Campaign Finance Reform - Fair Elections Now Act

[Guest Democracy 21]

Fundamental reform of the nation's campaign finance laws requires:

 

* Repairing the presidential public financing system, which President Obama publicly committed to do during his 2008 presidential campaign;

* Establishing a public financing system for congressional races, and

* Creating a new campaign finance enforcement system to replace the failed Federal Election Commission (FEC).

 

At the heart of creating new financing systems for presidential and congressional elections is the need to empower and engage widespread citizen participation in financing elections through small "non-influence seeking" contributions.

 

An enormous opportunity exists today to dramatically change the way we finance our elections by combining the use of the Internet with small contributions and public matching funds. This would greatly increase the role and importance of citizens in funding our elections - and concomitantly decrease the role of special interest money.

 

This approach is central to achieving the campaign finance reforms for presidential and congressional elections necessary to effectively change Washington.

 

Furthermore, campaign finance laws that are not properly enforced have limited impact. This is a major problem of immediate consequence for the 2010 elections.

 

The six-member Federal Election Commission is an "enforcement" agency that has been taken over by three of its Commissioners, who are ideologically opposed to the campaign finance laws, have consistently thwarted enforcement of the laws and have repeatedly taken positions to gut and undermine the laws. As a result, these Commissioners have clearly signaled to all participants in the upcoming 2010 congressional elections that the campaign finance laws will not be enforced while they are serving on the FEC.

 

One of these three FEC Commissioners, Don McGahn, is a lame duck, whose term expired last April and who is not eligible for reappointment. Since his term has expired, McGahn should not even be on the Commission at this time. But he can continue to serve indefinitely until he is replaced. It is essential for the President to appoint a replacement for Commissioner McGahn on the FEC and to pursue systemic changes to the agency to provide the country with a real campaign finance enforcement agency.

 

These campaign finance reforms are the overriding government reform challenge facing President Obama as he begins his second year in office. We look forward to President Obama providing strong leadership on these essential campaign finance reforms and to working with the Obama Administration and congressional leaders to achieve these goals.

[Guest American for Progress]

Yesterday, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantee of free speech means that corporations can spend unlimited sums to help elect favored candidates or defeat those they oppose." The activist 5-4 decision struck down a 63-year-old ban that ensured corporations may not use their enormous profits to support or oppose candidates. The ruling "declared unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002." Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress Action Fund observed, "Today's decision does far more than simply provide Fortune 500 companies with a massive megaphone to blast their political views to the masses; it also empowers them to drown out any voices that disagree with them." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), who is already pushing legislation to rectify the Court's decision, warned, "The law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable." "The Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century," the New York Times writes today.

[Guest Will Holley]

Statement From David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United

 

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Citizens United to air its documentary films and advertisements is a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United but for every American who desires to participate in the political process.

 

“As our case amply demonstrates, campaign finance legislation over the last two decades has imposed, as Justice Kennedy put it, a “censorship . . . vast in its reach.” By overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and striking down McCain-Feingold’s ban on so-called electioneering communications, the Supreme Court has made possible the participation in our political process that is the right of every American citizen – a right that had been severely curtailed under McCain-Feingold.

 

“This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First Amendment rights of all Americans. The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve.

 

“First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Kadish who have been incredibly generous from the very first day of this process. We would never have been able to reach the Supreme Court without their support. I also need to thank the thousands of donors who exercised their right to free speech to support Citizens United and this defense of the First Amendment.

 

“The Citizens United Board of Directors deserves a great deal of credit for recognizing the potential of this case and supporting my decision to take this fight head-on. I need to thank our legal team, beginning with Michael Boos, Vice President and General Counsel at Citizens United, and the leader of this tremendous legal team. That team included Jim Bopp, a man who has been fighting McCain-Feingold since its inception and did a phenomenal job with the early stages of this case. Finally, Ted Olsen, Matthew McGill, Amir Tayrani and the entire team at Gibson Dunn, are attorneys without peer and deserve a tremendous amount of credit for the work that they did on this case.

