PAC” spending has already exceeded $100 million. Ninety percent of this money is coming from roughly 500 wealthy individuals or corporations, meaning that they are largely drowning out the voices of the other 300 million people in the US. The Super PACs are out-spending the candidates’ campaigns. This is a real concern because it means that the campaign is out of the control of the candidates and that it is very difficult to hold this spending to any standard of accountability, for example for the accuracy of their campaign ads. The majority of this spending, 86% according to one tabulation, [1] is negative, i.e., targeting an opponent. Negative advertising demeans candidates and our political process. It turns voters off, which, along with the growing voter perception that the huge amounts of money in the campaigns mean that their vote doesn’t matter and that the system is corrupt, reduces voter turnout. [2] Moreover, the amount spent to date is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that these Super PACs have stated they will raise and spend during the 2012 election period.

Corporate spending is the big concern because corporations have far greater resources than all other sources combined. Even before Citizens United, 72% ($3.4 billion) of all federal campaign contributions in 2007 – 2010 came from the business sector (individuals and organizations), with labor contributing 4% ($172 million), ideological groups 7% ($308 million), and others 17%. In addition, corporations exert substantial influence in other ways, such as lobbying ($3.3 billion in 2011) and the revolving door (e.g., Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury and his 3 chiefs of staff all came from the financial industry, which has gotten very favorable treatment in the wake of the financial collapse and recession it caused).

Some people argue that unions provide a counter-balance to corporate spending, but past spending and a comparison of overall resources indicate otherwise. Furthermore, union membership in the private sector has dropped from 34% in the 1950s to under 7% today. Clearly, the corporations are winning this battle.

With unlimited corporate funds now unleashed, we can expect even greater business sector dominance. The Citizens United decision dramatically expands potential spending and, therefore, concerns that elected officials will be more responsive to contributors and their money than to constituents. The 15 largest corporations in the US have annual revenues of $2 trillion and annual profits of $146 billion. If just these 15 spent only 1% of their annual profits on campaigns, they would spend more than twice what the Obama and McCain campaigns combined spent in the last presidential election.

Citizens all across the country are concerned that unlimited campaign spending by corporations and wealthy individuals will mean that our elections won’t be a fair fight. 79% of the public supports a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United, including over 2/3 of Republicans and over 80% of Democrats and Independents. Over 1,000 business leaders formally support overturning Citizens United and there has been unusual criticism from state and other federal judges. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the state’s 1912 law limiting corporate spending in campaigns, despite a lower court ruling that Citizens United had invalidated the law in question. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals similarly upheld aNew York City law that places limits on political contributions.

With unlimited corporate campaign spending unleashed, government of, by, and for the people is truly at risk. If, as the Citizens United decision asserts, money equals speech, then those with no money have no voice. This flies in the face of the principles of our democracy and the Constitution that our founders wrote. It is essential that citizens everywhere make their voices heard loudly and clearly to build the incredible momentum that will be necessary to overturn the Citizens United decision.

[1]       Fowler, E., 5/2/12, “Presidential Ads 70% Negative in 2012, Up from 9% in 2008,” http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/05/02/jump-in-negativity.

[2]      Kroll, A., 4/24/12, “Poll: Super-PACs will hurt voter turnout in 2012,” Mother Jones

CITIZENS UNITED ACTION (Part 1)

Here’s issue #28 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 5/6/12. It describes an action step – local resolutions – being taken around the country to work toward overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

As you probably remember, in January 2010, the US Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that corporations, unions, and other groups have the same freedom of speech rights as are granted toU.S. citizens under the Bill of Rights. The court expanded on previous rulings that spending money is considered “speech” and held, for the first time, that limiting campaign spending by corporations, unions, and others would violate their freedom of speech rights. It struck down key provisions of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, despite its being upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003, and overturned the 1907 law banning corporate contributions.

