Campaign Finance

Who is stuffing the politicians’ pockets: Alabama and PAC-to-PAC contributions

Election Law Society · March 12, 2012 ·

Alabama Legislatures are trying to clean up the state’s political landscape. The problem at hand is that money is being shifted around without a clear understanding of where the funds originated. Political action committees (“PACs“) are, essentially, groups that take in funds and redistribute contributions to candidates or to advocate particular issues. Prior to 2011, a PAC in Alabama could receive money from a donor and then transfer the funds to another PAC. The second PAC can then put funds into half a dozen other PACs, which use the money to help advocate issues. The identity of the individuals who originally donated the funds is lost in the mix. This means that people trying to influence, or even corrupt, politicians, can play this “shell game” and hide the money trail. Keep in mind, there are 859 PACs in Alabama.

An attempt to hide the money trail is exactly what happened when gambling interest groups began trying to increase their odds of success. The U.S. Justice Department wiretapped a session where this statement came to light: “We’re gonna support who supports democracy. And the (expletive deleted) who doesn’t support democracy [should] get ready to get their (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) busted.” Certainly this crass statement could be taken admirably, but chances are the gambling tycoon was not strictly supporting democracy given that statement is taken in the context of extortion, bribery, fraud, and conspiracy charges. Shifting money from PAC-to-PAC to hide the connection to gambling money, however, was perfectly legal. This confusion of contributions was an integral means of getting support for the gambling agenda since politicians did not need to fear disclosure. [Read more…] about Who is stuffing the politicians’ pockets: Alabama and PAC-to-PAC contributions

Vincent Gray’s campaign finance slip-ups

Election Law Society · February 23, 2012 ·

by Neil Gibson

In Washington, DC, embattled mayor Vincent Gray and several members of his 2010 mayoral campaign remain the subjects of a federal criminal investigation regarding the campaign’s alleged violations of city campaign finance laws. Among other things, Gray’s campaign faces a growing body of evidence suggesting attempts by staffers to circumvent the city’s $25 cap on an individual’s cash donations to local political campaigns. In particular, the Washington Post discovered this past July that members of Gray’s campaign had repeatedly sought to disguise solicited cash donations of over $25 by illegally using the donated cash to purchase money orders, whose per-individual contribution limit exceeds that of cash. With D.C. Municipal Regulations calling for the itemization and reporting of all campaign contributions exceeding $15, to surreptitiously transform cash into money orders would enable a campaign to report forbidden cash donations of over $25 as money orders, and thereby avoid statutory penalties for campaign finance violations. [Read more…] about Vincent Gray’s campaign finance slip-ups

Privately funded incumbent beats out nine publicly-funded opponents in San Francisco mayoral race

Election Law Society · January 31, 2012 ·

by Reid Schweitzer

Over the last fifteen years, a growing movement in the US has called for the diminution of corporate and special interest money in elections by providing public funds for campaigns. In that time, sixteen states and a number of municipalities have enacted various schemes that provide public financing for candidates for public office, usually with requirements that the candidates abide by spending caps and raise a certain amount of money on their own through small donations.

This past election tested San Francisco’s version of public finance in its mayoral election. The City by the Bay provides $50,000 to any mayoral candidate who can raise at least $25,000 from donations of $100 or less. After that, donations to the candidate are matched at a rate of 4:1, decreasing to 1:1 by the time that candidate reaches the $1,375,000 spending cap imposed on those candidates receiving public financing. In a single election, a candidate may receive as much as $850,000 from the city, unless, as in this election a privately financed campaign exceeds the cap. Thereafter, the cap rises in $100,000 increments as privately financed campaigns continue to spend.

In this election, however, a publicly financed campaign did not take the prize. Interim Mayor Ed Lee won the election on November 8 after funding his campaign through private contributions. Ultimately a total of $2.6 million was spent in support of Lee’s campaign, including nearly one million dollars spent by independent groups. This amount, however, is dwarfed by recent campaigns in San Francisco where, for example, in the 2003 election, former Mayor Gavin Newsom spent $5.1 million. [Read more…] about Privately funded incumbent beats out nine publicly-funded opponents in San Francisco mayoral race

Dodging Disclosure

Election Law Society · January 23, 2012 ·

How the fight over Minnesota campaign finance disclosure requirements may shape the fate of the state’s marriage amendment

by Stephanie Bitto

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board’s October clarification of Minnesota campaign finance laws may have quite an impact on a hot topic at issue in the 2012 election.

In 2012, Minnesota voters will be asked to approve an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that declares marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman. The Minnesota House and Senate passed a bill in May 2011 proposing the amendment. Governor Dayton issued a symbolic veto of the bill on May 25, 2011, but as constitutional amendment legislation cannot be vetoed, it will be up to the voters to determine the amendment’s fate. [Read more…] about Dodging Disclosure

Montana rebels against Citizens United

Election Law Society · January 16, 2012 ·

Patrick Genova

in-depth article

It may be surprising that the biggest blow to corporations in 2011 didn’t come from Wall Street protestors. Late last month Montana’s Supreme Court took a swing at corporate spending in elections holding, in spite of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, that a 100-year-old law banning corporate spending was valid. In doing so, the court held that the lower court’s reading of Citizens United was erroneous. The Court in Citizens United said, “Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction ‘furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.’”

So what exactly should be considered a “compelling interest” for bans on political spending? The Supreme Court of Montana answers bluntly that they have met the standard of review set out in Citizens United. In assessing Chief Justice McGrath explains Montana’s long standing fight against corporate spending. [Read more…] about Montana rebels against Citizens United