Campaign Finance and Upcoming Elections
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-24/campaign-finance-and-upcoming-elections
Money from outside political groups has poured in to today’s special election in Upstate New York. One of the biggest donors has been the Republican-backed American Crossroads. In South Carolina, the pro-Democratic group Priorities U.S.A. has begun running ads against Mitt Romney. In the year following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, dozens of groups known as “super PACs” have sprung up. The groups can raise and spend unlimited sums of money. Non-profit groups have also gotten more involved in politics, and they don’t have to disclose donors. Advocates for campaign finance reform say the influence of these outside groups could be dangerous. Fundraisers say they’re perfectly legal. A look at the changing rules of campaign finance.
Guests
Trevor Potter
former chair of the Federal Election Commission, president and general counsel of The Campaign Legal Center, and a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale
Stan Brand
is partner with the Brand Law Group, former counsel to the House of Representatives, and a law professor at Penn State University
Dan Eggen
reporter, Washington Post
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Thanks! I would never have guessed that. I read Ms. Rankin somewhere it did make me think but I thought no way only dudes are this driven. Purged! I have a dirty mind, sorry. I will imagine you as beautiful as you are colorful. I guess I thought it a short walk from only a few are removed from the majority of the "infantile minded" populous to the forced labor camps of the mother land.
This morning on NPR's Diane Rehm Show, the discussion was a bashing of the Citizens United case. What I heard centered on criticism of corporate-financed speech and how corporate entities may now finance independent ads on political races without disclosing donors.
What?
You'd think just coming off the NPR scandal involving its ‘corporate' willingness to hide donations to promote political and religious causes (quid pro quo), all with the help of taxpayer money, that Ms. Rehm and her NPR ‘corporate' producers wouldn't so foolishly engage in such blatant hypocrisy.
Ms. Rehm was upset about the recent First Amendment advances in campaign finance law, thanks in large part to a series of Supreme Court decisions under the Roberts court. Money, money, money is ruining politics, Ms. Rehm and her corporate employer and benefactors want us to believe.
Ms. Rehm even cited the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, as an example of someone who's doing things right. She's obviously very up to speed on how socialists manage their campaigns. Her plug for Sanders was artfully careful to avoid the tax code restrictions on express advocacy by 501(c)(3)s such as NPR. I credit the lawyers at NPR for the well-trained Rehm. They know they have a big audience of Ben & Jerry types in the Green Mountain state, and they know how to plug candidates without crossing the law.
There's plenty of insider baseball about these issues at NPR. NPR senior correspondent Linda Wertheimer is married to the Washington dean of the anti-free speech campaign finance movement, Fred Wertheimer, who founded and heads Democracy21, an Astroturf nonprofit corporation that would have all campaigns financed by the government. Taxpayer-funded, monolithic leftwing-thinking NPR believes, what's not to love about that?
This morning on NPR's Diane Rehm Show, the discussion was a bashing of the Citizens United case. What I heard centered on criticism of corporate-financed speech and how corporate entities may now finance independent ads on political races without disclosing donors.
What?
You'd think just coming off the NPR scandal involving its ‘corporate' willingness to hide donations to promote political and religious causes (quid pro quo), all with the help of taxpayer money, that Ms. Rehm and her NPR ‘corporate' producers wouldn't so foolishly engage in such blatant hypocrisy.
Ms. Rehm was upset about the recent First Amendment advances in campaign finance law, thanks in large part to a series of Supreme Court decisions under the Roberts court. Money, money, money is ruining politics, Ms. Rehm and her corporate employer and benefactors want us to believe.
Ms. Rehm even cited the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, as an example of someone who's doing things right. She's obviously very up to speed on how socialists manage their campaigns. Her plug for Sanders was artfully careful to avoid the tax code restrictions on express advocacy by 501(c)(3)s such as NPR. I credit the lawyers at NPR for the well-trained Rehm. They know they have a big audience of Ben & Jerry types in the Green Mountain state, and they know how to plug candidates without crossing the law.
There's plenty of insider baseball about these issues at NPR. NPR senior correspondent Linda Wertheimer is married to the Washington dean of the anti-free speech campaign finance movement, Fred Wertheimer, who founded and heads Democracy21, an Astroturf nonprofit corporation that would have all campaigns financed by the government. Taxpayer-funded, monolithic leftwing-thinking NPR believes, what's not to love about that?
"Gabrielle Kuholski wrote:
It makes me sick to see the millions of dollars raised just to elect politicians and when they get into office they preach to the people about how high our deficit is and how much we borrow from other countries. Also, shame on these corporations for donating these large sums of money but when it comes to employing the average American they don't have the money or they take their business overseas.
Gabreille:
In case you have not noticed, corporations donate to the Arts, Disaster Relief and in my home town AT&T donated 5% of a $100 million dollar state of the art "Homeless Shelter".
