Public Funding of State Elections In Trouble?

And as has been said here before... (4.00 / 1)

the monies raised and spent by candidates and their parties have become increasingly insignificant because of the hundreds of millions being spent by corporate faux organizations.  

"Hope is Never Silent" - Harvey Milk


June is LGBT Pride Month - Happy Pride!

www.nhdp.org

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 16:22:45 PM CDT

This is exactly the greatest problem facing our democractic elections. (4.00 / 3)

For all of the problems with PACs and Parties and Politicians, they all to a large degree are transparent to the public in terms of funding. It is when all other voices are drowned out by stealth spending by corporations and faux front groups that democracy is threatened.

It is in recognition of this fact that the Supreme Court, even in its current conservative makeup, has consistently held that disclosure measures are not a limitation on free speech and do  not violate the First Amendment.


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 19:22:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Transparency isn't the half of it. (4.00 / 2)

No campaign can rival the advertising budget of big business.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 21:22:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Way To Respond... (0.00 / 0)

...is to educate the public that their votes are being bought.  

We can do that best when "our" candidates don't seduce themselves by dailing for dollars from corporations -- that will show voters that our candidates aren't part of the problem.

We can't stop political free speech. We shouldn't try.  But we sure can point out who speaks the truth, and whose speech isn't bought off.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:36:49 AM CDT

Are you preaching "abstinence?" (0.00 / 0)

How quiant.

MLK must be smiling from above, as you suggest bringing a feather to a flamethrower fight.

The free spending of front groups is designed to drive our elected officials TO the PACS, et al.

IT IS A HERDING TACTIC.

Pssst...Hey Senator. NOM is beating you about the head and neck, huh. I can help with that ;v). Special interests are funding both sides of the war.

The place to start is pushing back the "air campaign." Why? Because, WE are strong on the ground.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:42:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How do you educate if you dont have the facts? (4.00 / 1)

But we sure can point out who speaks the truth, and whose speech isn't bought off.  

You cant point out anything if you dont know who is spending the millions for "independent" political ads that benefit candidates that toe the corporate line.

If you don't know that BP is funding "Moms for a Clean Gulf", and they support a candidate who limits their liability for spills, you cant point it out. That is why disclosure laws are needed. To think that candidates don't know who is spending millions for "independent' ads is naive. The recipients are as bought as those who receive direct contributions and their votes are equally predictable.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:04:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Keeping Politics Safe For The Rich" (4.00 / 3)

editorial in today's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06...
In a burst of judicial activism, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upended the gubernatorial race in Arizona, cutting off matching funds to candidates participating in the state's public campaign finance system. Suddenly, three candidates, including Gov. Jan Brewer, can no longer receive public funds they had counted on to run against a free-spending wealthy opponent.

The court's reckless order muscling into the race was terse and did not say whether there were any dissents, though it is hard to imagine there were not. An opinion explaining its reasoning will have to wait until the next term, assuming it takes the case, but by that time the state's general election will be over and its model campaign finance system substantially demolished.

It seems likely that the Roberts court will use this case to continue its destruction of the laws and systems set up in recent decades to reduce the influence of big money in politics. By the time it is finished, millionaires and corporations will have regained an enormous voice in American politics, at the expense of candidates who have to raise money the old-fashioned way and, ultimately, at the expense of voters.

Arizona's clean elections program was established by the state's voters in 1998 after a series of scandals provided clear illustrations of money's corrupting influence. In particular, the program was prompted by the AzScam scandal of 1991, in which many state legislators were recorded accepting contributions and bribes in exchange for approval of gambling legislation.

This Bush court is destroying what's best about America. Blind justice. Now shes has her thumb on the scale...

Not in the shot

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 07:24:40 AM CDT

In case you missed it, South Carolina Democrats just (0.00 / 0)

selected a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by DeMint who spend NO money on advertising and paid the $!0,000 filing fee out of hid own pocket.  His name is Alvin Greene.  South Carolina Democrats, instead of being delighted by the arrival of this volunteer, are determined to prove him a Republican set-up.  The officially sanctioned candidate had over $186,000 in the bank and was ready to go.  Then the voters said, "not so fast."

---

by: hannah @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 13:29:27 PM CDT

Yoiu may want to rethink your position (4.00 / 1)

DeMint, the incumbent, had, as of May 19, 2010, $3,504,356 cash on hand. $180,000 is not "ready to go".

To quote the Charleston newspaper;

Political analysts don't give Greene a chance. Few expected Rawl would have fared better.

http://www.postandcourier.com/...

Given that the nominee has a pending felony charge for showing porn to a college student, I would say this has little to do with the voters saying "not so fast" and more to do with "who the heck are these guys, well, Greene has a nice ring to it".

