Contribution Limits after Citizens United Iliev Political Parties Super PACs Contribution Limits after Citizens United Iliyan R. Iliev March 24, 2014
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Contribution Limits after Citizens United
Iliyan R. Iliev
March 24, 2014
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Party Contributions andExpenditures
• FECA did not allow for independent spending by parties
• Parties and candidates coordinate their activities
• Should coordinated expenditures be limited?
• Colorado I (1996)
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Party Contributions andExpenditures
• FECA did not allow for independent spending by parties
• Parties and candidates coordinate their activities
• Should coordinated expenditures be limited?
• Colorado I (1996)
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Party Contributions andExpenditures
• FECA did not allow for independent spending by parties
• Parties and candidates coordinate their activities
• Should coordinated expenditures be limited?
• Colorado I (1996)
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Party Contributions andExpenditures
• FECA did not allow for independent spending by parties
• Parties and candidates coordinate their activities
• Should coordinated expenditures be limited?
• Colorado I (1996)
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• No majority opinion
• Unconstitutional – prohibits independent expenditures
• No evidence for corruption
• Soft money – party activities, “get out the vote” drives
• Soft money presents no danger
• Cannot be used to influence a federal campaign except inlimited “party-building” activities
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• No majority opinion
• Unconstitutional – prohibits independent expenditures
• No evidence for corruption
• Soft money – party activities, “get out the vote” drives
• Soft money presents no danger
• Cannot be used to influence a federal campaign except inlimited “party-building” activities
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• No majority opinion
• Unconstitutional – prohibits independent expenditures
• No evidence for corruption
• Soft money – party activities, “get out the vote” drives
• Soft money presents no danger
• Cannot be used to influence a federal campaign except inlimited “party-building” activities
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• No majority opinion
• Unconstitutional – prohibits independent expenditures
• No evidence for corruption
• Soft money – party activities, “get out the vote” drives
• Soft money presents no danger
• Cannot be used to influence a federal campaign except inlimited “party-building” activities
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• No majority opinion
• Unconstitutional – prohibits independent expenditures
• No evidence for corruption
• Soft money – party activities, “get out the vote” drives
• Soft money presents no danger
• Cannot be used to influence a federal campaign except inlimited “party-building” activities
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• No majority opinion
• Unconstitutional – prohibits independent expenditures
• No evidence for corruption
• Soft money – party activities, “get out the vote” drives
• Soft money presents no danger
• Cannot be used to influence a federal campaign except inlimited “party-building” activities
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• Lack of coordination between the candidate and thesource of the expenditure (the party)
• Are party expenditures different from contributions?
• How separate are the candidates and their parties?
• Do you think that “party-building activities” can be usedto promote a specific candidate? Should we differentiateregular campaigns and “party-building activities”?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• Lack of coordination between the candidate and thesource of the expenditure (the party)
• Are party expenditures different from contributions?
• How separate are the candidates and their parties?
• Do you think that “party-building activities” can be usedto promote a specific candidate? Should we differentiateregular campaigns and “party-building activities”?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• Lack of coordination between the candidate and thesource of the expenditure (the party)
• Are party expenditures different from contributions?
• How separate are the candidates and their parties?
• Do you think that “party-building activities” can be usedto promote a specific candidate? Should we differentiateregular campaigns and “party-building activities”?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I
• Lack of coordination between the candidate and thesource of the expenditure (the party)
• Are party expenditures different from contributions?
• How separate are the candidates and their parties?
