Senate Constitutional Amendment To Roll Back Campaign Finance Decisions

The Senate will vote in 2014 on a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court rulings that prevent limitations on campaign spending, campaign contributions and independent group spending.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced the planned vote at a hearing on undisclosed "dark money" held by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee on Wednesday.  Schumer said the Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).

The amendment would roll back the 2010 Citizens United and 2014 McCutcheon rulings by re-instituting the power of Congress to pass legislation limiting campaign contributions and expenditures.  In particular, this change would reverse a part of the court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling that upheld the original Federal Election Campaign Act's limits on campaign contributions, but struck down the act's limits on campaign spending.

The Buckley ruling restricting Congress' ability to limit campaign spending did so by finding that limits on spending are a direct curtailment of First Amendment rights.  The court then ruled that the expenditure of money from oneself or donated by another constituted a form of speech.  This has famously been interpreted as a ruling that "money is speech."

Schumer countered the view that the First Amendment cannot be amended because it is sacrosanct.  "I respect my colleagues' fidelity to the First Amendment, but no amendment is absolute," Schumer said.  "Some support limitations on pornography.  That's a limitation on the First Amendment.  Some support legislation saying you can't yell fire in a movie theater.  That's a limitation on the First Amendment."

Udall said during the committee hearing that the distortion of the political system by big money predates both Citizens United and McCutcheon.  He pointed to the long bipartisan tradition of support for a constitutional amendment to change the Buckley decision.

Ever since the 1976 Buckley ruling, Congress has discussed and senators have introduced constitutional amendments to roll back the restrictions on campaign finance limits.  The issue has been championed by Democrats and Republicans alike, including former Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.).

"Elections have become more about the quantity of cash and less about the quality of ideas," Udall said.  Udall's amendment has the endorsement of 35 co-sponsors, including the independent Sen. Angus King (Maine).

Language has been added to make clear that the proposed constitutional amendment would restore congressional power to restrict campaign contributions as well as expenditures.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Wisconsin Voter ID Law Struck Down

Wisconsin became the latest state to have its voter identification law struck down by the courts, with a federal judge in Milwaukee on Tuesday concluding that opponents of the requirement have shown it has a "disproportionate impact" on many voters.  The Wisconsin case is Frank v. Walker (11-cv-1128).

Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee ruled the requirement that voters present one of nine forms of government-approved photo ID was in violation of the landmark Voting Rights Act.  He issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.  A state judge had earlier tossed out the law on similar legal grounds.

Wisconsin officials had argued there was a legitimate government interest to prevent voter fraud and impersonation, by requiring those casting ballots to prove their identity.  However, "Act 23 serves the state's interest in orderly election administration and accurate record-keeping only to the extent that it serves the state's interest in detecting and preventing voter fraud," concluded Adelman. "Act 23 weakly serves the latter interest."

He added "Perhaps the reason why photo ID requirements have no effect on confidence or trust in the electoral process is that such laws undermine the public's confidence in the electoral process as much as they promote it."

The state's attorney, General J.B. Van Hollen, responded, saying, "I am disappointed with the order and continue to believe Wisconsin’s law is constitutional.  We will appeal."

It is unclear whether separate appeals of the state and now federal rulings will be resolved before November's statewide elections.

Various coalitions of private plaintiffs, civil rights groups, and the federal government have filed challenges to laws in some states, and have generally been successful on stopping enforcement, at least temporarily.

The issue has become a key part of the Obama administration's domestic agenda.

"This law had robbed many Wisconsin citizens of their right to vote.  Today, the court made it clear those discriminatory actions cannot stand," said Karyn Rotker, Wisconsin senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Many conservative lawmakers have said the voter ID requirements have not inhibited the ability of minorities to vote.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

CO Coalition Launches Campaign for Nonpartisan Elections

Ryan Ross, Director of the Coalition for a New Colorado Election System, has been working with supporters to overhaul the state’s primary system.

