Albuquerque Appeals to Save Its Spending limits

Despite this, the court tossed the spending limits because the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had taken the position that Buckley rejected all spending limits even if shown to have compelling governmental interests.

On September 22, 2004, Albuquerque appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court with assistance from the National Voting Rights Institute. Amicus briefs in support of Albuquerque are due to be filed on October 25.

It is always an uphill battle to convince the Supreme Court to alter or reverse a past decision. But there are some reasons to be hopeful that the Court will hear either the Albuquerque case or a similar case out of Vermont. (see our separate story for more details.)

Justice Stevens has refuted Buckley’s logic, saying “money is property, it is not speech.” Other current justices have critiqued Buckley or suggested it should be altered in written opinions during the last ten years.

Many think Buckley is so misguided that it cannot stand the test of time and will eventually fall. That time may be at hand.

EDITORIAL

Derek Cressman

If you live in one of the battleground states in the presidential election, by now you’ve probably seen ads by so-called 527 electioneering groups that are not formally affiliated with candidates. The “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”, for example, have run ads questioning Senator Kerry’s record in Vietnam, while “Texans for Truth” are running ads about President Bush’s service in the National Guard.

What makes these ads different than ads put out by candidates or political parties is that there are no limits on how much wealthy donors can contribute to fund them. Through little more than sleight of hand, these groups claim that their ads are not campaign ads because they simply attack candidates rather than telling viewers how to vote.

TheRestofUs.org is calling for an end to this loophole to make these electioneering groups abide by reasonable contribution limits and disclosure rules. Learn more about our campaign and sign our petition at www.therestofus.org/527s.htm.

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you are likely disgusted by what’s going on. If you’re a Republican, you’ve seen liberal groups spend millions of dollars to attack the President. If you’re a Democrat, you’ve seen ads sponsored by 527s take John Kerry down several points in the polls. If you’re an independent, you’re fed up with big money on both sides and wish the race would get back to the real issues.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 banned national political parties from raising unlimited soft money contributions, but did not prevent outside electioneering groups from doing so. Representatives Marty Meehan and Chris Shays have filed a lawsuit seeking to force the FEC to tighten pre-BCRA definitions, which would bring many 527 groups under its regulations. President Bush has called for an end to the groups and filed a similar lawsuit. Senator Kerry sponsored legislation in Congress that he says would have closed the 527 loophole. Senators McCain and Feingold have introduced legislation to deal with the matter.

It’s good to see elected officials on both sides of the aisle taking a stand on 527s. But without pressure from the public, things may not change. So visit our website and sign the petition to Deep Six the 527 Loophole.

The initiative’s title -- Campaign Finance Reform Again -- is telling. In 1996, the Alaska Legislature responded to a successful public signature-gathering campaign with a series of reforms, among them $500 contribution limits for individuals giving to candidates or committees and a limit on the amount of out-of-state contributions a candidate or political action committee could raise. In 1999, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld most of the law.

Four years later, in 2003, Governor Murkowski ignored the continued public mandate for low contribution limits and signed a law that doubled them. With the latest successful signature-gathering campaign, the people of Alaska have responded.

In the first, real estate broker and Shelley fundraiser Julie Lee is accused of using state funds for a community center in San Francisco to reimburse other donors for their contributions to Shelley’s campaign. These acts may constitute illegal money laundering. In 1999, while an Assembly member, Shelley helped arrange the $500,000 grant to the community center, run by Lee. During his 2002 Secretary of State campaign, Shelley received contributions of $25,000 from five people, all of whom received a similar amount from the Lee-run community center. Lee also had two real estate clients make payments for real estate transactions in the form of contributions of $30,000 and $50,000 to the Shelley campaign. All seven donations were among the largest Shelley received.

Shelley won both his primary and the general election by relatively small numbers of votes, calling into question whether he would have won if he had not received the illegal contributions.

In the second controversy, Shelley’s office is accused of using federal funds from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), money designed to assist states’ efforts in updating their elections equipment and with voter education and participation, in a manner both partisan and of personal political benefit to Shelley. Consultants hired with HAVA money to do voter education attended purely Democratic events, including a rally for John Kerry, at which they acted as Shelley’s representatives. Consultants kept track of whom Shelley spoke to at certain events and worked on boosting his public image while on the federal dime. Governor Schwarzenegger’s office has withheld some HAVA funds from Shelley’s office until an investigation can be completed.

Shelley has denied any culpability in both scandals. He has paid the state back an amount equal to the illegal campaign contributions and fired nineteen of the HAVA contractors. This damage control may be too little, too late -- the Sacramento Bee and some groups have called for his resignation.

Berkeley Public Financing

The citizens of Berkeley will vote this November on whether to institute public financing for local elections. Measure H would make Berkeley the first city in the country to provide full public financing of candidate campaigns. Campaigns in Berkeley have become more and more expensive -- the last mayor’s race seeing $430,000 spent between the two major candidates. The candidate who has spent the most has won all recent district races, where the average winning candidate has spent $35,000.