• Do you think that “party-building activities” can be usedto promote a specific candidate? Should we differentiateregular campaigns and “party-building activities”?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II (2001)
• Following Shrink Missouri – coordinated expenditures area “functional” contribution limit
• Parties do not speak generally of electing candidates
• Contributions to parties come from contributors withpersonal interests
• Parties are instruments of contributors who do not supportthe party’s message or candidates across the board, butspecific candidates and specific positions on an issue
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II (2001)
• Following Shrink Missouri – coordinated expenditures area “functional” contribution limit
• Parties do not speak generally of electing candidates
• Contributions to parties come from contributors withpersonal interests
• Parties are instruments of contributors who do not supportthe party’s message or candidates across the board, butspecific candidates and specific positions on an issue
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II (2001)
• Following Shrink Missouri – coordinated expenditures area “functional” contribution limit
• Parties do not speak generally of electing candidates
• Contributions to parties come from contributors withpersonal interests
• Parties are instruments of contributors who do not supportthe party’s message or candidates across the board, butspecific candidates and specific positions on an issue
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II (2001)
• Following Shrink Missouri – coordinated expenditures area “functional” contribution limit
• Parties do not speak generally of electing candidates
• Contributions to parties come from contributors withpersonal interests
• Parties are instruments of contributors who do not supportthe party’s message or candidates across the board, butspecific candidates and specific positions on an issue
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II
• Parties act as agents for spending on behalf of interestswho “seek to produce obligated officeholders”
• Parties are not different from self-interested political actors
• Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy dissented – Buckley should beoverruled
• Parties should not be treated as individuals and politicalcommittees
• Parties are not “instruments” of the donors
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II
• Parties act as agents for spending on behalf of interestswho “seek to produce obligated officeholders”
• Parties are not different from self-interested political actors
• Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy dissented – Buckley should beoverruled
• Parties should not be treated as individuals and politicalcommittees
• Parties are not “instruments” of the donors
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II
• Parties act as agents for spending on behalf of interestswho “seek to produce obligated officeholders”
• Parties are not different from self-interested political actors
• Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy dissented – Buckley should beoverruled
• Parties should not be treated as individuals and politicalcommittees
• Parties are not “instruments” of the donors
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II
• Parties act as agents for spending on behalf of interestswho “seek to produce obligated officeholders”
• Parties are not different from self-interested political actors
• Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy dissented – Buckley should beoverruled
• Parties should not be treated as individuals and politicalcommittees
• Parties are not “instruments” of the donors
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado II
• Parties act as agents for spending on behalf of interestswho “seek to produce obligated officeholders”
• Parties are not different from self-interested political actors
• Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy dissented – Buckley should beoverruled
• Parties should not be treated as individuals and politicalcommittees
• Parties are not “instruments” of the donors
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I & II
• Allow parties to spend independently without limit
• Limits on the spending that is coordinated with thecandidates
• Do parties and candidates coordinate their efforts?
• Are there a lot of uncoordinated activities?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I & II
• Allow parties to spend independently without limit
• Limits on the spending that is coordinated with thecandidates
• Do parties and candidates coordinate their efforts?
• Are there a lot of uncoordinated activities?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I & II
• Allow parties to spend independently without limit
• Limits on the spending that is coordinated with thecandidates
• Do parties and candidates coordinate their efforts?
• Are there a lot of uncoordinated activities?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Colorado I & II
• Allow parties to spend independently without limit
• Limits on the spending that is coordinated with thecandidates
• Do parties and candidates coordinate their efforts?
• Are there a lot of uncoordinated activities?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Hard money – contributions made with funds that aresubject to disclosure, source and amount limitations
• Donations for state and local elections are not hard money
• Parties can use soft money for “get out the vote drives”and “generic party advertising”
• Soft money for “legislative advocacy mediaadvertisements” – ads allowed “even if the ads mentionedthe name of a federal candidate, so long as they did notexpressly advocate the candidate’s election or defeat”
• “Support the Democratic Party, our candidate is JohnSmith” – permissible?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Hard money – contributions made with funds that aresubject to disclosure, source and amount limitations
