NOVEMBER 1, 2010

Do We Spend Too Much on Politics?

Recent estimates put spending on midterm campaigns at over $3.6 billion nationally. That's enough to buy 7.2 million I-pads, or roughly one dollar for every thousand spent by government. Many say money corrupts politics, but could it be that corrupt politics attracts money?

Despite endless campaign finance regulation, corporations and individuals still find it in their best interest to spend money in the hopes of influencing lawmakers. Why? With a federal budget of over $3.5 trillion (and state and local government spending at around $3 trillion annually), taxpayers are spending $1,000 for every $1 of campaign spending.  That's is a huge potential return on investment.

The solution to campaign finance is not more regulation, but reducing the size and power of government.

posted by NICHOLAS FETT | 01:11 PM | 1 comment

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

Pennsylvania Has Been Collecting Info on Citizens for Years

There has been a hullabaloo over the discovery that the Pennsylvania Office of Homeland Security (under the Emergency Management Agency), has been paying a private company to put together details about protests and rallies that may, or may not, turn violent. These event lists were then sent out via bulletin to local police and potential targets.

While it is a waste of taxpayer money to pay a consultant to troll Google for event listings, the outrage is a bit late.

The PA Department of State has for years been collecting information about the political activity of average citizens. Worse yet, they post this information online for all to see -- including the city and employer of each individual.

It's called Campaign Finance Disclosure.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 05:00 PM | 0 comment

JUNE 24, 2010

Disclosing the Assault on Free Speech

As election season approaches, Democrats in the House are scrambling to gather votes to pass the DISCLOSE Act. Even the ACLU criticizes the effect DISCLOSE would have on free speech. The new law would impose restrictions on political advertising by government contractors (but not government grant recipients like Planned Parenthood), and requires any "corporation" that buys political ads to disclose information on all their donors (so that they may be subjected to intimidation).

John Samples notes that there is no public benefit to this infringement of free speech:

Courts have allowed bans on contributions by government contractors to preclude "corruption." But the proposed prohibitions apply to businesses that want to spend money on political ads. They are not donating money to candidates or to the parties. There can be no exchange of money for favors. Absent the possibility of corruption, these bans on political speech will be invalidated by the courts.

In a bid to garnish necessary support, a deal was cut with the NRA to exempt them from the regulations, if the NRA would not oppose the bill. Groups that have been established for over 10 years, have more than 1 million members, have members in all 50 states, and who receive less than 15% of their funds from corporations are exempt from the bill. Oh, and unions are exempted too!

Effectively, the House is saying Americans need to be protected from small groups, that are young and "geographically contained" that are "trying to influence elections".

The DISCLOSE Act is another attempt by congress to erode freedom of speech and protect incumbents, as Jacob Sullum nicely summarizes:

In a 1996 law review article, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan warned that campaign finance laws "easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices, insulating current officeholders from challenge and criticism." The DISCLOSE Act, a speech-squelching bill supported by the man who nominated Kagan, is a good example.

Click here for a recent Cato podcast for more on DISCLOSE.

posted by NATALIE ROGOL, NATHAN BENEFIELD | 00:52 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 2, 2010

In Defense of Political Anonymity

Former FEC Chief Bradley Smith has a good article in the winter issue of City Journal on the problems with campaign finance disclosure.

Imagine if the George W. Bush administration, in its waning days, had introduced something called the Patriot II Act. To prevent terrorists and foreign agents from influencing American governments and political parties, the act would require political campaigns and other groups to report the names, addresses, and employers of their supporters to the federal government, which would enter the information into a database. The act would also give businesses access to this database, enabling them to make hiring decisions, credit determinations, and other choices based on political activity. Can anyone doubt that Patriot II would be widely considered a gross violation of civil liberties? ...

Federal and state laws would still set the threshold for disclosure far too low. People who donate $20 to a Michigan candidate, or even $200 to a federal one, will exercise zero influence on the candidate if he’s elected. That their contributions—and addresses and employers—need to be publicly disclosed to prevent corruption is a proposition that can scarcely be stated with a straight face.  ...