Since each state governs the way it distributes its votes in the Electoral College, reformers can seek changes at the federal level, most likely in the form of a Constitutional amendment, or at the state level, as in the Colorado initiative. Maine and Nebraska have already changed from the winner-take-all approach, switching in 1972 and 1996 respectively to a system which grants two of each state’s electoral votes to the overall winner of the state’s popular vote and allocates the remaining votes to the winner of each congressional district.

Opponents of electoral reform on a state-by-state basis argue that to use any system other than winner-take-all would diminish a state’s power by offering a winning presidential candidate fewer votes, which in turn would decrease candidate interest in the state and thus the state’s ability to leverage its Electoral Votes into federal goodies for the state. Recent trends suggest that this analysis may be correct as to swing states, who receive the vast majority of the attention of presidential candidates, but not as to “safe” states, which have been largely ignored. If California and Texas were to institute proportional representation for example, each state would likely see a significant increase in candidate attention.

Other opponents of electoral reform use federalism arguments in support of the Electoral College, averring that it maintains the balance of power both between the federal government and the states and between the small and large states. This view seems to undervalue other governmental institutions which help regulate the balance of power, Congress for example, and the actual intent of the American people as to who should be our President, represented by the popular vote.

While state-level efforts can be successful in more accurately reflecting the will of the state’s residents than the predominant winner-take-all approach, many of the arguments about state power suggest that the best way to ensure that the will of the people determines our President may be to abolish the Electoral College in favor of direct popular vote.

New governor Jodi Rell has already met with reform groups and told them that fixing campaign finance in Connecticut is a top priority for her.

Dear Senator Lott,

Your comments calling for full and immediate disclosure of the campaign finances of political groups were a step in the right direction. Especially at a time when contribution limits at the federal level and in many states are at levels that few Americans can afford, and allow wealthy interests undue and untoward influence in our political system, it is crucial to the workings of our democracy that people know where the money comes from for groups which try to influence our elections.

Unfortunately, Governor Barbour of your home state of Mississippi does not recognize the importance of disclosure to the health of a democracy. This past spring, in response to millions of out-of-state dollars flowing into Mississippi elections from unknown sources, the Mississippi Legislature passed a bill which would have required the disclosure of those sources in future elections. Governor Barbour vetoed the bill, passing up the opportunity to shine the light of truth onto these shadowy contributions.

We urge you to call on your friend and governor Haley Barbour to take steps to correct this misstep in the forward march of our democracy, and to propose and support a bill which would require full and immediate disclosure of an electioneering group’s finances. Governor Barbour may not have your experience in public office, but with your encouragement and engagement, he may yet have some of your wisdom. In the end, the people of Mississippi will benefit.

In August, Governor Bob Holden became the first sitting governor in the United States to lose a primary in over a decade. He may have suffered from widespread reports that his campaign took in thousands of dollars from these committees, perhaps putting the political world on notice that voters are watching where they get their campaign money.

In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on October 4 not to entertain an appeal of the 9th Circuit’s upholding of Montana’s $100 limit on contributions to legislative races. This effectively sanctions some of the lowest contribution limits in the country
.

While McGreevey’s order should shift the balance of power away from the uber-powerful county committee chairpersons towards the citizens of New Jersey, wealthy interests still can take advantage of New Jersey’s sky-high contribution limits to elect candidates to office who share their agenda. State contracts may no longer be for sale, but the legislature and governor’s office sure still are.

A recent spate of scandals relating to campaign finance has helped placed reform on the post-election agenda for some leading politicians in Ohio. In 2000 and 2002, outside groups spent millions of undisclosed dollars to attack various candidates. This year, House Speaker Larry Householder, a campaign consultant, and a campaign fundraiser are the subject of state and federal investigations into campaign fundraising and an alleged kickback scheme. In August, Governor Bob Taft and Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell called for a series of reforms, including:

• Require full, timely disclosure of political party operating accounts;
• Require full disclosure of contributions and expenditures for independent issue advocacy campaigns and all independent groups;
• Eliminate county political party state candidate funds;
• Require more frequent candidate reports; and,
• Establish uniform disclosure and contribution limits for state and local candidates.

That they were joined by the presumptive next Speaker of the Ohio House and the President Pro Tem of the Ohio Senate suggests that reform stands a better chance than it did in 2002, when Blackwell and Taft made a similar proposal.

The contributions helped Republicans win a majority in the Texas House, which they then used to push through a redistricting plan advantageous to their party. Texans for Public Justice and other reformers have called for Tom Craddick, who was elected House Speaker under the new Republican majority, to step down. Craddick was in frequent contact with TRMPAC throughout the election, received some of the checks for TRMPAC, and solicited money on behalf of TRMPAC.