Currently, like in many other states, Colorado conducts semi-closed primary elections which only allow voters registered with one of the major parties to participate.  This system excludes voters and candidates who wish to maintain their identity as independents or as members of a third party from participating in this critical stage in the election process.

The proposal contains three fundamental reforms to change the election system to allow all Colorado voters full and meaningful participation in the voting process.

1. It would abolish tax-funded party primaries.  Instead, the entire candidate field would be on the same primary ballot.

2. Any party could put two candidates on the ballot.  Candidates would also be eligible to run if they received enough signatures.

3. Every voter would be able to vote for whoever they wanted, the top four candidates from any party, as well as anyone with 3 percent of the vote, would then advance to the general election.

On Tuesday, April 29, the Coalition for a New Colorado Election System will launch its official campaign, “Change.Politics.Now.”, at a press conference in Denver and explain how the coalition’s three initiatives represent the most aggressive attempts anywhere in the country to devise a new approach to elections.

The coalition notes that the current electoral system was instituted over a century ago.  "In the ensuing 100 years, it explains in a press release, politics have changed considerably, which necessitate a new system for the state to elect more problem-solving candidates, all but end negative campaigning, and wipe silly partisan gamesmanship off the political map."

The lofty goals will head to voters in November.  Earlier this month, the Colorado regulators for petition-circulation approved the coalition’s request to put their initiatives on the ballot.

Over the next six months, the coalition will work hard to publicize their issues among the electorate, with the hopes that Colorado will continue to lead the country in game-changing political referendums.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Don’t Let Corporations Hide Their Political Spending

It will take a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United entirely, but there’s one federal agency that has the power to rein in corporate money in politics in a big way right now.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can require that corporations disclose how they’re spending money to affect elections and the SEC is taking public comments on just such a move right now.

Campaign finance reform is the issue that affects all other issues: Climate change, civil rights, workers rights, health care, education … you name it.

The Supreme Court keeps giving already-powerful corporations new ways to influence politicians in all of these areas.

And we’ve seen the levels to which corporations were willing to go to win in 2010 and 2012, when they drowned the airwaves in attack ads.

But the SEC isn’t going to act without pressure.

The Daily Kos has created a petition asking the Securities and Exchange Commission:

I am deeply concerned about the influence of corporate money on our electoral process.

In particular, I am appalled that, because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, publicly traded corporations can spend investors' money on anti-progressive activity in secret.  Corporations that we all invest in are fighting against clean air and water, LGBT rights, organized labor, financial protections for consumers, and more… and we don’t know anything about it.

I am writing to urge the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a rule requiring publicly traded corporations to publicly disclose all their political spending.

Both shareholders and the public must be fully informed as to how much the corporation spends on politics and which candidates are being promoted or attacked.  Disclosures should be posted promptly on the SEC's web site.

Thank you for considering my comment.

CLICK HERE to Sign and send the petition now.

Don’t let corporations hide their political spending.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Voting Rights are Primary Independent Campaign

Historically, parties have opposed opening their primaries to non-members because of the threat of them choosing a representative that the members of the party do not want.  Additionally, party leaders are afraid members of the other party will vote in their primary in order to select the weaker candidate and win in the general election.

While studies by political scientists have shown that the number of voters who act that way remains low, the parties have successfully argued in may occasion that their right of private association under the First Amendment allows them to keep their primaries private.

While this argument is completely valid, it ignores one dilemma: parties are arguing that they are private organizations to keep the primaries closed, but fund these primaries with taxpayer money.

If using public funds for the primaries was justified as providing a public benefit in the past, this argument is less compelling today.

When up to 50 percent of registered voters are disenfranchised from participating in primary elections that they have funded with their tax dollars, it might be time to reform the system.

A number of solutions are available to solve this problem.

The parties can choose to open their primaries in order to allow unaffiliated voters to cast a vote under the same rules as party members.  States can also adopt a nonpartisan primary system in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are on one ballot and a fixed number of them move to the general election.

A third and more innovative alternative is conceivable:

Prohibit the use of public tax dollars to fund partisan activities, especially partisan primaries.  Under this system, the parties will retain the right to organize primaries as they choose, but will have to fund them with their own funds.

