The City Council of Raleigh, NC has passed a resolution in support of a Senate bill that would allow municipalities to enact their own public financing systems for campaigns. While a similar bill (HB 120) passed the House last year, the Senate bill remains in committee. Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker requested the Council resolution, which passed 7-1.
“No specific form of public campaign finance is being considered. The resolution essentially tells the legislature that Raleigh would like the authority to consider such an option in the future,” reports the Midtown Raleigh News. In 2009 the state legislature allowed Chapel Hill, NC to set up a pilot public financing program for its mayor and council races, a program that Mayor Meeker deemed successful.
The Hill reports here that Kerry (D-MA) is joining Arlen Specter (D-PA) in calling for a constitutional amendment in response to Citizens United. From the Hill:
“Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) was the first senator to call for a constitutional amendment. But since he stated his position in late January, lawmakers have not publicly said what the amendment would contain.”
It’s important to note that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United didn’t go as far in overturning a hundred-year-old essential aspect of electoral democracy as it potentially could have. However, the reach, purpose, and timing of the decision is shamelessly transparent and will undoubtedly affect the already skewed balance of American elections, likely to the extent proposed by so much of the liberal and centrist media commentary currently surging on the web and in print.
There’s no online shortage of petitions to “tell ___ to give us back our ___.” But, many writers and advocates have been focusing on how best to craft a response to the Court’s decision that is both timely and effective. Everyone seems focused on two options, neither mutually exclusive: Passing the Fair Elections Now Act and/or a Constitutional Amendment having something to do with special interest money in elections. The FENA option could potentially be a swift response, the Amendment a far more drawn out process. FENA had 124 cosponsors in the House before Citizens United came down, and it’s possible we’ll see a quick upswing in supporting representatives in the coming weeks. It’s going to be tough to convince the nation that spending $800 million – $1 billion on a program that’s never before been tried for US Congress is a bright idea, especially given the call for a halt in spending much of the media is predicting in Obama’s SOTU speech tonight, but if done right (and it certainly could be done wrong) it’s a small, small price to pay for a democratic system in which candidates are forced to appeal to voters instead of large donors.
Lawrence Lessig, superstar Standford Law professor who has just moved to Harvard Law and is head of Change Congress, posted a video in reaction to Citizens United, stating, “This is an extraordinarily important moment, and we need to organize to push as strongly as we can to get an alternative to the current system for funding elections that at least makes it possible for people to trust government again.”
The best part of the video comes at the end, when Lessig states:
“Not the alternative that tries to silence any speaker, but the alternative that allows us to believe once again that our government is guided by reason or judgment or even just the politics of the people in a district, and not by the need to raise money.”
That’s an incredibly good point. The Fair Elections Now Act public financing option, if properly set up, funded, and administered, circumvents this issue of the First Amendment and the silencing of speech. It’s a voluntary program for candidates, but one that voters can demand (and pay the price for) because the ability to trust is worth it. In a system where it is expected that serious candidates will and can run tight and competitive campaigns, forsaking public financing for the money from special interest corporations will seem like a direct insult to and attack on voters. Which it is.
(Side note: This wouldn’t sidestep the issue of “rescue funds” that have recently come up in suits in Wisconsin, as I highlighted a few weeks ago in this post, 3rd and 4th paragraphs. But that’s another issue.)
In the coming days I’ll take a look at Lessig’s larger essay following that video (in which he advocates for the Constitutional Amendment as well as FENA), what Citizens United means for transparency, and how states are gearing up to counter the effects of the decision. A preview from Maryland, with the AP reporting on the proposals of MD lawmakers: “One Maryland proposal would require two-thirds of shareholders to approve of campaign spending before corporations can use shareholder money for campaign issues. Other bills include measures to require any kind of corporate campaign advertisement to publicly disclose the corporation that is paying for the ad and prohibit corporate campaign expenditures from being tax deductible.”
Starting Jan 1, 2010, new campaign finance and ethics laws go into effect for the state of Massachusetts. The law was signed by Gov. Patrick (D) on July 1 after approval from state legislatures. Common Cause MA has a good two-page overview of the changes here (PDF). Source.
In Missouri, Gov. Jay Nixon (D) has sent a letter (PDF) to the members of the General Assembly stating his intent to make 2010 a year for state campaign finance reform. Missouri had campaign contribution limits put in place by 74% of voters in the 1994 election. While these limits withstood review by the US Supreme Court, they were repealed in 2008. In his letter, dated December 30, 2009, Nixon writes,
In California, the Republican party and a group of supporters are suing the city of San Diego over a ban on political parties contributing to city campaigns and the $500 contribution limit from individual donors, despite the fact that limit the was raised at the start of 2009. The complaint may be found here. Other sources: Ballot Access News
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry has suggested that the state siphon money from its Clean Elections fund, established by voters in 1998, to pay for some of the state’s vital services. The fund, which was close to $20 million for 2009, is provided for largely by a 10% surcharge on civil, criminal, and traffic fines and a $5 tax credit check off on Arizonian’s tax forms. Source: Arizona Business Gazette
State Senator John Marty (DFL) of Minnesota wrote a year-end opinion piece for the Twin Cities Daily Planet in support of strong campaign finance reform. Marty, who is running for governor to fill Republican Tim Pawlenty’s seat (who has stated he will not seek a third term), takes no money from special interest groups and has been honored by Common Cause Minnesota for his efforts at reform for the state of Minnesota.