 

“Last and certainly not least, I need to thank my family for putting up with the long hours it took over the last four years to bring this case to the Supreme Court. I could not have done it without them.”

[Guest Busy Bee]

Get ready for Wall Street to swarm the airwaves with massive amounts of misinformation this election cycle.

 

These Big Banks and Big Corporations will spend billions of dollars on advertisements designed to distort the truth and confuse voters, thus tilting election results in their favor.

 

Our Country is no longer the for THE PEOPLE. Our Country is for THE CORPORATION.

[Guest 84Saints]

Lawrence Kadish is a national commercial and industrial real estate investor and developer. First Fiscal Fund Corp., 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017

 

Lawrence Kadish is chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and a top donor to the Republican Party. Kadish, a real estate investor in New York and Florida, was cited by Mother Jones Magazine as one of the country's top individual donors, having given $532,000 to the GOP. His RJC has long tried to build links between the Republican Party, including its Christian Right component, and American Jews.

 

He is also the founding chairman of the Committee for Security and Peace in the Middle East and the American Middle East Information Network. Encouraged and supported by Mr. Kadish, these two institutions have sought to strengthen democracy and encourage pluralism in the Middle East and around the globe. Mr. Kadish has been a supporter of the Investigative Project which conducted a strategic review of world wide terrorism and cautioned Americans on the eve of September 11th that systematic terrorism was threatening our nation’s security. Lawrence Kadish has also served as a contributor to various organizations including the Foundation for Media and Public Affairs, the Foundation for Responsible Government, the Center for Security Policy and the Drug Free America Foundation.

 

His early career was in electrical engineering.

 

He has been married to Susan for forty-four years, and has three sons, Howard, William, and Charles.

 

Lawrence Kadish campaign contributions:

 

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=&zip=11568&last=Kadish&first=Lawrence

 

http://watchdog.net/contrib/11590/lawrence_kadish

[Guest Sen. Bernie Sanders]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after the Supreme Court today overturned decisions that had curbed corporate campaign contributions:

 

“The ruling is going to open the flood gates for the largest corporations to spend unlimited resources electing those candidates who represent their interests. The ruling will, to a significant degree, give control of the political process in the United States to the wealthiest and most powerful institutions in the world and the candidates who support their agenda. Instead of democracy being about one-person one-vote, it will now be about the size of a company’s bank account. The answer, in my view, is that Congress must move forward aggressively for public funding of elections,” Sanders said.

 

In a 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, justices overruled a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. The ruling also junked part of a 2003 decision that upheld the central provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

[Guest Metteyya]

When corporations can spend ANY amount to defeat a particular candidate, political self preservation requires Congress to toe the line, OR ELSE.

 

We need MASS MOBILIZATION from both sides of the aisle on this one, because we need a constitutional amendment to force Roberts to heed the public's desire for a government of the people and by the people as the Founders intended.

 

What is truly amazing about this decision is that it COMPLETELY contradicts the Federalist Society's mantra of original intent and strict construction of the Constitution, and both Scalia and Roberts were avid Federalist Society types while in law school. Scalia was even the "sole" faculty sponsor of the Federalist Society when he was a law professor at the University of Chicago.

 

Truly SHAMEFUL decision that effectively puts a corporate gun to ALL members of Congress.

[Guest Common Cause]

While there are a few defensive legislative options for reducing the impact of a negative decision in Citizens United, the bottom line, even if they pass, is that an already untenable situation will be made worse. The only short-term option available to change the game and seize the initiative for reshaping the nature of elections in the 21st Century is to embrace a small donor/public funding model that empowers grassroots campaigns and allows candidates to run highly competitive races without relying on wealthy special interests. The incentives within the model would vastly expand the donor base available to candidates and party committees, raising up their capacity to compete in a post-CU environment. This model is the basis for current legislation to modernize public funding for presidential elections, under the Presidential Funding Act of 2009, and to create a new public funding system for congressional elections, under the Fair Elections Now Act.