• Donations for state and local elections are not hard money
• Parties can use soft money for “get out the vote drives”and “generic party advertising”
• Soft money for “legislative advocacy mediaadvertisements” – ads allowed “even if the ads mentionedthe name of a federal candidate, so long as they did notexpressly advocate the candidate’s election or defeat”
• “Support the Democratic Party, our candidate is JohnSmith” – permissible?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Hard money – contributions made with funds that aresubject to disclosure, source and amount limitations
• Donations for state and local elections are not hard money
• Parties can use soft money for “get out the vote drives”and “generic party advertising”
• Soft money for “legislative advocacy mediaadvertisements” – ads allowed “even if the ads mentionedthe name of a federal candidate, so long as they did notexpressly advocate the candidate’s election or defeat”
• “Support the Democratic Party, our candidate is JohnSmith” – permissible?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Hard money – contributions made with funds that aresubject to disclosure, source and amount limitations
• Donations for state and local elections are not hard money
• Parties can use soft money for “get out the vote drives”and “generic party advertising”
• Soft money for “legislative advocacy mediaadvertisements” – ads allowed “even if the ads mentionedthe name of a federal candidate, so long as they did notexpressly advocate the candidate’s election or defeat”
• “Support the Democratic Party, our candidate is JohnSmith” – permissible?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Hard money – contributions made with funds that aresubject to disclosure, source and amount limitations
• Donations for state and local elections are not hard money
• Parties can use soft money for “get out the vote drives”and “generic party advertising”
• Soft money for “legislative advocacy mediaadvertisements” – ads allowed “even if the ads mentionedthe name of a federal candidate, so long as they did notexpressly advocate the candidate’s election or defeat”
• “Support the Democratic Party, our candidate is JohnSmith” – permissible?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money was 5% of party spending in 1984
• 42% in 2000
• In 1996, 5 soft-money donors gave $9million
• In 2008, $300million from 800 donors, minimum donation$120, 000
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money was 5% of party spending in 1984
• 42% in 2000
• In 1996, 5 soft-money donors gave $9million
• In 2008, $300million from 800 donors, minimum donation$120, 000
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money was 5% of party spending in 1984
• 42% in 2000
• In 1996, 5 soft-money donors gave $9million
• In 2008, $300million from 800 donors, minimum donation$120, 000
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money was 5% of party spending in 1984
• 42% in 2000
• In 1996, 5 soft-money donors gave $9million
• In 2008, $300million from 800 donors, minimum donation$120, 000
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money donations usually seek access, not ideologicalsupport
• Candidates solicit soft money donations – direct donors totax-exempt organizations
• Cases of candidates that advise supporters who reachedthe legal maximum to use other means and makeadditional contributions
• Is that corruption? Is soliciting contributions pressuringthe donors?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money donations usually seek access, not ideologicalsupport
• Candidates solicit soft money donations – direct donors totax-exempt organizations
• Cases of candidates that advise supporters who reachedthe legal maximum to use other means and makeadditional contributions
• Is that corruption? Is soliciting contributions pressuringthe donors?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money donations usually seek access, not ideologicalsupport
• Candidates solicit soft money donations – direct donors totax-exempt organizations
• Cases of candidates that advise supporters who reachedthe legal maximum to use other means and makeadditional contributions
• Is that corruption? Is soliciting contributions pressuringthe donors?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Soft Money
• Soft money donations usually seek access, not ideologicalsupport
• Candidates solicit soft money donations – direct donors totax-exempt organizations
• Cases of candidates that advise supporters who reachedthe legal maximum to use other means and makeadditional contributions
• Is that corruption? Is soliciting contributions pressuringthe donors?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Outside Groups
PACs, 527 and 501c organizations
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
• Before Citizens United corporations could not spend theirgeneral treasury funds on election activities
• PACs can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposingcandidates
• Contributions to PACs used to be limited to $5,000
• Section 527 organizations not limited – not politicalcommittees, no contributions to candidates, no expressadvocacy
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
• Before Citizens United corporations could not spend theirgeneral treasury funds on election activities
• PACs can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposingcandidates
• Contributions to PACs used to be limited to $5,000
• Section 527 organizations not limited – not politicalcommittees, no contributions to candidates, no expressadvocacy
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
• Before Citizens United corporations could not spend theirgeneral treasury funds on election activities
• PACs can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposingcandidates
• Contributions to PACs used to be limited to $5,000
• Section 527 organizations not limited – not politicalcommittees, no contributions to candidates, no expressadvocacy