As one understandably anonymous lobbyist told the Wall Street Journal in 2007, Democrats quickly put out the word that “if you have an issue on trade, taxes, or regulation, you’d better be a donor and you’d better not be part of any effort to run ads against our freshmen incumbents.” Disclosure is what makes the threats work.  ...

After last year’s passage in California of Proposition 8, which amended the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage, the proposition’s financial backers found themselves subjected to a wide range of retaliatory measures. Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, had contributed $1,500 in support of Prop 8; he was forced to step down after opponents of the proposition threatened to boycott the Festival. El Coyote, a popular restaurant in Los Angeles, faced weeks of protests and boycotts because the owner’s daughter had contributed $100 to support Prop 8; police were eventually called to control the protesters, and the daughter left town. Scott Eckhern, the longtime artistic director of Sacramento’s California Musical Theatre, was forced to resign because he’d contributed $1,000 to the campaign. The Cinemark movie-theater chain suffered boycotts because its CEO, Alan Stock, had donated $9,999.

 

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 11:29 AM | 0 comment

FEBRUARY 17, 2010

The True Purpose of Lobbyist Disclosure

I have recently learned the true motives behind Pennsylvania's recent lobbyist disclosure law -- as I, and everyone else on staff who registered with the state as a lobbyist has gotten a slew of recent emails inviting us to fundraisers (see below). 

By forcing lobbyists to register, with mailing and email addresses, lawmakers have a ready-made list of individuals who would love to give to political campaigns (except of course, for those of us who aren't true lobbyists, but who register out of fear of prosecution, and will report such emails as spam).

From: Representative Eddie Day Pashinski [mailto:info@pahdcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:07 PM
To: Nathan A. Benefield
Subject: Rep. Pashinski's District Fundraiser

From: Representative Deberah Kula [mailto:info@pahdcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:48 PM
To: Nathan A. Benefield
Subject: Rep. Kula's Cocktail Fundraiser

From: Representative Tom Houghton [mailto:info@pahdcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Nathan A. Benefield
Subject: Rep. Houghton's Breakfast Fundraiser

From: Representative Gary Haluska [mailto:info@pahdcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:02 PM
To: Nathan A. Benefield
Subject: Rep. Haluska's Lunch Fundraiser

From: Representative Matt Smith [mailto:info@pahdcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:40 PM
To: Nathan A. Benefield
Subject: Rep. Matt Smith's Breakfast Fundraiser

 

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:31 AM | 1 comment

FEBRUARY 3, 2010

Hyperbole and Hypocrisy on Campaign Finance Ruling

A must read article about the Citizen's United case and the supposed destruction of democracy.

Many states, including Illinois and Maryland, allow corporate contributions to state candidates. As an Illinois state senator, Obama accepted direct contributions from the corporate treasuries of Citigroup and London-based pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, among others ...

Furthermore, 28 states allow Citizens United-style independent expenditures by corporations; Virginia is one example. During the commonwealth’s November gubernatorial campaign, there were no allegations of impropriety, and I have heard no complaints about any of the candidates being "bought" by nefarious corporations. ...

The fundamental First Amendment issues that underlie this case have been lost in the political sniping since the president’s State of the Union address. That’s a tragedy. Government regulation of political speech is a crucial issue that should be dealt with head on rather than through hyperbolic statements of impending doom.

If the president, a reasonable man and a constitutional scholar, were confronted with the question of whether he agreed with the government’s position that the Constitution does not forbid the banning of books, I think that we might find some common ground. Instead of peppering the White House with questions about Justice Samuel Alito’s silent “outburst,” maybe the Fourth Estate should ask that substantive question. We might actually get somewhere.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:43 AM | 0 comment

JANUARY 24, 2010

More on Corporations and Free Speech

Following the Supreme Court ruling that our First Amendment right to free speech applied to corporations' speech regarding candidates for federal office - a ruling started when the FEC banned a movie - many have hysterically claimed this represents the end of democracy.