 

The range of defensive legislative options is fairly narrow, as the Roberts Court has increasingly left very little room to maneuver within the post-Watergate regulatory framework. The alternatives along this line would be to:

 

1. Narrow the Court’s ruling as much as possible by amending language within BCRA and/or the Taft-Hartley and Tillman Acts. We doubt that there will be much leeway in this direction, but it’s worth looking at based on whatever rationale and guidelines the Court puts forward.

 

2. Increase individual and PAC contribution limits. Some in Congress believe that the way to counteract outside spending is to let candidates raise contributions in larger amounts. This is perhaps the worst of all policy options. Given that corporate executives and PACs dominate election financing today, raising contribution limits as a response to more corporate spending in elections makes little sense whatsoever. It will only worsen the pay-to-play culture and public policy distortions created by Congress’ current dependence on large contributions – and further undermine voters’ confidence that Congress can act in the public’s best interest – without relieving Members of the crushing burden of year-round fundraising.

 

3. Require affirmative shareholder approval for corporate political expenditures. While this has some initial appeal, it would only affect publicly traded corporations and, even then, we would have to win proxy fights in thousands of corporations. Powerful interests, like privately held hedge funds, would not be constrained by this approach. It also suffers from severe political obstacles; the immediate response of the Republicans will be “paycheck protection” – requiring member approval of union political expenditures – which the unions and progressives would adamantly oppose.

 

4. Increased disclosure. This approach, which could be pursued under both FEC and SEC rules, exposes corporations and candidates to potential embarrassment when expenditures come under public scrutiny.

 

None of those defensive options will prevent the current corrosive influence of money in politics from getting worse. While they may constrain spending at the margins, new avenues for greater corporate political spending will remain open – and be given a fresh stamp of legitimacy by the Supreme Court. The Citizens United decision, combined with a string of other bad campaign finance rulings, will most likely signal the end of a purely regulatory regime as a viable approach to meaningful campaign finance reform.

 

Nor will those measures restore any semblance of balance on the political playing field. The Citizens United decision will, in all likelihood, greatly increase the political spending gap between corporations and labor. Corporations may have outspent unions 4:1 in the arena of regulated PAC spending during the 2008 election cycle, but they outspent unions 61:1 on lobbying during the same period – an activity for which corporations could freely tap their profits.

 

More significantly, the fear of unlimited corporate political spending will fuel a rapidly escalating fundraising arms race. Elected officials will feel compelled to spend more and more of their time raising money, thereby further distracting Congress from the pressing issues of the day, creating fear of political reprisal for unpopular votes, exacerbating conflicts of interest, and undermining public confidence in their government’s ability to act in the public interest.

 

Over the long term, undoing the Court’s deregulation of political spending would require passage of a constitutional amendment (or a change in the composition of the Court). Leading options in this direction include authorizing spending limits, or tackling the prevailing doctrine of “corporate personhood.” Both approaches will require a heavy lift and years of organizing.

 

The only viable policy option on the table that will fundamentally change the playing field is public financing of federal elections. The small donor/public funding model at the core of both the Presidential Funding Act and the Fair Elections Now Act would allow candidates to opt out of the escalating arms race and run vigorous campaigns without relying on large contributions. The Fair Elections Now Act – sponsored by Senators Durbin and Specter in the Senate, and Representatives Larson and Jones in the House – is loaded up and ready to go. We have significant momentum in the House – where we have been moving steadily toward a floor vote – with more than 115 cosponsors, a bipartisan whip team and leadership support already in place. In addition, a broad coalition of powerful issue and constituency groups is poised to assist us in moving the legislation forward.

[Guest STGeorge]

I almost fell off my chair when i read the supreme court overturned a ruling which will allow "foreign corporations" to donate money to administration and congressional election. Talk about more Legal payola and influence from outside the US....