So this primary year, voters designated as independent, no party preference, or blank, will take part in a "Voters Rights are Primary" campaign in 22 states.

The details of each picket will look different from state to state, but activists will be communicating with the public and media about ways that independents are excluded from participating in the all-important primary process.

If you'd like to join the campaign, whether it's participating in a picket or writing a letter to the editor, email

national@independentvoting.org.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYC Council Bills to Ban Anonymous Campaign Mailers

The New York City Council is moving forward with a package of legislation that would ban anonymous campaign mailers and force Super PAC-like groups to list their top donors in print.

The bills, sponsored by Councilmen Brad Lander and Dan Garodnick, will get their first hearing this afternoon.  They follow a heated election season that saw a spate of anonymous attack mailers that often included inaccurate and incendiary material, especially at the City Council level.

Mr. Garodnick said his bill, which would require all communications to include information about the candidate or committee that paid for them, was aimed at filing what he described as “a glaring hole” in city regulation.  “If somebody’s going to send an attack ad, they shouldn’t be able to do it anonymously.  Step up.  Show yourself.  And take responsibility for your communication.  That’s what this is designed to do.  My hope is that it will create more positive communications at the end of the day.”

Mr. Lander’s bill, meanwhile, aims at reining in independent expenditures, which the courts ruled yesterday can now raise unlimited amounts.

The rules would require all campaign mailers to include the words ‘Paid for by’ followed by the name of the individual or group that paid for the ad, the name of its owner or chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, its chief operating officer and its business address, as well as the words, “Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.”

Mailers would also have to list the “Top Five Donors” to the independent expenditure group that paid for them in the previous twelve months, and feature the wording, “This advertisement is funded by an independent expenditure, and is not subject to the contribution and expenditure limits that apply to candidates in the NYC Campaign Finance Board’s public matching funds program.  More information at nyccfb.info.” Similar rules would apply to paid television, internet video and radio ads.

“We were appalled by what was happening and how much money was flowing in through IEs,” said Mr. Lander.  “The first goal of this legislation is to provide as much as we can to people when they receive or hear it.  It’s important for voters to know that, to have some context, to know where it’s coming from.”

“The goal here is to get, in my opinion, the maximum possible disclosure to enable voters to know who’s paying for these and what they’re about and where they’re coming from, but to survive the scrutiny the Supreme Court has applied under Citizens United,” he said.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Judge Rejects NY Limit on Donations to Super PACs

A federal judge on Thursday struck down New York State’s limit on contributions to independent groups that spend money supporting political candidates, a move that could unleash large spending by so-called super PACs in state races.

Currently, New York imposes a $150,000 limit on an individual’s annual political contributions.  The judge, Paul A. Crotty of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that such a limit was a violation of the First Amendment when it was applied to independent groups.

In a five-page opinion, Judge Crotty lamented the influence of outsize donations in today’s political system.  He wrote that the voices of regular citizens “are too often drowned out by the few who have great resources,” and disagreed with some of the Supreme Court’s analysis in the recent case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

But despite his concerns, Judge Crotty wrote that he had no choice but to follow the Supreme Court’s lead in that case and in the landmark Citizens United campaign finance case, as well as the guidance of the Second Circuit.

“Our Supreme Court,” he wrote, “has made clear that only certain contribution limits comport with the First Amendment.”

The case in New York was brought last fall by New York Progress and Protection PAC, a conservative group that was supporting the Republican candidate for mayor of New York City, Joseph J. Lhota, who lost to Bill de Blasio.

The group said at the time that the same political donor who was at the center of the recent Supreme Court case, Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, had pledged to contribute well over the $150,000 that was permitted by state law.

Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for the New York State attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, expressed disappointment with the ruling on Thursday.  He said the state had not decided whether to appeal.  Similar limits have also been struck down in other states after the Citizens United decision.

The decision in New York raised the possibility that independent groups, not affiliated with specific candidates, could begin to play an even larger role in state political races, like the re-election bid of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who will be on the ballot in November, and in the battle for control of the State Senate.