So, your delight at the upset of Mr. Rawl by Mr. Greene may be less than well founded.

I am always reminded in situations like these of the time a Democratic candidate dropped out of a race, threw her support to someone else, and then won the primary anyway!    



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 14:06:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Statement by SCDP Chair Carol Fowler (0.00 / 0)

 

South Carolina Democrats try to push out accused felon

The South Carolina Democratic Party sends over a statement from Chair Carol Fowler, responding to a report that an unexpected nominee to face Jim DeMint "was recently charged with disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity after showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student."

Fowler:

Today I spoke with Alvin Greene, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US Senate, and asked him to withdraw from the race. I did not do this lightly, as I believe strongly that the Democratic voters of this state have the right to select our nominee. But this new information about Mr. Greene has would certainly have affected the decisions of many of those voters.

We are proud to have nominated a Democratic ticket this year that, with the apparent exception of Mr. Greene, reflects South Carolina's values. Our candidates want to give this state a new beginning without the drama and irresponsibility of the past 8 years, and the charges against Mr. Greene indicate that he cannot contribute to that new beginning. I hope he will see the wisdom of leaving the race.

"Hope is Never Silent" - Harvey Milk


June is LGBT Pride Month - Happy Pride!

www.nhdp.org

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 15:36:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regulation Of Speech Isn't An Answer... (0.00 / 0)

...so look for others.  Congress won't do that, and I doubt you'll be able to make another run at getting the NH Legislature to do that.  House Bill 1459 is dead.  Gone.  Finished.  Thank goodness.

So how about having candidates who can take on the message of clean elections by being clean themselves -- by refusing to accept corporate donations.  Show how the Republicans keep on dialing for those dollars.  Turn the issue of their fundraising on them.  But we can't do that if we're participating in the same process.

Give the money back to Walmart, etc.  There are other ways to raise the money we need to compete than to going after corporate dollars.  Voters are smarter than you might think:  they will understand that candidates who don't accept corporate money are doing so for a reason; just as those who DO go after corporate money are selling themselves off to the highest bidder.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 21:43:15 PM CDT

Gloating is ugly (0.00 / 0)

House Bill 1459 is dead.  Gone.  Finished.  Thank goodness.

Could you be any less respectful to those that show up with a mop?

Something has angered you. It seems personal. Have you lost your objectivity and poise?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 22:53:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Angers Me Jack Is... (0.00 / 0)

...that we go after corporate money.  That should anger you too.  

WHY should Democratic candidates, or our party, be dialing for dollars from corporations?

I'll wait until hell freezes over for that answer.  I think someone said that once.  

And I will be asking that question frequently.  We should be better than that.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 23:39:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You may have noticed (0.00 / 0)

I'm a fan of Lessig's effort to Fix Congress First. Here, you will find that Mike Hoefer and me frequently promote Lessig's efforts. Also, if you search for You Street here on BH, you will see my name in the links that come up.

So, although your work in Concord is legendary, I refuse to concede any moral high ground on the of matter campaign finance reforms.

All this said, I can tell from the pattern you have developed on this blog that this issue is now on your radar. Just like the war in Af/Pak was, some months ago.

However, since this conflict is in your own backyard and with folks that you call friends, your tone is very different.

The proximity of WalMart to my Democratic ideals bothers the shit outta me. What bothers me more, the potential proximity of Republicans to Capitol Hill.

Fight your fight, wisely please.

Not like this.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:06:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Fight Hard... (0.00 / 0)

...and give no ground when it comes to free speech.  Sorry.  Let's get ready for a battle.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:33:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scorched Earth, Then? n/t (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 07:19:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And in that battle you will be on the side of Granite Grok and every major corporation in the country. (4.00 / 3)

You will also be on the side of the National Organization for Marriage (and the unknown entities that fund them) when they roll out the ads to undo marriage equality. You will be toasted in the boardrooms that fund the Chamber of Commerce attacks on laws protecting right of workers to organize. When the citizens ask in vain who is behind the renewed efforts to privatize Social Security, the faces behind the masks will join you in saying "Gone. Finished. Thank Goodness" to 1459.

Please don't respond by talking about donations to candidates as 1) I agree with you on that separate subject and 2) because of donation limitations that for the moment are still in place, it is chump change compared to the independent corporate expenditures we are about to see.

I also agree with you on saying no to corporate donations ourselves, but that alone without disclosure of the millions the other side will reap leaves us unarmed, or as Anthony Weiner recently said, doing what Democrats usually do, "bringing a book to a knife fight".

I find your Granite Grok post that Jack linked to a bit hard to understand from someone who claims that supporters of disclosure of corporate funding in election ads are giving "talking  points" to the right.