In response, many communities and some states have passed resolutions that call for overturning the Citizens United decision. This can only be done through a Constitutional Amendment or by the Court reversing itself (which doesn’t seem at all likely). In my home town ofReading,Massachusetts, we just passed such a resolution. Here’s an overview of it and how it happened. Perhaps this will be valuable to you if you should get the opportunity to be involved in such an effort.

A group of residents got together and decided that we wanted to present a Citizens United resolution in our town. We drafted a resolution based on what had passed in another town in Massachusetts, which was a short and simple version of the draft resolution on the Move to Amend website. [1] The resolution states that:

  • Free speech rights belong to people not corporations or other organizations, and
  • Unlimited spending by corporations and others in our elections presents a real danger to our democracy because they can drown out the voices and interests of ordinary citizens.

The resolution calls:

  • On Congress to pass an amendment to our Constitution to clearly establish that money is not the same as speech, and that only human beings are entitled to constitutional rights such as free speech, and
  • On our state Legislature to pass a resolution calling for such a Constitutional amendment.

We first approached our Board of Selectmen (which may be a Town or City Council where you live). The process will vary, but our Selectmen recommended that we petition to have the resolution on the agenda for our Town Meeting (this is probably unique to New England). We got the handful of signatures required and the resolution became an official agenda item. At Town Meeting, I started off with a short, 10 minute, Power Point presentation to initiate the consideration of the resolution.

One objection to the resolution, even from some who supported its content, was that it was not an appropriate matter for a local governmental body. There are three key responses to this argument:

  • This is a local issue because corporations or others could spend unlimited money to elect or defeat local candidates or on a local ballot question. For example, if a developer wanted officials or a zoning change that would allow a development project, it could spend unlimited money to achieve that goal.
  • Only a huge groundswell of citizens voices from the local level on up will overcome the resistance and inertia of corporateAmericaand our political system.
  • Hundreds of communities across the country have felt it was appropriate to consider and pass resolutions that call for overturning the Citizens United decision. And the number is growing rapidly. InMassachusetts, the number is now 34 with 14 added this week.

The next issue of the newsletter will present other arguments that support such a resolution. If you would like a copy of the actual resolution or the Power Point slides and talking points I used, please email me.

[1]       Move to Amend (http://movetoamend.org/) is one of the organizations leading the fight to overturn the Citizens United decision. There is lots of information and tools to support local action at its website. Common Cause (http://www.commoncause.org) and its Amend 2012 project (http://www.amend2012.org) are also leaders of this effort.

MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS (Part 5): HIGHLIGHTS, HOPE, AND CONCLUSIONS

Here’s issue #17 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 1/29/12. The campaign fundraising issue is a complex and critically important one. Here’s one final piece – for now – on this topic.

First, a little more information on where all the money comes from:

  • Wall Street’s big donors, those who give over $10,000, dominate the individual contributions to campaigns. Their contributions of $178 million in the non-presidential 2010 elections and $328 million in the 2008 presidential election cycle are triple those of the next most generous sector, lawyers. The Wall Street contributions are roughly 10 times what they were 20 years ago. [1]
  • 90% of the Super PAC spending of about $30 million in the Republican primaries is coming from “probably fewer than 100 people” according to David Donnelly of the Public Action Campaign Fund. [2]
  • Roughly 72% ($3.4 billion) of all campaign contributions in 2007 – 2010 came from the business sector (individuals and organizations), with labor contributing 4% ($172 million), ideological groups 7% ($308 million), and others 17%. [3]
  • Campaign giving is of course closely linked with lobbying. The US Chamber of Commerce, the biggest lobbying organization, spent $66 million in 2011. Of the top 20 lobbying groups (each spent at least $13 million), only two are not corporations or business associations, the American Medical Association and the AARP. [4]

A variety of initiatives are working to get campaign contributions and their undue influence under control:

  • Partial public financing of campaigns is working in states fromMaine toArizona where small individual contributions are matched by public funds and total spending is capped (although Supreme Court rulings have weakened some key elements of these state systems). We have a partial public financing system for our Presidential elections that was enacted in response to the Watergate scandal (where secret, large contributions were funneled to the Watergate burglary and related activities), however its effectiveness has been greatly diminished if not eliminated by the huge amounts of money in our presidential campaigns.
  • Hundreds of communities across the US, including Los Angeles and New York City, have passed resolutions asking Congress for an amendment to overturn Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited spending by corporations in our elections. A number of state legislatures are considering resolutions as well. [5]  Numerous organizations have come together to organize these efforts. (See www.movetoamend.org and www.commoncause.org for example.)
  • In Montana, the state Supreme Court upheld the state’s 1912 law limiting corporate spending in campaigns, despite a lower court ruling that Citizens United invalidated the law. The law was enacted when it was common practice for the copper industry to bribe state politicians. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals similarly upheld a New York City law putting limits on political contributions. [6]

Huge campaign contributions by corporations, wealthy individuals, and other groups mean that our elections are not a fair fight, that our “we the people” democracy is undermined by the influence of money, and that there is great potential for outright corruption. Limiting individuals’ contributions and eliminating contributions from corporations are not silencing anyone; they are simply ensuring that some voices aren’t so loud that they drown out all others. If, as the Citizens United decision says, money equals speech, then those with more money have louder voices, and those with no money have no voice. This flies in the face of the principles of our democracy and the Constitution that our founders wrote.

[1]       Drutman, L., 1/26/12, “On FIRE: How the finance, insurance, and real estate sector drove the growth of the political 1% of the 1%,”, http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/26/on-fire-how-the-finance-insurance-and-real-estate-sector-drove-the-growth-of-the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent/

[2]       Eggen, D., 1/16/12, “Super PACs dominate Republican primary spending,” The Washington Post

[3]       Center for Responsive Politics, retrieved 1/29/12, “Business-Labor-Ideology split in PAC and individual donations to candidates and parties,” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.php?cycle=2008

[4]       Center for Responsive Politics, retrieved 1/29/12, “Lobbying: Top spenders,”  http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2011&indexType=s  

[5]       Jarvis, B., 1/6/12, “How cities and states are sticking it to Citizens United,” YES! Magazine

[6]       CommonDreams.org, 1/4/12, “States take on Citizens United,” http://www.commondreams.org

MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS (Part 4): THE IMPACT OF CITIZENS UNITED

Here’s issue #16 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 1/25/12. Having taken a look at the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision generally, I’ll now describe a specific example of its impact.

First, a mea culpa. I was wrong when I wrote in the last issue: “These PACs currently have no requirement to disclose their contributors … ” The PACs are required to report contributors and expenditures on a monthly or quarterly basis, at their choice. However, because this schedule is not tied to the schedule of elections, voters may not know until after they have voted who paid for the ads they have seen. In addition, the identity of actual donors can be made difficult to find out. For example, a $1 million donor to one of the pro-Romney Super PACs set up a corporation in Delaware, made his contribution through the corporation, and then dissolved the corporation. [1]

As an example of the impact of the Citizens United decision, a $5 million contribution from Las Vegas casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson, to the pro-Gingrich Super PAC, Winning Our Future, may well have singled-handedly saved Gingrich’s campaign. (We only know who made the contribution because it was leaked, and when asked, Adelson confirmed it. Other contributors will not be revealed until the end of the month.) [2]

This contribution allowed the supposedly independent Super PAC to run ads in South Carolina that are very likely to have allowed Gingrich to win its primary and stay in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. The Super PAC ran ads both attacking Romney and promoting Gingrich at a level that matched the spending of the pro-Romney Super PAC. Without these ads, it is highly likely Gingrich would have lost inSouth Carolinaand that his campaign, which is lacking money and organization, would have been over. It appears that the PACs outspent the candidates inSouth Carolina.