“I think the dam of campaign finance regulation is breaking,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a prominent New York election lawyer.  “This decision, like McCutcheon, is going to invite even further challenges to contribution limits.”

In an interview on Thursday, Craig Engle, the treasurer of New York Progress and Protection PAC, declined to discuss the group’s plans but said the end of the contribution limit would make it easier for independent groups to get their message out in New York, given its expensive media market.

“What this does,” he said, “is put governor candidates in New York on an equal footing with governor candidates across the United States — that the money that needs to be raised can be raised to support or defend their opinions or positions.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Arkansas Judge Voids State Voter ID Law

An Arkansas judge struck down the state's new voter ID law on Thursday, saying it violates the state constitution by adding a requirement that voters must meet before casting a ballot.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox voided the measure in a lawsuit over the way absentee ballots are handled under the law.  A separate lawsuit had been filed last week directly challenging the law, which requires voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot.

The law "is declared void and unenforceable," Fox wrote in the ruling.

The Republican-led Legislature approved the law last year, overriding a veto by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe with a simple majority vote in the House and Senate.  Backers of the measure said it was aimed at reducing voter fraud, while opponents said it would disenfranchise voters.

A spokesman for Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat, says the state Board of Election Commissioners has asked McDaniel's office to appeal Thursday's ruling, and it will do so.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which had filed the separate lawsuit, hailed the ruling.

"The important thing is it indicates voters will be able to vote," Holly Dickson, the group's legal director. "It matters not which suit as long as voters will be able to vote."

The law, which took effect Jan. 1, was used in some local elections earlier this year, but it will be used statewide for the first time during early voting beginning May 5 and during primary elections on May 20.

Fox issued the ruling in a case that had focused on absentee ballots.  The Pulaski County Election Commission sued the state Board of Election Commissioners for adopting a rule that gives absentee voters additional time to show proof of ID.  The rule allows voters who did not submit required identification with their absentee ballot to turn in the documents for their vote to be counted by noon Monday following an election.  It mirrors an identical "cure period" the law gives to voters who fail to show identification at the polls.

McDaniel issued a legal opinion in February in which he said absentee voters could not be given additional time to cast ballots, because that wasn't specified in the law.  His opinion conflicted with advice that the Republican Secretary of State's office had given to local election officials.

"The Pulaski County action forced the Court to reach the legal issues involved and strike down the voter ID law," said Chris Burks, a member of the Pulaski County Election Commission.

The Republican sponsor of the voter ID law said he was "shocked" at Fox's ruling, saying he didn't believe the judge gave the state the chance to defend the new measure.

"I thought today was about the rulemaking on the absentee ballots. It seems like he jumped ahead of himself," said Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest.

Under previous law, election workers were required to ask for photo ID but voters don't have to show it to cast a ballot.  Under the new law, voters who don't show photo identification can cast provisional ballots.  Those ballots would be counted only if voters provide ID to county election officials before noon on the Monday after an election, sign an affidavit stating they are indigent or have a religious objection to being photographed.

State Democrats indicated they planned to use the voter ID law as an issue in this year's elections, sending out a fundraising email within an hour of Fox's ruling.

"Don't let an appeal to this ruling turn back the clock for Arkansas voters," Candace Martin, the state party's executive director, wrote in the email.

UPDATE
On May 23, an Arkansas Circuit Court again ruled that the Arkansas law requiring voters at the polls to show government photo ID violates the State Constitution.

This time, his decision does not suffer from the procedural flaw that affected the same court’s first ruling.  The new decision is Kohls v Martin, an ACLU case.

The judge stayed his own decision, because the state says it will appeal.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Anti-Keystone XL Pipeline D.C. Protest

Cowboys and Indians rode on horseback onto the National Mall on Tuesday to show President Barack Obama that opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline extends to the U.S. heartland.