However, not extending First Amendment rights to corporations is a far greater threat to liberty. Should freedom of religion not apply to churches? Should freedom of the press not apply to corporate newspapers? Should freedom of speech not apply to book publishers? (Indeed, some already contend campaign finance restrictions should allow the government to censor books). Julian Sanchez expounds on this theme:

Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don’t plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You’re free to practice your religion without interference — but if it’s an unpopular one, well, let’s hope you don’t expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she’d better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it’s easy.

The Tax Foundation's Joe Henchman posits, "If corporations shouldn't have free speech rights, they shouldn't be taxed either."

Roger Pilon takes to task the New York Times hyperbole, noting their opposition to any form of private spending on political campaigns

save, of course, for those contributions that take the form of editorials coming from such corporate giants as The New York Times, which the First Amendment would continue to protect. Now there is a vision that warms the soul of the Great Gray Lady.

Don Boudreaux equally mocks the Los Angeles Times editorial

Criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, Erwin Chemerinsky asserts that “There is no way to see this other than as the conservative justices using judicial review to advance the traditional conservative ideological agenda” (“Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling,” Jan. 23).

Really? Then why did both the AFL-CIO and the ACLU submit amicus briefs to the Court in support of the eventual winning outcome? Do these two organizations now embrace “the traditional conservative ideological agenda”? Seems unlikely.

The better explanation for this ruling is that the five justices in the majority sincerely believe that government restrictions on corporate campaign spending do, in fact, violate the First amendment – a belief that is neither “conservative” nor “liberal,” just commonsensical.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald, from the left, defends the rule of law:

Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn't. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions -- warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs -- can't be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The "rule of law" means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don't like.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 04:06 PM | 2 comments

JANUARY 21, 2010

Free Political Speech and Paycheck Protection

The US Supreme Court today upheld that the First Amendment protects speech around elections from corporations and unions. The case concerns Citizens United, which produced a film Hillary: The Movie, which was subsequently banned by the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) under campaign finance laws, though the film was going to be distributed by pay-per-view. Institute for Justice has more on this case, and Cato has a video primer.

Of course, these campaign finance laws were thinly-veiled incumbent protection plans, giving elected officials the power to control what others were saying about them.

Today's court ruling allows corporations and unions to fund independent expenditures (i.e. issues ads about candidates). But the ruling does nothing to affect the ban on corporate or union contributions to candidates' campaigns, as the New York Times points out:

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

In fact, the ban that was struck down only affected TV and radio advertising. Unions and corporations were free to spend on other types of election-related materials. For instance, the PSEA used union dues for an Obama mailer.

Of course, the does raise another issue, particularly for compulsory-union states like Pennsylvania. Union members are forced (via mandatory dues) to contribute to political activity. Hence, Pennsylvania needs a paycheck protection law, like those in place in Washington state, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Ohio, and Michigan. These laws prohibit unions from using dues for political purposes without the express consent of workers.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 04:12 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 7, 2009

PA House GOP Leader Offers Gov't Reform Plan

Pennsylvania House Republican leader Sam Smith unveiled a 12-point government reform plan which he calls Pennsylvania’s Agenda for Trust in Harrisburg (PATH).

The proposals are:

1. No staff allowed to campaign during office hours.
   
2. Public officials cannot start nonprofit organizations while in office.
3.  Dollar one reporting of campaign contributions, lobby disclosure and ethics statements.
4. State grant accountability.
5. Searchable database for all state spending.
6. General Assembly audits by independent auditors.
7. Strengthening whistleblower protections.
8. End Pay-to-Play mentality in Pennsylvania by enacting state contracting reform:
9. Banning public official from simultaneously working for a lobbyist firm.
10. Create an Ethical Code of Conduct for executive branch.
11. Strengthen the state Sunshine Law.
12. Limits on state contractors ability to use non-public information for their own gain.

As a package, these reforms seem quite strong, and would be a huge improvement in "business as usual" in Harrisburg.

While I’m not overly excited about additional campaign finance reporting requirements (in fact, I'd be concerned that making every single campaign donation public information would lead to political and social intimidation against donors), some of the other reforms are among those we have recommended. 

We have called for a spending database previously, and ending Pay-to-Play and independent audit of the General Assembly should also rank among the top priorities for government reform.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:30 AM | 0 comment