News hot off the press: Adelson’s wife has just given the pro-Gingrich Super PAC another $5 million. This will allow Gingrich to be competitive in theFlorida primary on January 31.

As I noted in the last issue, I call the Super PACs “supposedly” independent because they are required to be by law, but the reality is quite different. For example, Becky Burkett founded and heads up the pro-Gingrich Super PAC Winning Our Future. She is former top aide to Gingrich, an experienced fundraiser, and as recently as 2011 was the chief development officer for American Solutions, a PAC Gingrich founded in 2007. [3]  In addition, candidates and their campaigns can communicate with the Super PACs through their public statements and their campaigns’ ads and strategies, as well as through mutual allies.

Overall, Super PACs have reported spending about $28.5 million to-date in the Republican presidential primaries. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1 billion they are expected to spend during the whole 2012 election period.

[1]       Efforts to increase reporting and transparency passed the House in 2010 but were filibustered by Republicans in the Senate where there were 59 votes (out of 100) in favor, one short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

[2]       Mooney, B.C., 1/20/12, “Super PACs and their cash are political game-changers,” The Boston Globe

[3]       Confessore, N., 12/13/11, “Former Gingrich aide forms fund-raising group,” The New York Times

MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS (Part 3): THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION

Here’s issue #15 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 1/15/12. Having examined campaign fundraising amounts and sources in the previous two issues, now I’ll look at the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

The previous two issues documented the large amounts of money spent on political campaigns and that a small number of very wealthy individuals give huge amounts of money to candidates and to our political parties. They also noted that the amounts of money are growing fairly rapidly. This trend is going to continue in the 2012 election cycle and is expected to accelerate, in large part because of a US Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

In the 5 to 4 Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court held that corporations (and also unions), which are often treated as “persons” under the law, have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, it ruled that this right to freedom of speech means that these “persons” can spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates for elected office. [1] [2]

This decision overturned key, and in some cases longstanding, campaign finance laws, rules, and precedents. It did not overturn the prohibition on direct contributions by corporations to candidates, but allowed unlimited contributions to political action committees (PACs) that are supposedly independent of and not coordinated with the candidate and his or her campaign. I say “supposedly” independent because these PACs are often run by former close associates or campaign staff of the candidate, or in other ways have connections to the candidate or his or her campaign. In addition, a candidate’s strategy is often well known and can be amplified by these PACs.

These PACs currently have no requirement to disclose their contributors, meaning we, the public, won’t know who is behind the messages the PACs put forth and whether the contributors present potential conflicts of interest for the candidate. Even if these PACs operate independently of candidates and their campaigns, it is unrealistic to believe that candidates won’t know and reward the contributors to PACs that support their campaigns. [3]  Clearly, this will result in elected officials who are less accountable to their constituents and more responsive to contributors.

As a result of Citizens United, we have PACs and their sponsors stating that they will raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars during the 2012 elections. Already, in the Republican primary race, PACs have spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising, most of it negative and some quite nasty and untruthful, supposedly independently of the candidates’ campaigns. [4]  This “free speech,” bought with large amounts of special interest money, is drowning out the voices and interests of the public; it represents a real threat to our democracy.

A large number of groups has formed a coalition to work to overturn the Citizens United decision. An effort to hold protest rallies at every federal courthouse in the country on January 20, the second anniversary of the Citizens United decision, is being spearheaded by Move to Amend (www.movetoamend.org). In Boston, there will be a protest rally at the Moakley Courthouse on Friday, 1/20, from 12:30 – 1:30 and a Summit on Citizens United and the efforts to overturn it on Friday afternoon and evening and all day Saturday (http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/The_Rally_and_Summit_to_Unite_Citizens_for_Democracy).

[1]       It should be noted that the Supreme Court went out of its way to make this broad, precedent setting decision when the case before it was much narrower. This will be a topic for a future issue of this newsletter.