If Robb does choose a candidate other then the Republican nominee, George W. Bush, he would not be the first elector to vote against the slate on which he was elected. The possibility that the popular will of a state would be subverted by the whim of one individual may provide further impetus to the growing notion that the Electoral College should be abolished in favor of direct election.

Prior to the new law, Wyoming Statute 22-25-108, candidates who failed to file on time would be notified by certified mail that they had three days after receipt of the notice to file their reports, or else they would lose their nominations for office. The Legislature changed the law in 2003 to require that candidates be given advance notice that failure to file their statements of receipts and expenditures “shall result in a vacancy in nomination” and that “the candidate shall not receive a certificate of nomination.”

The fate of the ineligible candidates has yet to be decided.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly struck down fifteen of the nineteen FEC regulations challenged by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) sponsors Chris Shays and Martin Meehan this September. These watered-down regulations were enacted in July of 2002. Among the regulations struck down were those dealing with the raising or spending of soft money by a state party, coordination between candidates and outside groups, and the exemption of 501(c) groups from BCRA’s electioneering rules.The long-term ramifications of Shays v. FEC are still unclear. Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling does not require specific regulations to replace the stricken ones, but rather sends the FEC back to the drawing board to devise regulations under BCRA which do not “create an immense loophole”, “foster corruption”, or “invite circumvention of the law” in the court’s words. The FEC has announced its intention to appeal parts of the ruling.

August FEC Rulings on 527s

The FEC adopted new regulations in August for independent political groups that starting next year may limit the ability of 527 groups to accept unlimited contributions to finance their activities. Groups that explicitly say in their organizational documents that their major purpose is to influence federal elections, or that spend more than half of their money in any twelve month period to promote, support, attack or oppose federal candidates will be subject to a $5000 contribution limit. Further, if a group’s appeal to a prospective donor indicates that any part of the funds raised will go towards the support or opposition of a federal candidate, then that contribution is subject to a limit of $5,000.

The regulations leave a lot of room for groups to put out nuanced descriptions of themselves with a wink and a nod to donors and to spend millions of dollars to influence federal elections without being subject to contribution limits so long as they also spend money on other purposes (such as influencing state elections, or influencing public policy.)

McCain-Feingold Redux

In September, Senators McCain and Feingold responded to the weak FEC regulations by introducing S. 2828 in the U.S. Senate. It would bring all 527 organizations that promote, attack, support, or oppose a federal candidate under the $5,000 contribution limits for political committees. Congressmen Shays and Meehan introduced parallel legislation (H.R. 5127) in the U.S. House. Earlier in the month, the sponsors had joined President Bush in suing the FEC to regulate 527s as political committees.

Amidst all their stated outrage at the FEC for its timid action, none of the above politicians found time to mention that only a miniscule percentage of Americans can afford to give $2,000 to a candidate or $5,000 to a political committee, much less the $25,000 to political parties that BCRA allows. With campaign finance reform so framed as protecting the rights of the wealthiest one percent of Americans versus the insidious influence of the wealthiest .1%, most Americans can be assured of a government which represents them when politically convenient, if at all. When $95,000 limits pass for reform, it’s time for the rest of us to get involved in the debate and take our country back.

527 Influence in the 2003-2004 Election Cycle

n 527s spent nearly $250 million from January 2003 through July 2004, the last reporting date before October 15. Since July, some 527s have announced in the press that they have raised additional funds in the tens of millions of dollars, making it likely that 527 spending will easily top $300 million in this election cycle.

n The Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee raised $390,500,000 as of 7/31/04.

n The top five individual donors to 527s contributed a massive $45 million, a figure one thousand times greater than the average U.S. pre-tax household income.

n The top twenty 527s, not including the $45 million reportedly raised by Progress for American Voter Fund and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s November Fund since July 1, have raised $192 million.

For a sense of what these dollars buy, one media buyer referred to the spending by presidential candidates in Wisconsin, where Kerry spent $1 million on television ads from April through July, as “gigantic”.

Weaknesses in 527 disclosure rules mean that voters may not know the large contributors who are backing a 527 until mid-October, making it difficult for voters to evaluate ads, direct mailings, or telephone campaigning.For a sense of what these dollars buy, one media buyer referred to the spending by presidential candidates in Wisconsin, where Kerry spent $1 million on television ads from April through July, as “gigantic”. Weaknesses in 527 disclosure rules mean that voters may not know the large contributors who are backing a 527 until mid-October, making it difficult for voters to evaluate ads, direct mailings, or telephone campaigning.

The top five 527 donors
for 2003-2004:

Data obtained from the Center for Public Integrity based on data as of July 2004. To avoid double counting, the Joint Victory 2004 fund is not listed.

The Back Page:

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold, prevents candidates from raising soft money but allows them to raise hard money at twice the pace they could before.

Large donors took advantage of the increased contribution limits to chip in more than $293 million to the 2004 presidential candidates at levels of $1000 and higher, more than double the number from four years ago.

Cartoon by Khalil Bendib www. bendib.com