by Andrew Bruskin
The following is a follow-up to an original article written in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
According to several New York publications, not much has changed since this decision was handed down. The Campaign Finance Board states, “NYC already bans direct contributions to candidates and employs strong requirements for disclosure in order to preserve transparency and accountability. As it has for more than 20 years, New York City’s public matching funds program provides candidates with public funds that give small donors a voice to counterbalance the impact of special interest spending.” The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) states that this decision “will not have too much affect in Albany” anyway. “It is like the Wild Wild west right now anyway,” notes Blair Horner, the legislative director of the group. He further states that New York does not have restrictions on corporate campaign finance, so this ruling is minimal when it comes to New York’s electoral process. Corporations can spend-spend-spend away, with few McCain-Feingold restrictions.
Evan Johnston of the Examiner completely disagrees with the court’s ruling and with both NYPIRG and the New York Campaign Finance Board. Mr. Johnston says, “the ruling, which was to remove any restrictions a corporation might have otherwise run into in paying for virtually unlimited advertising time to sink a candidate who might propose something like term limits, or campaign finance reform, or any number of a host of public policy options that are remotely hostile to corporate interests. That is what New Yorkers need to be concerned about.” [Read more…] about Citizens United: Does it affect New York elections?
Campaign Finance
Young New Jersey Republican learns campaign finance the hard way, or: “Dad, can I have $16,000?”
When my older brother graduated from college, he moved back in with my parents, got a job as a lifeguard and spent the summer looking for full-time work. Hank Lyon went a different route. After graduating from Holy Cross in 2010, and while working for his parents’ various businesses, he decided to run for the office of freeholder in Morris County, New Jersey. Things didn’t quite work out as smoothly as he’d hoped.
Lyon entered the field as a candidate in the June 7 Republican primary election. His only competition: Margaret Nordstrom, the 12-year incumbent, thrice chosen as the freeholder board’s directors, and a former mayor of Washington Township. In putting together his campaign, Lyon made his father campaign treasurer and became a partner in his parents’ LLC. His father claimed that by making Hank a partner in the LLC, Hank could convey to voters his personal interest in property taxes (presupposing it would be tough to convey that interest when you live at home with your parents).
Nordstrom, aware of her opponent’s family resources, kept close watch on Lyon’s campaign finance filings. It didn’t seem she had much to worry about; a month before the election, Lyon’s campaign had collected a little less than $5,000 (compared to her $10,000). Based on those figures, Nordstrom knew Lyon couldn’t spend as much as she previously anticipated, so she scaled back her campaign. This was reinforced when Lyon listed $636.88 as his campaign balance on the 11-Day Pre-Election Report. [Read more…] about Young New Jersey Republican learns campaign finance the hard way, or: “Dad, can I have $16,000?”
WI (campaign finance): Serious spending by candidates in Wisconsin recall elections
“[T]he $43.9 million spent on the recalls more than doubled the previous record for spending by candidates and groups in legislative races, which was $20.25 million for 99 Assembly seats and 16 Senate seats in the 2008 general elections.” Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Wisconsin recently made national news for nine state Senate recall elections, and as the above quote indicates, these recall elections were not cheap campaigns. In an oversimplification of the reasons behind the recalls, 6 Republican and 3 Democrat state Senators “were targeted for recalls in the bitter fighting over Gov. Scott Walker’s budget initiatives. The Republicans were targeted for voting to seriously limit public employee bargaining, the Democrats for leaving the state for three weeks to prevent that vote from taking place.”
New Lines in the Sand: Redistricting in the Golden State
“All politics is local.” The truth of Tip O’Neill’s famous quip may sting some senior California House members as the state’s redistricting efforts land them in newly-formed districts that they might not be able to carry.
The new district map is the product of a bi-partisan citizen’s commission established by Proposition 11. Enacted directly by voters in 2008 and expanded in 2010, the law amended the state constitution to move redistricting authority from the legislature to a bipartisan commission of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Tasked with redrawing not only congressional districts but State Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts as well, the commission’s work will go into effect for the 2012 election. [Read more…] about New Lines in the Sand: Redistricting in the Golden State
Alabama GOP Offers Teacher’s Union Political Rotten Apple
Alabama Republicans are back from the legislative wilderness after 136 years, and now it’s time for Dems to finally get their comeuppance—or is it simply ethics and campaign finance reform? Soon Republican Governor Bob Riley will likely sign into law several pieces of ethics reform legislation that his Republican-controlled legislature passed in last week’s special session. Senate Bill 2 amends Section 17-17-5 of Alabama Code to proscribe state employees from contributing to a political action committee or paying membership dues to any organization that uses any portion of its dues for political activity by payroll deduction or other payment.
To the chagrin of Alabama Democrats, SB 2 would disproportionately hurt public employee organizations and the Alabama Education Association, Alabama’s largest and most influential teacher’s union. According to figures from Bloomberg News, payroll deductions are a primary means for over 90 percent of Alabama teachers who wish to pay dues and support the AEA’s PAC. In the 2010 elections, AEA members’ contributions in excess of $8.6 million catapulted the teacher’s lobbying group as the state’s top spender. While SB 2 would still permit state employees to continue to use payroll deduction for any portion of membership dues not used for political activity, its certainly erects a new hurdle for AEA’s political fundraising efforts. Any Alabama Democrat mulling over a legal challenge would be wise to read the Supreme Court tealeaves by examining their decision in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association. In Ysursa, SCOTUS reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by upholding Idaho legislation similar to that of SB 2 that prohibited state payroll deductions for political activities.
While acknowledging the constitutional implications of the restriction, the Court ultimately recognized no affirmative right for groups to use state payroll deductions to sustain political speech or expression. In further justifying their decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote “. . . Idaho is under no obligation to aid the unions in their political activities. And the State’s decision not to do so is not an abridgement of the unions’ speech; they are free to engage in such speech as they see fit. They simply are barred from enlisting the State in support of that endeavor.”
Furthermore, the Court cited Idaho’s interest in avoiding any appearance of combining government business and political activity. Pointing to precedent that upheld speech limitations to “avoi[d] the appearance of political favoritism,” and cases that found public confidence in government is susceptible to undermining through perception of political partiality, C.J. Roberts asserted “banning payroll deductions for political speech . . . furthers the government’s interest in distinguishing between internal governmental operations and private speech.”
Given Ysursa, any challenge by SB 2 opponents will likely be answered that the AEA has no affirmative right to gain access to potential political donors through government payroll operations. AEA donors may now easily write a personal check and even request payroll deductions for membership dues that will not go towards political activity. Questions of political motivations aside, it appears that the AEA and other Alabama organizations like it must recalibrate their operations in the face of increasing Republican capital and an ominous parallel decision from the Roberts Court.
Gregory Proseus is a second-year student at William & Mary Law School.
Permalink:
He was buried under a pile of stones college homework from http://www.college-homework-help.org in his philosophical garden