[2]       Nader, R., 7/18/11, “The Corporate Supreme Court,” CommonDreams.org

[3]       Hohenstein, K., Summer 2011, “Said the Pot to the Kettle: Citizens United and the Power of Corporate Speech,” Justice Rising, vol. 5, #2,Alliance for Democracy

[4]       Scharwath, K., 12/16/11, “The Fight to End Corporate Personhood Heats Up,” TriplePundit

MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS (Part 2): WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

Here’s issue #14 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 1/8/12. The previous issue examined the total dollar amounts for federal election campaigns overall and on a per office basis. Now, I’ll start to take a look at where all the money comes from.

The money contributed to federal election candidates comes from 5 sources:

  • Large individual donations, which are $200 or more and have to be reported with the individual’s name and are supposed to include the individual’s employer and occupation
  • Small individual donations of less than $200 where the individual’s name is not reported
  • Political Action Committees (PACs)
  • Self-funding by candidates
  • Other, miscellaneous sources

The percentages for the 2010 election cycle for Congressional seats are as follows: [1]

Congress in 2010

Large Indiv.

Small Indiv.

PACs

Self

Other
Senate

53%

12%

15%

12%

8%
House

47%

9%

38%

3%

3%

The dominance of the large individual contributions is dramatic, and even more so when one examines the overall contributions of these individuals. And even more dramatic if the focus is on the largest of these contributors.

In the 2010 election cycle, 26,783 individuals each contributed a total of more than $10,000 to federal election campaigns. (This group is roughly 1 out of every 10,000 Americans, or 1% of the 1%, i.e., 0.01% of Americans.) Combined, these contributors gave $774 million to politicians, political parties, PACs, and independent expenditure groups. This 0.01% of Americans contributed 24.3% of all contributions from individuals. Overwhelmingly, these individuals are corporate executives, investors, lobbyists, or lawyers. [2]

On average, they contributed $28,913, which is more than the median individual income in the US of $26,364. The top 3,480 donors gave $336 million in total, an average of almost $100,000 each, with:

  • The top 17 contributors averaging $1.6 million each for a total of $28 million
  • The next 995 averaging $136,000 each for a total of $136 million
  • The next 2,468 averaging $70,000 each for a total of $172 million

As a result, these extremely wealthy contributors have unique access to and influence on our elected officials and political parties. Leaders of both parties are very aware that more than 80% of party money comes from these few donors. Although elections may be one person, one vote, the disproportionate influence of these few donors on who runs for office, who gets elected, and what policies are enacted, undermines the core of our supposed democracy.

In future issues, I will look at some likely results of the access and influence of large contributors; the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision; the supposedly independent expenditures that are not part of candidates’ official campaigns; fundraising for presidential campaigns; contributions from business, labor, and ideological sources; and other important campaign fundraising topics.

[1]       The Center for Responsive Politics, retrieved 12/31/11, “Where the Money Came From,” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/wherefrom.php?cycle=2010

[2]       Drutman and Phelps-Goodman, 12/13/11, “The Political One Percent of the One Percent,” Sunlight Foundation, http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/12/13

MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS (Part 1): HOW MUCH IS SPENT?

Here’s issue #13 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 1/1/12. Having taken a look at voting, I now turn to campaign fundraising. This is a complicated story and will require multiple issues of the newsletter.

The amount of money spent on election campaigns in the United States is staggering. This is due to many factors, but, particularly for the federal offices that are the focus here, the long duration of campaigns and the heavy use of TV advertising are two key ones. Fundraising is critical because the candidate with the most money usually wins. The sources of campaign funds are important to examine because they have implications for who gets elected and what policies are enacted. The large sums of money involved lead to concern about the influence that contributors have over elected officials and the policies put in place, as well as to concern about opportunities and temptations for outright corruption.