[Guest LAW]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

 

Before the 2008 Presidential election, a "newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." Luo, Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors, N. Y. Times, Aug.8, 2008, p. A15. Its leader, "who described his effort as 'going for the jugular,'" detailed the group's plan to send a "warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."

 

These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliation from elected officials.

 

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in"core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection.'" McConnell, 540 U. S., at 264 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part) (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 410–411 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting)). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment upholding BCRA §§201 and 311.

[Guest Alaska Tea Party]

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has found that 84% of respondents believe that special interests have too much influence in the political process - and the Citizens United decision will only make this worse. It's time to pass the Fair Elections Now Act.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083918/ns/politics-white_house/

[Luke_Wilbur]

Ethics and politics do not walk hand-in-hand. All organizations should disclose where they get their money. Especially, organizations receiving cash gifts. Otherwise, instances of bribes and money laundering can occur. All publicly traded companies should share with their stockholders where all the company money is going.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Luke_Wilbur

[Guest LAW]

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) announced today that he will be introducing a constitutional amendment in the coming days to reverse the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision overturned 100 years of precedents to come to the unjustified conclusion that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans.

 

"Money is not speech,” said Dodd. “Corporations are not people. And in the wake of one of the most radical decisions in the Supreme Court’s history of campaign finance jurisprudence, a constitutional amendment is necessary to fully restore the trust and voice of the American people. If corporations – foreign as well as domestic – are allowed even greater and more direct influence over our elections, our democracy as we know it will cease to exist. I won’t stand for that. I urge my colleagues, and the American people, to join me in defense of democracy by supporting this amendment and other interim steps to mitigate the damage done by this decision.”

 

Dodd’s proposed amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for state and federal political campaigns, and to implement and enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation.

 

http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/5459

[Guest Human]

Here is my Responce to you "Law".

 

Obama opts out of public funds

Updated 6/20/2008 3:13 AM

 

By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama's decision to walk away from more than $84 million in taxpayer money for the general election signals trouble for a system created to limit the influence of special interests, experts say.

Obama on Thursday set aside an early promise to use public funds for the fall and became the first presidential nominee to bypass the system since it was created in 1976 after the Watergate scandal.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-19-obama-campaign-finance_N.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

 

Opposing view: Both sides must agree

I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.

By Barack Obama

 

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

 

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

 

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

 

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

 

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

 

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

 

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

 

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is seeking his party's presidential nomination.

[BlingBling]

I think Americans need to know who is perched on the top of the list for campaign contributions from the bank industry. Hmmmm.....

 

Sen. John McCain got a cool $591,919 payoff from from bank lending institutions.

 

Still not done.

 

Sen. John McCain got a whopping $1,612,928 from commercial bank lending and holding companies.

 

Still not done.

 

Sen. John McCain even managed $26,571 from the credit union.

 

Still not done

 

$195,833 Credit agencies and finance institutions

 

Oh my gosh I can't believe this one.

 

$1,616,723 from insurance companies, brokers, and agents.

 

I can go on if you wish.

 

I love rehashing truths.

[Guest Human]

I'm still waiting for you to explain as to why Barack Obama went back on his word?

[Guest Human]

I'm snowed in Blingbling; yet still no answer from you. I can promise you that I as well as others are not going anywhere.

 

I can also promise you that there is no way that I will ever get snow bound again. This summer when prices go down, I will most definitely be buying myself a snowmobile "Modified of course".

 

To make real sure that Mr. Snow can't slow me down in the future.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting for you to explain as to why Barack Obama went back on his word?

[Guest Fedup]

I do not think corporations and unions should not have the same constitutional rights as individual citizens.

[BlingBling]

I am sorry to keep you waiting Human. I have been out shoveling snow. Both President Obama and Senator John McCain explicitly discouraged independent spending by their supporters during the 2008 campaign. Obama also explicitly required a promise by the REPUBLICAN PARTY to adopt a "fundraising truce"– meaning not using the parties or 527s as a way to cheat the system. It was game masters like yourself and the REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP that screwed the deal and you know it.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/obamafund_06-19.html

 

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: This is not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system.