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
• Before Citizens United corporations could not spend theirgeneral treasury funds on election activities
• PACs can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposingcandidates
• Contributions to PACs used to be limited to $5,000
• Section 527 organizations not limited – not politicalcommittees, no contributions to candidates, no expressadvocacy
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
527 and 501
• 527s spent $400million in 2004
• Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million
• No limit for contributions to 527s
• FEC began regulating 527s
• Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits”
• 501c – donors’ identity is hidden
• PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
527 and 501
• 527s spent $400million in 2004
• Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million
• No limit for contributions to 527s
• FEC began regulating 527s
• Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits”
• 501c – donors’ identity is hidden
• PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
527 and 501
• 527s spent $400million in 2004
• Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million
• No limit for contributions to 527s
• FEC began regulating 527s
• Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits”
• 501c – donors’ identity is hidden
• PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
527 and 501
• 527s spent $400million in 2004
• Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million
• No limit for contributions to 527s
• FEC began regulating 527s
• Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits”
• 501c – donors’ identity is hidden
• PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
527 and 501
• 527s spent $400million in 2004
• Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million
• No limit for contributions to 527s
• FEC began regulating 527s
• Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits”
• 501c – donors’ identity is hidden
• PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
527 and 501
• 527s spent $400million in 2004
• Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million
• No limit for contributions to 527s
• FEC began regulating 527s
• Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits”
• 501c – donors’ identity is hidden
• PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
527 and 501
• 527s spent $400million in 2004
• Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million
• No limit for contributions to 527s
• FEC began regulating 527s
• Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits”
• 501c – donors’ identity is hidden
• PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010)
• District Court case
• Speechnow is unincorporated nonprofit
• Governments cap on donations to political committees isunconstitutional
• Applies to groups that don’t make direct contributions tocandidates and don’t coordinate with candidates whenrunning independent advertisements
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010)
• District Court case
• Speechnow is unincorporated nonprofit
• Governments cap on donations to political committees isunconstitutional
• Applies to groups that don’t make direct contributions tocandidates and don’t coordinate with candidates whenrunning independent advertisements
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010)
• District Court case
• Speechnow is unincorporated nonprofit
• Governments cap on donations to political committees isunconstitutional
• Applies to groups that don’t make direct contributions tocandidates and don’t coordinate with candidates whenrunning independent advertisements
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010)
• District Court case
• Speechnow is unincorporated nonprofit
• Governments cap on donations to political committees isunconstitutional
• Applies to groups that don’t make direct contributions tocandidates and don’t coordinate with candidates whenrunning independent advertisements
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow
• The government has no anti-corruption interest in limitingindependent expenditures – Citizens United
• The definition of corruption is important
• Buying access is corruption – before Citizens United
• “Ingratiation and access are not corruption” – CitizensUnited
• Citizens United – “independent expenditures do notcorrupt or give the appearance of corrutpion”
• Given the definition, no anti-corruption interest in limitingcontributions to independent expenditure groups
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow
• The government has no anti-corruption interest in limitingindependent expenditures – Citizens United
• The definition of corruption is important
• Buying access is corruption – before Citizens United
• “Ingratiation and access are not corruption” – CitizensUnited
• Citizens United – “independent expenditures do notcorrupt or give the appearance of corrutpion”
• Given the definition, no anti-corruption interest in limitingcontributions to independent expenditure groups
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow
• The government has no anti-corruption interest in limitingindependent expenditures – Citizens United
• The definition of corruption is important
• Buying access is corruption – before Citizens United
• “Ingratiation and access are not corruption” – CitizensUnited
• Citizens United – “independent expenditures do notcorrupt or give the appearance of corrutpion”
• Given the definition, no anti-corruption interest in limitingcontributions to independent expenditure groups
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow
• The government has no anti-corruption interest in limitingindependent expenditures – Citizens United
• The definition of corruption is important
• Buying access is corruption – before Citizens United
• “Ingratiation and access are not corruption” – CitizensUnited
• Citizens United – “independent expenditures do notcorrupt or give the appearance of corrutpion”