Following this, off on hiatus until mid-January.
Judge Randy Koschnick
The AP and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are reporting today that a second suit has been filed against a bill that greatly expands the public funds available for state Supreme Court races. The suit, filed by Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Randy Koschnick, opposed the bill on similar grounds as a suit filed on Dec. 18 by Wisconsin Right to Life. Koschnick, who ran unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court in 2009 and has stated his intent to run again, is supported and represented by the Center for Competitive Politics, a Virginia based “nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the First Amendment political rights of speech, assembly and petition.”
Koschnick ’s suit states that “The Act, as a whole, violates the Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by suppressing the speech of candidates for the Office of Justice and the electorate and by favoring publicly-financed candidates over those who use private funds.”
The Impartial Justice Act (SB 40), signed into law on Dec 1 by Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, provides $100,000 for primary races and an additional $300,000 for the general elections, given candidates previously raised $5,000 to $15,000 in $5 to $100 donations and agree to spending limits for the duration of the campaign, an attempt to curb the rising costs of campaigns for the highest court. In addition, these candidates will receive extra money – as much as $300,000 in the primary and $900,000 in the general election – if outspent by an opponent who has opted out of the public financing system or if third-party groups run ads against them.
It is this provision regarding the spending of independent third parties that lies at the heart of the two suits, which challenge, as stated in a press release by the Center for Competitive Politics, “the program’s restrictions on independent groups who plan to exercise their First Amendment right to support or oppose candidates in the upcoming 2011 Supreme Court race.” Similar provisions that provide additional funds for publicly financed candidates triggered by third-party spending, often known as “rescue funds,” have been ruled unconstitutional in Connecticut and Arizona.
The Wisconsin Law Journal reminds that “the new law makes no effort to stop third party advocates from running potentially influential “issue ads,” which have become prominent in recent Supreme Court elections. According to campaign watchdog group the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, business group Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent more than $1.7 million supporting Justice Michael J. Gableman in 2008. The same year electioneering group Greater Wisconsin Committee spent more than $1.4 million in support of then Justice Louis B. Butler.”
The Law Journal also notes that $400,000 in public funds is small compared to what has recently been spent on state Supreme Court races. The 2007 race between Justice Annette K. Ziegler and opponent Linda M. Clifford set a record at $2.6 million combined, and Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson recently spent $1.3 million in her successful re-election, seven times the amount spent by Judge Randy R. Koschnick, the plaintiff in the recent suit. University of Wisconsin-Madison Political Science Professor Charles Franklin’s offered skepticism regarding the overall effectiveness of the Impartial Justice Act, stating ““It is unlikely that $400,000 will produce a very informed electorate…I think the big unknown is the role of independent groups, who still see important issues at stake in judicial outcomes and who may still have incentives to invest far more than $400,000 in such elections. In that circumstance, I’m not sure how the Impartial Justice Bill will fare.”
Tom Foley
Millionaire Tom Foley has announced today that he will opt out of Connecticut’s public financing system as he contributes $2 million to kickstart his campaign for governor, a move that makes him ineligible to receive public funding. Foley, who had originally stated his intent to challenge US Senator Chris Dodd in 2010, switched his focus to the governor’s seat after Connecticut’s current governor, Republican M. Jodi Rell, announced she would not seek reelection. In late 2005 Rell signed into law a bill that set the financial stage for a comprehensive state public financing system that was first available for the November 2008 races.
The gubernatorial race currently has six announced Democratic candidates and one Republican, current Lt. Governor Michael Fedele. Fedele has stated his intent to take advantage of the public financing system, which will provide his campaign with $3 million for the general election. The amount Foley plans to spend on the election in addition to the announced $2 million is still unclear.
State Sen. Day
Minnesota state senator Dick Day resigned mid-term last week to join the state’s full-time gambling lobby. Star Tribune coverage here.
Common Cause Minnesota released a statement citing Day’s resignation as need for a required waiting period before an elected official may become a lobbyist. CC Minnesota executive director Mike Dean stated:
“When a legislator leaves office to become a lobbyist it only further erodes the public’s trust in their elected officials. The public is growing suspicious of elected officials who may use his or her government position to line up a future job by currying favor with special interests. The mere perception of impropriety underlying this type of behavior is detrimental to the public’s faith in government.”
Hopefully voters knew “where he stands” when they cast their ballot.
The Common Cause release may be found here.