MONEY IN POLITICS Review & Update LWV Money in Politics Review and Update “This political system is awash in money... The effect of all this, unfortunately,

MONEY IN POLITICSReview & Update

LWV Money in Politics Review and Update

“This political system is awash in money. . . The effect of all this, unfortunately, leads to cynicism and the frustration of the American people and their lack of confidence in the system. It’s got to change. . .”

Senator John McCainJanuary 12, 2012

LWV WORK ON MONEY IN POLITICS

Using this position, the League has worked toward two main goals in recent years:

•Transparency in financing political campaigns

•Fighting big money and its corrupting influence in elections and government

LWV POSITION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE

• Methods of financing political campaigns should:

• Ensure the public’s right to know• Combat corruption and undue influence• Enable candidates to compete more equitably• Allow maximum citizen participation in the political

process

• Applicable to all federal campaigns for public office — presidential and congressional, primaries and general elections. May be applied to state and local campaigns.

1998-2014 EXPENDITURES

From Open Secrets.org 2014 Another Way• House – 1442 candidates

– $1,032,840,762 raised– Average amount raised about $716,256

• Senate – 229 Candidates– $658,358,749 raised– Average amount raised about $2,656,600

Based on data released by the FEC on 19 February 2015. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of every American to speak out.

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .”

CITIZENS UNITED DECISION

“All speakers . . . use money amassed from the economic marketplace to

fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting

speech.” (2010)

“This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including

those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of

corruption.”Justice Kennedy

Writing Majority Opinion

JUSTICE STEVENS’ DISSENT

QUID PRO QUO… • A Latin phrase that

means “this for that.” • An explicit agreement

by a candidate or elected official to perform a specific act in exchange for something of value.

• The only kind of corruption the Supreme Court recognizes is quid pro quo.

Money in ElectionsLobbying

Hard MoneyCandidates

•Caps on Contributio

ns•Disclosure

Soft MoneyPolitical Parties & PACs

• Caps on contributions• Disclosure

Super PACs•Independent Expenditures•No Caps on Contributions

or Expenditures

Dark Money 501(c)(4)'s

•No Disclosure•No Cap on

Contributions•Expend Only 50% On Electioneering

FundraisingBundling

Results of Citizens United

Jeb Bush (R) $103,222,384 $24,814,730

Hillary Clinton (D) $20,291,679 $77,471,604

Ted Cruz (R) $38,634,164 $26,567,298

Bernie Sanders (D) $25,044 $41,463,784

Ben Carson (R) $6,844,987 $31,409,509

Marco Rubio (R) $17,315,782 $15,515,638

Donations 2016 Election CycleOutside Money vs Candidate Committee

Dark Money (in blue)vs candidate committee money(black)

Current Issues Post Citizens United

• Role of Congress limited due to Supreme Court decisions.

• Supreme Court ruled First Amendment ensures that speech cannot be limited.

• Corporations granted same free speech rights as individuals by Supreme Court.

• Definition corruption narrowed quid pro quo.

16

The role corporations and influence in government is an

historical problem.

Arguments Against Campaign Spending Restrictions

• Combat corruption and undue influence in government• Prevent distortion of election process by big spending• Enhance political equality• Enable candidates to compete equitably • Reduce time and effort elected officials and candidates

expend on campaign fundraising • Ensure transparency and disclosure so voters may be

informed

Arguments For Unlimited Campaign Spending

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

• Political communication informs the voters

• A candidate taking contributions does not mean if elected that official will do favors for the contributor

• First Amendment guarantees free speech

. .

Proponents of limits see the issue

Regulatory Approaches

• Adopt a Securities and Exchange Commission rule governing corporate political expenditures.

• Strengthen and enforce 501(c)(4) political activity rules by the IRS.

• Enforce campaign finance laws (action by the FEC and state regulatory agencies)

20

Federal Election Commission

• Six member bipartisan federal commission

• Enforcement, regulatory, and interpretive authority over federal campaign finance law.

• Four votes required to act.

Congressional Options

Congress can pass laws to • Require disclosure of donors

who fund through outside spending

• Tighten rules governing coordination spending

• Adopt public funding for candidates for all federal offices (more states could also adopt public financing)

• Prohibit members of Congress from fundraising from interests they most regulate

22

Additional Approaches

• Seek to have Buckley and/or Citizens United overturned by the Supreme Court

• Work electorally for a Congress comprised of members committed to reform (action by the grassroots)

23

Constitutional Amendment Solution

• Proposal for Constitutional amendments to reform MIP

• 16 states have called for this solution• Opponents criticize lengthy

process • Proponents say would

generate public awareness

24

VOTE!

• Local Elections• State Elections• National Elections• Encourage your

friends, families and neighbors to be active, involved citizens like you!

Come join the effort and become a

member of LWV, if you are not one already!

Discussion Points

• What should be the goals of campaign finance reform?

• In what ways does the First Amendment limit reform of MIP? • Should we look beyond the First Amendment to other Constitutional principles?

• Is public funding of campaigns a viable way to prevent corruption?

27