What Happens Next?

Connecticut is having trouble fixing their public financing option. It has been a long process through a federal court case and appeals, yet still, Connecticut lawmakers are still trying to buy time to figure out how to fix their public financing mess. In was in August of last year, that the Federal Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACLU (who worked on behalf of the Connecticut Green Party and the Connecticut Libertarian Party), who deemed that certain parts of the state's campaign public finance option was unconstitutional. The two minor parties stated that the public campaign finance option created increased difficulty for minor parties to able to participate under the option and that major, already-established parties, were able to easily participate, creating an unfair advantage.

Either way, this is going to be an interesting turn of events. It is no surprise that the minor parties have difficulty in participating in our election systems. It's not only the campaign finance that is the problem, but it is also the gerrymandering of districts, the winner-take-all election system, and countless other electoral barriers that prevents our electoral systems of being both representative and democratic. The system, through years of changes (such as eliminating fusion voting), is well established to only allow two-parties. Maybe the Green and Libertarian party should focus on eliminating those barriers as well.

Going against his own

Florida Governor Charlie Christ, a Republican, veteod a bill that would remove the law barring the long-since-dead fundraising machine called leadership funds. The article below has it all.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/07/1566713/florida-gov-charlie-crist-vetoes.html

Disclosure in Minnesota

Disclosure is now the only way to point out the connections between money and politics. There are groups like Citizens United who want to take their case further. Citizen United, for example, have asked the courts to not require disclosure or have a “media exemption.” The threat to removing disclosure is the next part of many groups who oppose campaign finance reform. As Minnesota's campaign finance laws are being challenged on the basis of Citizens United v FEC, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board is recommending that corporations set up political funds and report what amount of funds are coming from the corporate treasury as well as outside donations. Disclosure is very important in following the effects of money on power. Without it we wouldn't be able to know who was paying for what commercial.

More can be found here: http://wcco.com/wireapnewsmn/Minn.campaign.officials.2.1614582.html

Wisconsin next to abolish their campaign finance laws...

Wisconsin is now challenging the consitionality of their campaign finance laws. The Government Accountability Board have suggested that the state lifts the ban on coporate and union donations. As mentioned in the blog below, this is the beginning of many states who will change their campaign finance laws to allow for coporate and union donations by the masses.

http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/40957/group/News/

Colorado Campaign Finance Laws Deemed Unconstitutional

When the Supreme Court made it's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, it would only be a matter of time before campaign finance laws would be challenged at the state-wide level. Well, The Colorado Supreme Court has knocked down the state's campaign finance laws citing the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm sure many more states will soon do the same.

More information can be found here:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14732136

R.I.P Granny D

Yes, Doris "Granny D" Haddock passed away this year on March 10. Granny D was a warrior for campaign finance reform and was a political activist till the day she passed. The folks at Democracy Now have put together a little remembrance video here:



For anyone who has never had a chance to listen to Granny D, check out this video:

A Taste Of The 2010 Season

Time Magazine put out a great article about how the health care fight in Washington, and the ads going along with it, are giving us a little taste of what's to come. Time reports that almost $200 million has been spent from both sides of the aisle trying to convince you what side to take. What's worst? Well, many of these advertisements have little to no disclosure at all. This means we don't even know who is trying to convince us to do what. Unless something changes, get used to it. So with that being said...

Welcome to the 2010 election season!

Check out the Time article at http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972364,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Calls For A Constitutional Amendment On Campaign Financing

Harvard law professor and political activist Lawrence Lessig, is calling for a constitutional amendment. Lawrence wrote in an article for The Huffington Post

"But in my view, the greatest danger of Citizens United is distraction. There are fundamental problems with America's democracy. An overly diverse speech market is not high on that list. And while the decision in Citizens United -- if things stay as they are -- could create a critical threat to American democracy, that is not because corporations get to speak. The danger in this decision is that it will further cement the corrupting dependency on private funding of public campaigns that already infects our Congress. The problem in our democracy is not diversity; the problem is a Congress dependent upon the fundraisers. The problem is not corporate speech. The problem is the fundraising Congress."

Mr. Lessig has launched a movement called "Call A Convention" which can be found at http://www.callaconvention.org. The organization calls for an amendment with the following:

"1.Congress shall have the power and obligation to protect its own independence, and the independence of the Executive, by assuring, through citizen vouchers or public funding, that the financing of federal elections does not produce any actual or reasonably perceived appearance of dependence, except upon the People.

2.Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power to limit, though
not to ban, campaign expenditures of non-citizens of the United States during the last 60 days before an election.

3.Courts shall defer to factual judgments about an actual or reasonably perceived appearance of dependence when such judgments are made by independent, non-partisan commissions whose Members pledge not to enter elected office for a period of at least 10 years after service on the commission."

This is an interesting twist to the whole campaign finance movement. Lawrence Lessig is also the co-founder of fixcongressfirst.org which is working to enact the Fair Elections now Act.

Think You Can Win An Election?

Only if you have more money then your opponent. According to Fair Elections RI, candidates in Rhode Island who raise the most money win their elections 97% of the time. What's the average money raised for a successful run for a seat in the Rhode Island General Assembly? I calculated that it's about $27,000.

Fair Elections RI:

http://www.fairelectionsri.org/benefits.php

Anonymous Contributions From Buisness?

The New York Times published an article yesterday stating that due to last months Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that it may be possible for corporations to make contributions to nonprofit groups without revealing their identity.

So what does this mean? To put it simply, a corporation could potentially operate a non-profit for the sake of influencing elections without ever officially being tied to it. This means we would never know who is using their money to buy their interests. This is more bad news for the up-coming 2010 elections.

Below is a link to the NY Times Article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/28donate.html