 

JEFFREY BROWN: Referring specifically to John McCain's campaign, he said...

 

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: We've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

 

I am tired and I am going to bed.

[Guest Human]

I've been shoveling snow too Shoveled snow last night too. Never been called a Games Master, but I do Thank You "Even though you meant it as an insult".

 

Barack Obama changed the rules because it benefited him, and that is that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry to keep you waiting Human. I have been out shoveling snow. Both President Obama and Senator John McCain explicitly discouraged independent spending by their supporters during the 2008 campaign. Obama also explicitly required a promise by the REPUBLICAN PARTY to adopt a "fundraising truce"– meaning not using the parties or 527s as a way to cheat the system. It was game masters like yourself and the REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP that screwed the deal and you know it.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/obamafund_06-19.html

 

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: This is not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system.

 

JEFFREY BROWN: Referring specifically to John McCain's campaign, he said...

 

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: We've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

 

I am tired and I am going to bed.

[Guest AUEagle]

Unregulated Capitalism (which is what the US has now) gives corporations complete control of democracy. Each year, corporate lobbyists throw billions of dollars at politicians to get them to make laws that will benefit corporations instead of the American people.

 

That's the reason you're the only country in the civilized world that doesn't have some form of universal healthcare. God Bless America

[Guest Jim Scheibe]

The ruling essentially destroys the very structure of our political process, allowing corporate influence to silence the voices of American citizens. Corporations would be able to use their vast resources to control our lawmakers and our elections. But corporations don't speak for America, you do!

 

Big business and foreign corporations have no place in our elections. Our representatives should represent us, not the companies we work for. That's why our work at 21st Century Democrats is so important. We help people make a difference in their own communities, by supporting local candidates at the grassroots level.

[Guest LAW]

Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator for Colorado, announced that he will be an original cosponsor of new legislation that closes loopholes recently opened as a result of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

 

"The best way to protect the American people from the worst parts of Washington's broken campaign finance system is to get the corporate attack money out into the open so voters know exactly who's behind the ad buys," Bennet said. "Democracy can't develop in a dark room, especially one that's bought and paid for by special interests."

 

The legislation would allow shareholders to find out what is happening to the money they've invested in the company by improving transparency requirements on large, stealth contributions for attack ads from shadow organizations. It would also require CEOs to claim the political ads they run as their own.

 

Additionally, this new legislation imposes special restrictions on foreign corporations, government contractors and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout recipients that try to use their treasuries to manipulate the political process.

 

Bennet continued, "Without this law, corporations could turn our system of government into a pay-to-play auction where perks and taxpayer dollars go to the highest bidder."

[Guest Human]

You mean like what the Unions did with Obama?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator for Colorado, announced that he will be an original cosponsor of new legislation that closes loopholes recently opened as a result of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

 

"The best way to protect the American people from the worst parts of Washington's broken campaign finance system is to get the corporate attack money out into the open so voters know exactly who's behind the ad buys," Bennet said. "Democracy can't develop in a dark room, especially one that's bought and paid for by special interests."

 

The legislation would allow shareholders to find out what is happening to the money they've invested in the company by improving transparency requirements on large, stealth contributions for attack ads from shadow organizations. It would also require CEOs to claim the political ads they run as their own.

 

Additionally, this new legislation imposes special restrictions on foreign corporations, government contractors and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout recipients that try to use their treasuries to manipulate the political process.

 

Bennet continued, "Without this law, corporations could turn our system of government into a pay-to-play auction where perks and taxpayer dollars go to the highest bidder."

[Luke_Wilbur]

Amen. Unions, banks, and corporations for Obama. Banks, corporations, and the military for McCain. I wonder what this would be like in Roman times. Would a Senator or Leader of the Republic get stabbed to death? Would the mob or a government official be the killer? Of course, the bank would have to support the action to finance the transition team.