Because campaigns are expensive and because money is a key factor in determining who wins, a central qualification for running for office is the ability to raise money. Deciding whether or not to run is much more dictated by the ability to raise money than by the ideas, positions on issues, or other attributes of a candidate. It also means that many people who would be good public officials don’t even bother to run.

The total campaign spending for federal elections in 2010 was $3.6 billion. In the presidential election year of 2008, it was $5.3 billion and this will increase for the 2012 election. The cost of campaigns has been growing consistently and significantly. The total for the 2010 Congressional elections was more than twice the amount of the 1998 elections. The 2008 presidential election year amount was 70% higher than the amount in 2000, just two presidential elections ago. [1]  In the 2008 presidential race, President Obama raised $745 million and Senator McCain had $368 million.

The national Republican and Democratic Parties raised roughly $750 million each in the 2007 – 2008 presidential election cycle and over $500 million each in the Congressional election cycle of 2009 – 2010.

In the 2010 Congressional races, the average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million and of a House seat spent $1.4 million. In part because incumbents standing for re-election typically have a big advantage in fundraising, 85% of the incumbents for Senate and House races were re-elected. The average cost of winning a Senate or House seat has gown substantially since 1990: [2]

Congress

2010

2000

1990
Senate (ave. per seat)

$9.8 million

$7.3 million

$3.9 million

% of 1990

253%

188%

100%
House (ave. per seat)

$1,440,000

$840,000

$408,000

% of 1990

353%

206%

100%

The next issue, Money in Our Elections, Part 2, will examine where all this money comes from.

[1]       The Center for Responsive Politics, retrieved 12/31/11, “The money behind the elections,” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php

[2]       The Center for Responsive Politics, retrieved 12/31/11, “Election Stats,” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/elec_stats.php?cycle=2010

WHY THE RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING? (Part 2)

Here’s issue #12 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 12/18/11. This newsletter continues looking at the issue of voting, exploring who is affected by the changes in voting laws and why they are happening.

The new hurdles to voting and registering to vote that have recently been put in place in various states (see Newsletter #11) will have the greatest impact on the young and old (particularly those who don’t have a driver’s license), on minorities, and on low income individuals. For example, the requirement for a government-issued picture ID will have the greatest impact on the 10% of US citizens who lack such IDs, including, disproportionately, 25% of African-Americans, 18% of 18 – 24 year olds, and 15% of those with incomes under $35,000. Some states’ laws disqualify or make it difficult to use student IDs. Note that before 2006, no state required voters to show a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. In some states, one has to pay to get a government-issued voter ID or the documents required to qualify for one; this has the effect of instituting a backdoor poll tax. Some states’ laws requiring an ID were blocked by courts on the ground that they interfered with the right of eligible citizens to vote. [1]

So where is the thrust for these new, restrictive voting laws coming from? The charge is being led by conservative Republicans and an advocacy group they and corporations created and fund called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC was founded by arch conservative Paul Weyrich, who in 1980 stated, “I don’t want everybody to vote. … our leverage in elections … goes up as the voting populace goes down.” ALEC is funded in part by the billionaire Koch brothers, who bankrolled the Tea Party. It develops model legislation that it provides to state legislators. [2]  [3]

The 6 states that passed new voter ID laws this year have Republican Governors and Legislatures. In 5 of those states, the law was sponsored by a legislator who is a member of ALEC. The 5 Governors who vetoed voter ID laws were all Democrats.

In Maine, a new Tea Party Republican Governor and Republicans in the Legislature repealed the state’s 38 year old same day registration law. (It was reinstated by a referendum.) In Floridaand Iowa, new, conservative Republican Governors removed ex-felons’ right to vote, disenfranchising 100,000 voters in each state. And the pattern goes on. [4] 

In conclusion, these new barriers to voting are the result of a concerted effort to reduce voting among citizens who tend to be progressive or Democratic. Conservative Republicans are engaged in an unprecedented effort to reduce voting to gain partisan advantage. These are the first efforts to systematically diminish rather than expand voting and voting rights since the final days of southern resistance to black voting. These efforts represent an attack on the basic principle of democracy on which this country was founded.