Kettle meet pot, and please dont forget to  say thank you for "talking points" gift wrapped and hand delivered.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 07:26:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Defeat Of HB 1459... (0.00 / 0)

...really was facilitated by those who crafted it, because it was such a poor piece of legislation.  So full of loopholes and "gotchas" that it was worthless even if passed.  It didn't provide for "disclosure," it intimidated free speech.  No wonder so many small businesses and organizations and non-profit groups were opposed to it from the beginning.

If "our friends" don't take a different approach in Congress, we won't be able to pass something nationally that would be uniform -- and it's on a national basis that we need to balance corporate influence, since if we had actually passed HB 1459 it wouldn't have had any impact on Boston TV, or Vermont, or Maine, etc.  

And why did you and Democratic Party leaders drop your support of House Bill 1367 in the Senate so quickly?  At LEAST we would have been able to prohibit contributions from corporations going to political candidates.  It had already passed the House, and had support from Senate Democrats.  Love to hear an answer to that one, Paul.

So please Paul, don't try to talk about boardroom toasts and place the blame of your feared heartburn about November on me.  The past two weeks opened my eyes again to the way that the way that the power of the majority can sometimes be misused and abused.  Very sad.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 07:43:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

for the fourth time. (4.00 / 1)

I didn't ever drop support for 1367, which addresses a different question. I supported it when you wrote it, I supported it at the election committee, and I would support it now. ( I must say that I have serious doubts that laws that mandate that corporations give to PACS rather than spend from their treasury can survive the same court that wrote Citizens United, which is based upon a rejection of such a mandate in the context of independent expenditures. I have asked some national experts on campaign law about this and they said that thought the shelf life of a law like 1367 was very short). But that is another subject and has nothing to do with disclosure requirements.

I dont doubt for a moment that you are sincere in your view of the reach of the first amendment. But it is a view that has no basis in the law and it is one that every Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Sotomayor all summarily rejected in Citizens United when they upheld the constitutionality of disclosure requirements in the face of exactly the argument you make.

If you go back and read the Souter speech at Harvard, you will see that he discusses how the First Amendment is not absolute and must be interpreted with limitations when it comes into conflict with other constitutional mandates. Here there is an interplay between the right of free speech and the need for fair elections free from the corruption of large money. While there is significant disagreement as to how resolve that tension in the context of corporate donations, the courts have unanimously held that disclosure laws are well on the side of what is constitutional and do not represent an infringement on anyone's right to speak freely.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 08:04:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gail Collins column in Times discussing ads by Friends of Puppies. (4.00 / 1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06...

Besides the rich "self-funders," we have loony attack ads from mysterious well-heeled groups with names like Friends of Puppies. (A recent ad in Alabama attacking a gubernatorial candidate for supporting the teaching of evolution was financed by the True Republican PAC, whose big donor was actually the state teachers' union.)

The fear of a billion-dollar Freddy Krueger or Friends of Puppies terrifies normal elected officials into compulsively piling up campaign donations to protect them from a big-money tornado. Whenever we try to come up with a system that will even the playing field, the Supreme Court calls foul. Arizona has a clean elections law that rewards candidates who promise not to take money from special interests. Just this week, the court told Arizona that the state couldn't distribute matching funds under the program because it might violate the First Amendment rights of one fringe candidate named Buz who refused to take part in the system.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:02:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fact Is, Paul... (0.00 / 0)

...you're a good man, and I still like you despite our occasional differences.  Something like 90% of politics is opinion.  Of course, that's just my opinion -- I have no scientific data to support the 90%.  And I'm not sure what the other 10% looks like.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:08:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The reasons I dont let go of this is that I think it goes to the heart of what we need to do to avoid Potemkin village elections. (4.00 / 2)

I don't in any way equate money with speech. (Although I do think it has a direct relation with volume, which is another thing entirely). And I don't equate corporate entities with human beings.

With the Supreme Court majority engaging in overturning laws enacted by state legislatures to put people on an equal footing in elections without the benefit of any briefs or arguments, there is precious little we can do to stop the monetization  of democracy other than to insist on transparency.

They are radical ideologues who have no respect for process or precedent and represent a clear and present danger to the democracy we hold dear.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 13:12:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Free Speech? (0.00 / 0)

Hardly!

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 13:19:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And The Reason I Won't Let Go Of This... (0.00 / 0)

...is that I think free speech is paramount to our democracy, foundational to all other.  But I agree with you that corporate influence and the power of money must be reduced in campaigns.  On that we can find common ground.

I think there are a number of other approaches; and in the meantime it's up to Congress to create a uniform set of disclosure standards.  A good law-making process = good law = good results.  A quickly-written law with a poor process = bad law = ineffective results.  

