logo OhioImpact.org logo - Political Accountability for Citizens Today
Footer

Campaign Finance Reform:  making candidates responsive to all voters

Most of the laws concerning the financing of political campaigns are, frankly, not of much concern to those of us who are not candidates or campaign treasurers.

What the public does care about is how much money candidates and issue campaigns can get from individuals and organizations, and how that money affects the outcome of elections.

Many voters are concerned that candidates will favor their contributors once they become elected and that contributions may be repaid with influence, favors, contracts and other governmental actions.

Candidates and office holders will insist that campaign contributors have no influence on the way they vote. To some extent, that’s probably true. Contributors tend to give money to candidates and office holders who already agree with them – conservatives give money to conservatives, liberals to liberals.

But candidates who look as if they will be winners, and office holders who are in the majority, who hold leadership positions or committee chairmanships, or who are on committees that affect the contributor’s business, often attract major contributions regardless of ideology.

It would be naive to imagine that an office holder would not at least listen sympathetically to someone who contributed significantly to his campaign. There are so many demands on his time and attention that it is logical to assume that his major contributors will have more ready access to him than ordinary voters.

Ultimately, the concern is that office holders are more responsive to individuals and organizations with more resources than to the ordinary voters whom they are supposed to represent.

Latest News in Campaign Finance Reform

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Mark Niquette, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 3/9/10. COLUMBUS — The Ohio Supreme Court issued an order yesterday putting on hold, pending a final determination, the last of the remaining subpoenas from Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in a dispute about the funding behind a proposed referendum.

Last week, the court delayed enforcement of subpoenas issued to people affiliated with LetOhioVote.org, the group seeking the referendum on whether to add electronic slot machines at horse tracks, as well as to Tim Crawford, president of New Models, the Virginia-based nonprofit that was LetOhioVote.org’s sole source of funding last year. Read More

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Daniel Schuman, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION, 3/8/10.  WASHINGTON DC — Should a court case on whether Washington state must disclose the identities of people calling for a referendum affect the kinds of disclosure required under campaign finance law? We say no. The explanation of our answer is the focus of an amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court by the Sunlight Foundation, the Brennan Center, and the Center for Responsive Politics in Doe v. Reed.

We believe that, regardless of whether the names of people who signed a petition calling for a referendum must be disclosed, the question of money in politics is different from other election regulation issues, and must be treated differently. “Where money is spent to influence the outcome of elections, vigilance is required to ensure that influence-peddling does not corrupt our democracy and that voters are empowered to make informed decisions about how such spending may have influenced their candidates and laws.”

As a matter of procedure, the Court should never reach the question of how transparency and campaign finance laws intersect. But if it does, the Court should conclude “the curtain of privacy that is appropriate to the voting booth should not be drawn to hide the workings of money in politics from public scrutiny and from political accountability.”

Read the brief below.

Doe v Reed Amicus Brief before Supreme Court joined by Sunlight Foundation

Read More

Monday, March 8th, 2010

E.J. Dionne Jr., WASHINGTON POST, 3/8/10.  WASHINGTON DC — In a city where the phrase “bipartisan initiative” is becoming an oxymoron, the urgency of containing the damage the Supreme Court could do to our electoral system creates an opportunity for a rare convergence of interest and principle.

At issue is the court’s astonishingly naive decision in January that allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections. Its 5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United case was a shocking instance of judicial overreach and reflected an utter indifference to how politics works.

Liberals and Democrats are already mobilizing to fight against Citizens United because they fear the impact of unconstrained corporate activity on elections and legislation. But conservatives and Republicans should also be alarmed that this decision could encourage politicians to extort campaign spending from businesses. Is it really so hard to imagine a congressional leader quietly approaching a business executive and suggesting that unless her company invested heavily in certain key electoral contests, this regulation or that spending program might be changed at the expense of her enterprise?  Read More