LWV UPDATE ON… With thanks to the LWVMA Study Committee for all its efforts on this topic. MONEY IN POLITICS.

LWV UPDATE ON…

With thanks to the LWVMA Study Committee for all its efforts on this topic.

MONEY IN POLITICS

The League of Women Voters

LWV Current Position on Campaign Financing

Methods of financing political campaigns should:– Ensure the public’s right to know – Combat corruption and undue influence in the political process– Enable candidates to compete equitably– Allow maximum citizen participation in the electoral process

Most recently, using this position, the League has advocated for:– Transparency in financing political campaigns– Reducing the influence of big money in elections and government

Democracy or Plutocracy?

Fill in the blank People / Wealthy

Government of the ___________,

By the _______________,

For the ________________.

Tillman Act

(1907)

Tillman Act

(1907)

Taft Hartley (1947)

Taft Hartley (1947)

Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act (2002)

Banned Contributions to Candidatesfrom Banks and Corporations

• Updated FECA Limits• Enhanced Soft Money Regulations

Banned Contributions to Candidates from Labor Unions

Federal Election

Campaign Act

(1971 & 1974)

• Set Limits on Contributions made to Candidates• Set Limits on Expenditures by Campaigns• Established Disclosure Laws• Created The Federal Election Commission

Free Speech v. Campaign Finance Regulations

• Who’s entitled to Free Speech Protections?

• Are Limits on Contributions and Spending Constitutional?

Defining Corruption

• Quid Pro Quo Corruption: A direct exchange of favors

• Appearance of Corruption:An implied expectation of an exchange of favors

Major Supreme Court Cases

Buckley v. Valeo - 1976– Challenged Limits on Direct Contributions to Candidates– Challenged Limits on Campaign Spending

Citizens United v. The FEC - 2010 – Challenged Limits on Independent Expenditures

McCutcheon v. The FEC - 2014– Challenged Aggregate Limits on Contributions to Candidates

and Political Organizations

Buckley v. Valeo(1976)

What It Said

• Limits on Candidate Spending Infringe on Free Speech Rights

• Limits on Contributions to Candidates are Justifiable

MONEY

IS

SPEECH!

The Bottom Line

Candidates can spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns to get their message to the voters

Citizens United v. The FEC (2010)

What It Said

• Free Speech rights do not depend on the identity of the speaker – whether corporate or individual

• Independent Expenditures can’t be limited as they don’t give rise to corruption

The Bottom Line

This ruling granted free speech rights to corporations and gave them the OK to spend unlimited amounts of money on “independent expenditures” to influence voters.

The Dissent

“While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

Justice Stevens

McCutcheon v. The FEC (2014)

What It Said

Aggregate limits on individual contributions infringe on the donors free speech rights

The Bottom Line

Donors can now give the maximum contribution to an unlimited number of candidates in federal elections, and an unlimited number of party committees.

The Dissent

Taken together, Citizens United and McCutcheon eviscerate our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the problems… that those laws were intended to resolve.

Justice Breyer

American Politics is Now Open for Business

We Gladly Accept:

• Master Corps with large Treasury Funds

• American’s Expressing their views via money.

• And all Foreigners possessing the proper VISA…accounts

TillmanSpending Limits

Austin

Taft Hartley

Soft Money Loophole

Money in ElectionsHard Money Direct to Candidates• Caps on Contributions• Disclosure

Soft MoneyPolitical Parties Caps on contributions Disclosure 

Super PACs• Independent Expenditures• No Caps on Contributions or

Expenditures• Reporting Requirements

Lobbyists• Fundraising• Bundling

Dark Money 501(c)(4)‘s• No Disclosure• No Cap on Contributions• Expend Only 50% On

Electioneering

The Creation of the SUPER PAC

Everyone wants to have one

In the first six months of 2015

• $258 million dollars has been raised by Super PACs backing presidential candidates, compared to 16 million raised at this point in the 2012 cycle.

• 58 people have contributed at least $1 million to these groups.

Reasons NOT to Regulate Money in Politics

• Money allows the funding of modern communications, which is essential to reach voters

• Political communications inform the voters

• Government should not regulate political speech, which is fundamental to a democracy

How Money Distorts The Political Process

• Erodes the trust of the voters

• Creates a system of favored access and donor influence on policy making

• Erodes political equality and makes it harder for candidates to compete equitably for public office

• Forces elected officials to spend too much time on campaign fundraising

What Can We Do?Enact Policies in Regard to:

• Campaign Finance Reform, including Publicly Funded Elections

• Clean Elections Reform - Disclosure and Anti-Coordination Regulations

• A Constitutional Amendment

• Voter Rights and Access

Used with permission from Steve Sack 1/28/15

What Can You Do?• VOTE in every election—local, state and national, and encourage

your friends and family to vote too

• Familiarize yourself with money in politics issues - Use the Money in Politics (MIP) Review resources on the LWVMA website (and join the Google Groups – websites on next slide)

• Get Involved – there are many grassroots orgs doing great work that could use your help; attend events, donate, volunteer

• Participate in the League’s Money in Politics Study and/or Member Consensus Group on January 21st

Come join the effort and become a member of LWV, if you are not one already!

Learn more about Money in Politics and the League Studies:• LWVMA website - https://lwvma.org/member-resources/lwvus-

constitutional-amendment-study-and-mip-review/• Google Groups - https://groups.google.com/d/forum/lwv-money-in-

politics

• Barbara Zia, SC – Chair• Peggy Appler, SC• Jeanne Brown, CA• Amy Fitzgerald, TN• Jeanne Logsdon, NM• Corlette Moore McCoy, MA• Susan Murnane, OH

• George Schumann, KY

• Lonni Skrentner, MN• Launa Zimmaro, MA• Betsy Lawson, Staff Support

LWVUS MIP Committee