• Given the definition, no anti-corruption interest in limitingcontributions to independent expenditure groups
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow
• The government has no anti-corruption interest in limitingindependent expenditures – Citizens United
• The definition of corruption is important
• Buying access is corruption – before Citizens United
• “Ingratiation and access are not corruption” – CitizensUnited
• Citizens United – “independent expenditures do notcorrupt or give the appearance of corrutpion”
• Given the definition, no anti-corruption interest in limitingcontributions to independent expenditure groups
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Speechnow
• The government has no anti-corruption interest in limitingindependent expenditures – Citizens United
• The definition of corruption is important
• Buying access is corruption – before Citizens United
• “Ingratiation and access are not corruption” – CitizensUnited
• Citizens United – “independent expenditures do notcorrupt or give the appearance of corrutpion”
• Given the definition, no anti-corruption interest in limitingcontributions to independent expenditure groups
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
After Speechnow and CitizensUnited
• FEC – corporations and labor unions can also contributeunlimited sums
• District Court decided that PACs that make directdonations to candidates may accept unlimited donations
• 501c organizations – groups that did not disclose theirdonors
• 501c spending rose from 1% to 47% since 2006
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
After Speechnow and CitizensUnited
• FEC – corporations and labor unions can also contributeunlimited sums
• District Court decided that PACs that make directdonations to candidates may accept unlimited donations
• 501c organizations – groups that did not disclose theirdonors
• 501c spending rose from 1% to 47% since 2006
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
After Speechnow and CitizensUnited
• FEC – corporations and labor unions can also contributeunlimited sums
• District Court decided that PACs that make directdonations to candidates may accept unlimited donations
• 501c organizations – groups that did not disclose theirdonors
• 501c spending rose from 1% to 47% since 2006
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
After Speechnow and CitizensUnited
• FEC – corporations and labor unions can also contributeunlimited sums
• District Court decided that PACs that make directdonations to candidates may accept unlimited donations
• 501c organizations – groups that did not disclose theirdonors
• 501c spending rose from 1% to 47% since 2006
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Super PACs
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Coordination
• Members of Super PACs – former campaign managers,relatives of candidates, share consultants
• How can we control coordination?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Coordination
• Members of Super PACs – former campaign managers,relatives of candidates, share consultants
• How can we control coordination?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Incumbents v. Challengers
• Overwhelming percentage of contributions contributions toincumbents
• Disproportionate support for candidates based NOT onideology and voting record, but their relative position ofpower and ability to return favors
• Part of the logic behind Citizens United was protection ofchallengers?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Incumbents v. Challengers
• Overwhelming percentage of contributions contributions toincumbents
• Disproportionate support for candidates based NOT onideology and voting record, but their relative position ofpower and ability to return favors
• Part of the logic behind Citizens United was protection ofchallengers?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Incumbents v. Challengers
• Overwhelming percentage of contributions contributions toincumbents
• Disproportionate support for candidates based NOT onideology and voting record, but their relative position ofpower and ability to return favors
• Part of the logic behind Citizens United was protection ofchallengers?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Lobbyists
• Lobbyists are employed to influence public officials
• Lobbyists are individuals that enjoy constitutional rights
• Should people who directly influence decision makers facelimits?
• Individuals face contribution limits, certain organizationsdo not
• What if every individual forms a 501c?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Lobbyists
• Lobbyists are employed to influence public officials
• Lobbyists are individuals that enjoy constitutional rights
• Should people who directly influence decision makers facelimits?
• Individuals face contribution limits, certain organizationsdo not
• What if every individual forms a 501c?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Lobbyists
• Lobbyists are employed to influence public officials
• Lobbyists are individuals that enjoy constitutional rights
• Should people who directly influence decision makers facelimits?
• Individuals face contribution limits, certain organizationsdo not
• What if every individual forms a 501c?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Lobbyists
• Lobbyists are employed to influence public officials
• Lobbyists are individuals that enjoy constitutional rights
• Should people who directly influence decision makers facelimits?
• Individuals face contribution limits, certain organizationsdo not
• What if every individual forms a 501c?
ContributionLimits afterCitizensUnited
Iliev
PoliticalParties
Super PACs
Lobbyists
• Lobbyists are employed to influence public officials
• Lobbyists are individuals that enjoy constitutional rights
• Should people who directly influence decision makers facelimits?
• Individuals face contribution limits, certain organizationsdo not
• What if every individual forms a 501c?
Related Documents