[1]       Weiser, W., and Norden, L., 10/3/11, “Voting law changes in 2012,”BrennanCenter for Justice, New York University School of Law

[2]       Berman, Ari, 8/30/11, “The GOP war on voting,” Rolling Stone

[3]       Nichols, John, 12/9/11, “Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the savage assault on democracy,” The Nation

[4]       People for theAmerican Way, retrieved 10/29/11, “The right to vote under attack: The campaign to keep millions of Americans from the ballot box,” http://www.pfaw.org/print/16472

WHY THE RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING? (Part 1)

Here’s issue #11 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 12/16/11. This newsletter addresses the issue of voting – an issue that has been simmering in the background but is coming to the forefront.

The ability and right to vote is a foundational principle of our democracy. From the end of the Civil War, through the 19th Amendment in 1920 that gave women the right to vote, to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the US has worked to achieve this principle of government by, for, and of the people through universal voting. Until recently, efforts have been focused on making it easier to:

  • Register to vote (e.g., motor voter laws that allowed voting registration when getting a driver’s license and same day registration when voting) and
  • Cast a ballot (e.g., expanded early or absentee voting, on-line or mail voting, and voting on weekends).

Despite these efforts voting participation in the US is well below participation levels in other western democracies. [1]  Turnout in the last six Presidential elections averaged only 53% and only 37% in the last six Congressional elections. Turnout in recent national legislative elections was 93% inAustralia, 66% in theUnited Kingdom, and 61% inCanada.

Starting in the 1990s, a range of efforts with the stated goal of preventing voter fraud were initiated that are making it more difficult to register to vote and to vote. Despite assertions of voter fraud, every non-political investigation of the issue has failed to find any significant voter fraud. “A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter.” [2]  “In fact, Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud.” [3]  “There is no evidence – none – that fraud is a major problem in any state.” [4] 

Nonetheless, in 2011, state governments have enacted an unprecedented array of new laws to make it harder to register and to vote. These new laws are likely to make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to vote in 2012. [5]  The new restrictions on voting and registering include: [6] [7]

  • Requiring a government-issued picture ID to vote (in 14 states including Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin. Vetoed by Governors in 5 states. Proposed in 22 more states.)
  • Requiring proof of citizenship to register. (Kansas andAlabama)
  • Repealing same day voter registration. (Repealed inMaine after being in effect for 38 years without any problems but reinstated by voters in a statewide referendum.) In 2008, over 1 million voters registered on Election Day.
  • Reducing early voting (i.e., prior to Election Day). (Florida,Georgia,Ohio,Tennessee,West Virginia) In 2008, 40 million voters took advantage of early voting.
  • Prohibiting ex-criminals who have served their time from voting. (Florida,Iowa,Kentucky,Virginia)
  • Restricting voter registration drives. (Florida,Texas)

In the next issue, I’ll take a look at who is affected by these changes and why they are happening.

[1]       Caldwell, Patrick, Nov. 2011, “Who stole the election?” The American Prospect

[2]       Berman, Ari, 8/30/11, “The GOP war on voting,” Rolling Stone

[3]       Weiser, W., and Agraharkar, V., 10/22/10, “Ballot security and voter suppression: Information citizens should know,”BrennanCenter for Justice, New York University School of Law

[4]       Roberts, C., and Roberts, S., 10/25/11, “Voting barriers keep popping in 2012,” syndicated column in the Reading Daily Times Chronicle

[5]       Weiser, W., and Norden, L., 10/3/11, “Voting law changes in 2012,”BrennanCenter for Justice, New York University School of Law

[6]       Berman, Ari, 8/30/11, “The GOP war on voting,” Rolling Stone

[7]       Caldwell, Patrick, Nov. 2011, “Who stole the election?” The American Prospect