“We’re here to show Obama, to show Washington, D.C., the very faces of the people that the decision on the KXL pipeline affects,” protester Dallas Goldtooth told a crowd on the Mall, where the group erected teepees that will remain through Saturday.

Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office.  Their goal, like that of their environmentalist counterparts, is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.

“We have stopped the pipeline in its tracks for the last five years,” said Jane Kleeb, of the environmental group Bold Nebraska.  The new protest is meant to show that “tribes have the moral authority and the farmers and ranchers have the rights to their land,” Kleeb said.

Several tribes from across the country joined together in January at the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota and signed a treaty formally agreeing to oppose tar sands projects in their territories.

“Of all people, we know not to break a treaty,” Faith Spotted Eagle, an elder of the Yankton Sioux, told the crowd.  And the ranchers, or “cowboys”, are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest.

“I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback.

She didn’t have so much luck with her own land. Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River.

“Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said.  Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.

On Saturday, the center teepee, adorned with the Indian names President Barack Obama received from Montana’s Crow Nation and the Lakota tribe and painted with symbols symbolizing land and water protection, will be presented as a gift to the National Museum of the American Indian.  Organizers said the museum has agreed to house the teepee in its collection.

The organizers also expect 5,000 more protesters at a rally on Saturday.  That will follow a week of events, including a “traditional ceremony” outside Kerry’s house.  Organizers also said that activist group The Other 98% plans to use a high-intensity projector to project messages about Keystone XL onto the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters Thursday night.



I agree with the stopping of the current project, because it is a bad deal.

We are taking a dirty tar oil and pushing it through a pipeline that will be built with a much smaller temporary workforce then has been indicated.  It will go to a refineries that will generate revenue for the refineries.  Get pushed back through a pipeline to a tax-free zone on the Gulf coast, to get shipped outside the United States.  So we get no benefit of using the oil or any revenue from its sale.

So tell me why this is a good deal.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The Myth of Swing Voters in Midterm Elections

I found this article on the New York Times, The UpShot page, by Lynn Vavreck, a professor of political science at U.C.L.A., and a co-author of "The Gamble,” about the 2012 presidential campaign.

She writes:

If you want to understand the 2014 midterm elections, remember this simple fact about American politics: There just aren’t that many swing voters.

Many people change their minds over the course of a campaign about whether to vote and even which candidate they’re leaning toward.  Ultimately, though, voters tend to come home to their favored party.  There are relatively few voters who cross back and forth between the parties during a campaign or even between elections.

Political professionals have increasingly come to appreciate this pattern and have focused resources on getting previous voters to the polls.  Both parties have spent considerable effort in recent elections trying to understand the effects of television ads, canvassing, phone calls and mailings on turnout.  Mobilizing a party’s voters has become as important as persuading undecided or swing voters.

The 2010 midterm elections highlight the relatively small number of swing voters.  After winning with a wide margin and extraordinary enthusiasm in 2008, the Democrats suffered one of the largest losses of seats in any midterm two years later.

Very Few 2008 Voters Chose a Different Party in 2010

Obama Voters
6% - Switched party
65% - Same party
28% - Stayed home

McCain Voters
6% - Switched party
76% - Same party
17% - Stayed home

But only a small percentage of voters actually switched sides between 2008 and 2010.  There were almost as many John McCain voters who voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2010 as there were Obama voters who shifted the other way.  That may be a surprise to some, but it comes from one of the largest longitudinal study of voters, YouGov’s Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project (C.C.A.P.), for which YouGov interviewed 45,000 people at multiple points during 2011 and 2012.

The results clearly show that voters in 2010 did not abandon the Democrats for the other side, but they did forsake the party in another important way: Many stayed home.

Turnout in midterm elections is always down from presidential elections, and Democrats routinely fight to return more of their voters to the polls than the Republicans.

These stable patterns of American politics reveal a clear path for both parties in 2014: Get your 2012 voters to the polls.

The 2014 fight is not over swing voters. It’s for partisans.

But I think the opportunity is there for independents to make a difference.

The goal should be to take away the major parties majority in the House and the Senate by electing more independent candidates.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us