Today the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, gave corporations the same rights as citizens when it comes to the freedom of expression implicit in campaign donations. In other words, legislation limiting corporate donations to politicians and political causes have been overturned.

In terms of the effect this will have on elections, it is a terrible decision. However, Constitutional decisions are not based on fairness or the consequences of those decisions so much as what rights we are given by the Constitution. For years the ACLU has opposed many of the strongest campaign finance laws because they view them as limiting free speech. This is not the ACLU trying to help the rich and powerful. It is, in their eyes, the correct way to interpret the constitution and the civil libertarian view.

I have never decided whether I agree with them or not. It is a gray area. Usually, when faced with a gray area, I tend to prefer the civil libertarian view. Better to err in favor of rights than go too far the other way. So, despite being very much in favor of campaign finance reform and wanting as strict rules as possible, I have also been open to the ACLU arguments.  read more »

They're at it again.

On March 31, a bipartisan group of House members introduced H.R. 1826, and a similarly bipartisan pair of Senators introduced S. 752. Both bills are entitled the “Fair Elections Now Act,” and each bill provides for partial public funding of elections in its respective house of Congress. These bills are an attempt to reduce the prevalence of large donors in congressional elections, the need for elected officials and candidates to spend enormous amounts of time fundraising, and the power large donors have over the legislative process.

Unfortunately, these bills not only fail to achieve their objectives, but in several ways they will actually make things worse.

The plan these bills create would set up a fund that disperses money to congressional candidates who qualify by raising enough money in small donations (between $5-100). Any candidate who participates in the plan would be limited to donations of $100 or less, rather than the current limit of $4,600 ($2,300 for a primary, and another $2,300 for a general election).

A participating candidate who raises enough money from enough small donors would qualify for a lump sum in public money, with the possibility of doubling that sum through “matching funds” for extra money raised. Qualifying candidates would not be allowed to spend their own or their family’s money (except for $100 per person), would not be allowed to accept large donations to their “Leadership PACs,” and would be required to debate their opponents.

On its surface, this plan sounds like a method for getting rid of large donors (and large fundraisers who raise huge sums for a candidate). It also seeks to end the constant money chase – currently, both major parties have large phonebanks in Washington, DC, and expect their elected officials to spend a lot of time there, calling donors to raise money for the next election; this plan tries to end that practice.

Dig beneath that surface, however, and it turns out that the endless fundraising, and the large donors, will not be eliminated or even diminished. Instead, the focus will shift slightly, and that shift will make things even worse for truly independent voices.  read more »

Does New York need campaign finance reform? Oh, of course not.

The New York Times:

A review of campaign-finance and federal tax records shows that at least 81 tax-exempt charities have given contributions to legislative candidates since 2005, with some organizations giving more than once to multiple candidates. While the amounts were not eye-popping, the contributions often flowed to lawmakers who helped the charities secure state money.

Wait, wait, it gets better.

“All I can say is, ‘Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa,’ “ said Fred W. McPhilliamy, president of Helen Keller Services for the Blind, which donated $2,000 in February 2008 to State Senator Carl L. Marcellino, a Long Island Republican who helped win $55,000 in state aid for the group last year. “We goofed.”

He said that representatives of his group bought tickets to a campaign fund-raiser for Senator Marcellino in Albany at the urging of a lobbyist but “never thought of it as a political contribution.”

The law barring charities from making campaign donations is over fifty years old.