Posts Tagged ‘campaign finance reform’

December20

New report shows tectonic shifts in campaign spending

By: Editor

a photo of Karl Rove on television

Flickr photo by Dutchlad

By Adam Crowther

The U.S. Supreme Court was so determined to treat outside groups fairly in its 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) decision that it put these groups on course to supplant the candidates themselves as the dominant voices in our elections.

That is the finding of a newly released Public Citizen report, Outside Money Takes the Inside Track. The report compares spending by outside groups, which were permitted as a result of Citizens United to use unlimited contributions to influence elections, with that of candidates and national parties, which are subject to contribution limits.

Our findings: There is a tectonic shift in how American campaigns are being funded. Outside groups surpassed candidate spending in four of the 10 most expensive U.S. Senate races this year. That had only happened once in the last four election cycles (in 2010, which also postdated Citizens United). Outside groups’ spending this year nearly equaled that of the national parties. In no election cycle since 2004 had outside groups spent as much as a third as the parties (and that was also in 2010). Meanwhile, outside groups spent more money in the 2012 election cycle than the past four cycles combined.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Campaign Finance, Congress0 comments

November28

Corporate and labor union political spending disclosure requirements compared in new Public Citizen publication

By: Editor

By Adam Crowther and Taylor Lincoln

Money Tunnel

Flickr photo by Keith Ramsey

Today, Public Citizen released an in-depth fact sheet on the similarities and discrepancies in reporting requirements imposed on unions and corporations for their political spending.

Given all the hand wringing by Republicans over allegations that the rules are tilted in favor of unions, the information will likely surprise you. In fact, unions already are subject to significant public reporting requirements that pertain solely to them, whereas corporations are not.

The sources of about one-fourth of outside spending in all 2012 federal races—and about half of  outside spending in key Senate races—were kept secret. The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3369) would fix most of this. But here too, the solution is being held up by Republican complaints that the measure is stacked against corporations.

The rational invoked by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a key example of this type of complaint. Even McCain, a longstanding champion of campaign finance reform and a vocal critic of Citizens United v. Federal Election commission (he has called it “the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century”), has opposed this seemingly common-sense bill.

McCain’s explanation for voting against the bill was that its $10,000 threshold (per two-year election cycle) for disclosure of political contributions represented a “a clever attempt at political gamesmanship” by forcing “some entities to inform the public about the origins of their financial support, while allowing others—most notably those affiliated with organized labor—to fly below the Federal Election Commission’s regulatory radar.”

The $10,000 threshold would unfairly target corporations, McCain argued, because union funds tend to represent a portion of aggregated union dues of far smaller amounts. “What is the final difference between one $10,000 check and 1,000 $10 checks?” McCain asked in a statement accompanying his vote against the bill. “Other than the impact on trees, very little.”

But the difference is very significant, as McCain no doubt is well aware.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Campaign Finance, Congress0 comments

November20

Shareholder resolutions for political disclosure enjoy significant support

By: Kelly Ngo

a photo of money

Flickr photo by 401(K)

Americans are still reeling from the cacophony of secret money and negative ads that was the 2012 election. Much of the money spent on the congressional and presidential campaigns came from undisclosed sources, underscoring the continued need to fight for reforms to promote transparency in elections.

To that end, Public Citizen and other members of the Corporate Reform Coalition have been pushing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create a rule that would require publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending to their shareholders.

However, this rule has faced opposition from some groups which claim that shareholders neither want nor need this type of information on a company’s spending practices. That narrative is patently false, and many of these groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (PDF), have a political and financial stake in keeping shareholders in the dark. To the contrary, the results of this year’s shareholder season point to increasing levels of support for measures to bring accountability to corporate political spending.

The first indicator that shareholders are ready to see numbers on political spending is the sheer number of resolutions that have been filed.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Campaign Finance, Open Government, Regulation0 comments

November8

Study Spotlights Dark Money in Senate Races

By: Kelly Ngo

a photo of Karl Rove on television

Flickr photo by Dutchlad

A new study out by Public Citizen today shows the true effect the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling is having on congressional races: floods of unlimited money, little to nothing in the way of accountability.

While roughly $190 million poured into the airwaves from super PACs and nonprofits, we will never know the source for nearly half of it. Dark money nonprofits, able to collect unlimited funds from corporations and individuals, do not have to disclose their donors, and these groups were out in full force on Election Day, dropping $90 million into top Senate races.

Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came in as the top two spenders. Together, these high rollers spent $55,537,862 on pro-GOP advertisements in Senate races. The two next closest groups, Patriot Majority and the League of Conservation Voters, each spent roughly $10 million combined. The study also showed dark money tends to favor the Republican Party. Of the top 20 dark money spenders, 15 supported GOP candidates, while four supported Democrats (one had an unknown ideology). While Republican and Democratic super PACs in these races spent roughly the same amount, pro-GOP dark money groups outspent their Democratic counterparts by more than $60 million.

Public Citizen’s study looked at races in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. Of those states, Virginia experienced the highest volume of dark money with $19,868,241 spent, notably $5 million more than what was spent by super PACs. In Nevada, 77.3% of the total money spent by outside groups came from non-disclosing organizations.

“The effect of Citizens United has been to deny the public the opportunity to learn the identity of sponsors behind a large percentage of political ads,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “It is likely that the donors that have been kept secret are those that would be the most controversial, such as corporations seeking favors. Until Congress or agencies mandate disclosure, we will not know the truth. ”

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Campaign Finance0 comments

August28

Undue Influence-Peddling to Look for at the Party Conventions

By: Rick Claypool

Red white and blue elephant and donkey representing the Republican and Democratic parties.Corporate lobbyists and other political creatures intent upon distorting our democracy are descending on the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention.

Their objective is simple: To schmooze with and buy the gratitude of lawmakers who might be in power after the elections.

Most of what happens will be the (disturbingly) run-of-the-mill, “corporate corruption as usual” that happens every day in Washington, D.C. During the conventions, what so many cynically call “how Washington works” becomes “how Tampa works” and “how Charlotte works.

But some of what happens at the conventions may cross the line from everyday political corruption (outrageous as it may be) into violations of Congressional ethics rules and even outright illegal activity.

With help from citizens and journalists (and citizen journalists) attending the conventions, we’re working to hold lawmakers and special interests accountable when they cross the line. But we need your help.

Attending one of the conventions? Here’s what you need to know to keep an eye out for undue influence peddling:

1. During the conventions, all members of Congress are banned from participating in any event held in her or his honor if that event is hosted by a lobbyist (or a corporation or special interest group that employs registered lobbyists). [Paraphrased from House Rule XXV(8); Senate Rule XXXV(5)]

This rule expressly prohibits members of Congress from attending any convention party thrown by a lobbyist or lobbying organization where a specific member or members are identified by name and title as the honoree (including as a “special guest”), as well as events honoring a group composed solely of members, such as a congressional committee or congressional caucus (though the House ethics committee so far refuses to apply the rule to parties that honor groups of members).

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Campaign Finance, Ethics, Open Government4 comments

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.