Where there is commonality of purpose and goal, there is always a way to create and achieve it.   I'm confident the solution(s) will be found.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 16:06:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Congress? (4.00 / 1)

Congress does not have any control over state campaign finance laws.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 17:10:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They Sure Do... (0.00 / 0)

...over corporations.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 18:35:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not with respect to state elections (4.00 / 1)

Congress can regulate the actions of corporations with respect to federal elections, but not state elections. That is why the federal ban on direct corporate donations to candidates does not override NH law which permits direct corporate contributions to candidates. Also, corporations are organized under state law, not federal law.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 19:40:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aiding & Abetting Granite Grok (4.00 / 2)

For our friends out there that may not scan the intertubes on a regular basis, the kerfuffle around Rep. Splaine collaborating with a clique of right wing blather bags comes from stuff like THIS:

"Who elected this simpleton?"

From Carol's Dim Bulb

Ya! They ARE talking about the Carol we fully support. It doesn't take much effort to see how she is smeared and degraded by the Right.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:00:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are these charges treason sir ? (4.00 / 1)

death penalty? just askin?

Not in the shot

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:23:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jury is out (4.00 / 1)

It would be hasty to render a verdict before the November election.

A strict program of penance, begun today, would be considered in an appeal for leniency.

Pfft, who am I kidding!

A chorus of "Don't Tread On Me" has begun.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:08:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

can you give me sanctuary? (4.00 / 1)

petition the lord with prayer? its a rainy day, wth?

Not in the shot

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:25:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Irony (0.00 / 0)

The Soft Parade is considered by Doors purists to be their "sell out" album.

No one is arguing the undue influence of money in music, though. ;v)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

lol n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:06:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL? (4.00 / 2)

LOL!

"Because John Edwards has a vision for America. He's the only candidate who's never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists." (4:00)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 13:51:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and a new Democrat backed Indie funding group is born (4.00 / 1)

This part caught my eye...like there are no disclosures for R leaners...?
"...meaning that it can accept contributions of unlimited size but must disclose its donors."
italics are mine

http://ht.ly/1XaUf

Senior Democrats form outside group aimed at 2010 elections

1. A trio of senior Democratic operatives have formed an independent organization that will fund ads in a series of targeted federal races this fall.

Known as Commonsense Ten, the organization will file today as an independent expenditure committee with the Federal Election Commission -- meaning that it can accept contributions of unlimited size but must disclose its donors. The budget for the group is in the millions.

Its three founding members are former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee executive director Jim Jordan, Monica Dixon, a former aide to Al Gore and Sen. Mark Warner, and veteran party operative Jeff Forbes.

"We're game but, frankly, we'll go as far as the Democratic and progressive donor community wants to take us," Jordan told the Fix. "With our majorities in both houses in play -- and with them President Obama's agenda -- and talk of a hundred million dollars plus being raised by Republican independent groups, we're optimistic that our funding base will rally."

Not in the shot

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 07:59:34 AM CDT

Types of Groups (4.00 / 3)

Sounds like this group is going to do direct advocacy of the nature of "vote for, vote against" in federal elections.  The biggest problem in federal elections are the 501,c,4 groups that conduct "issues" ads, you know the ones in black and white with the deep voice saying, "please call JonnyBBad and tell him, Jon, don't be a bad man". No one knows where their money comes from - and requiring them to register after they start running ads, and to provide a corporate board vote, does not interfere in any way with free speech. Requiring them to disclose where their money comes from does not interfere, in any way, with free speech.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:48:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The real bad players are the ones who abuse their non-profit status. (4.00 / 1)

They pretend to be charitable or educational organizations but in reality exist only to directly affect elections. Unlike "527" groups like the one JBB cited, these groups do not have to list donors and that is where the big money will flow, as it has trended for the last 4-5 years. The Citizens United is likely to markedly accelerate the flow of money away from parties, candidates and 527's toward what are presently stealth groups.

The loser here is the voter and their right to know who is buying their elections.

Terminology:

(based on IRS status)

527s make independent expenditures and directly endorse candidates

501 (c) organizations have many sub types but they are all not supposed to be explicitly endorsing candidates-- but with some of them there is no functional difference between them and 527's except the lack of transparency on donors.

To me it is odd that people can say that disclosure requirements for donors to parties, candidates, and 527's are fine, but suddenly it is a violation of free speech to require the same for  donations to 501's or direct corporate spending on election advocacy. Go figure.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 10:25:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

EXACTLY! (4.00 / 1)

"Hope is Never Silent" - Harvey Milk


June is LGBT Pride Month - Happy Pride!

www.nhdp.org

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:15:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]