"dremillard wrote:
Please ask your guests to remind us when corporations gained citizen status in the US. This seems to me to be the biggest problem with our country. While citizens are expected to pledge allegiance, corporations have no such requirement. They happily ship jobs overseas, accummulate wealth for real people, and argue against the interests of individuals for profit. How did this get started? Most people seem quite willing to throw our government under the bus, but few are even aware of how much we as real citizens have abdicated our power to corporations who more and more control our lives."
dremillard:
You forgot to mention that they contribute to our 401k and IRAs by their dividend payments in our mutual funds. 70% of all worker in the US are in some kind of defined contribution plan. Hope they continue to make profit so that someday i can retire.
Can't expect that from S.S.
Hey monte:
It takes a lot of money to farm. I wonder if Pancake gets a tax subsidy for not planting or a right off for owning farm land. Better yet, a Pruis is pretty expensive especially new like $65,000.
Don't be fooled, libs talk about the disadvantage and the unfairness in the tax system. But they use lots of those same tax breaks that they critizice the selective rich use. Bunch of hyprocrites.
meangreen, thanks! got a little bit misty there. I always had a problem with those bitching about jobs shipped over seas by corporations and then going out and shipping jobs overseas with their purchases.
Mean green wrote:
In case you have not noticed, corporations donate to the Arts, Disaster Relief and in my home town AT&T donated 5% of a $100 million dollar state of the art "Homeless Shelter".
You seem a poster child of letting our current “free market system” reign supreme, i.e; privileged few should have access to all America’s resources and they will dole out to charities and all will be well. Your not alone in your opinion and have a right to it.
I wholly disagree.
Monte:
Compliments on couple initial comments you made, encouraging Americans to become more informed, et al.
However I differ with some of your later sentiments.
Let me ask you this. If America gets to point where 4 or 5 people or corps have control of say 99% of all Americas resources and income wealth, will you still be saying all is well with our “system”? Can’t you concede the possibility that just maybe the direction our system is heading as far as income inequality does not benefit majority of Americans?
During the last 30 + years since Reagan the Dreamer started our Borrow and Spend policy, there have been some boom times, but middle class in general has remained stagnant. This is a fact.
In my opinion, we don’t need our economy (GNP) to grow- what good does it do if the only people who benefit are a privileged few?
If someone wishes that our current system operated to benefit of a higher percentage of Americans, this does not qualify this person as a “communist”.
Honestly I think at times you and Mean Green have drunk deeply from some of the koolaid you’ve been sold.
During last year of Clinton’s term, middle class was growing at a faster rate than it had for decades. Gas was under a dollar. No unnecessary wars. Zero deficits. Sure glad GOP came in and got that all straightened out.
Pancake Rankin on May 24, 2011 @ 10:44 am wrote: “If the People rise up the first thing We must do is demand the disbanding of the Supreme Court which is the most backward institution in government. . . .”
Your ignorance of American history is breathtaking. While I have no love for the (so-called) conservatives on the Court, the suggestion that we would be better without it, and that all we need is the legislative branch of government, is amazingly uninformed and mindless.
If the Supreme Court did not exist segregation would still be the law of the land. People could be jailed for criticizing the government (boy would most of the posters here be in trouble). Not only would abortion be banned absolutely, but even birth control. Religious freedom would not exist, Due Process would not exist, Equal Protection of the law would not exist.
The Court may not be perfect (in our universe, what is?), but without it our Constitution would indeed be “just a piece of paper”!
PJPerkins on May 24, 2011 @ 11:17 am wrote: “I think it should be illegal for states to insist that people choose a political party when registering to vote.”
I don’t know what state (or country for that matter) you live in, but it doesn’t sound like any of the 50 that comprise this nation. You are not required to choose a party in order to vote. You can register as an independent - meaning you have no party affiliation.
In many states, Arizona for example, you don’t even have to join a party in order to vote in that party’s primary. Independents can decide at the poll which primary they wish to vote in, without actually joining that party. Next time, they can choose a different party’s primary.
Indeed, some states have proposed allowing all voters to participate in party primaries regardless of what party they join or belong to.
monte on May 24, 2011 @ 11:48 am wrote: “The liberal philosophy that everyone is a victim of some sort of the rich just gets us nowhere.”
Sir the fact that some people believe “the rich” are behind all the evils of the world does not make them “liberal”, anymore than the fact that some people believed the world would end last Saturday made them “conservative” (or even “Christian”). Stop making pronouncements based on stereotypes.
Yes, there are people who believe “the rich” are responsible for all evil, and many of them are left-wing. But just as there is a difference between the far-right and center-right, there is a difference between far-left and center-left. True liberals are more towards the center, and try to base their decisions on facts and reason. (Which is why no one will ever accuse you of being “liberal”!)
Oh, and there are plenty on “the right” who subscribe to similar conspiracy theories. Ever hear Ron Paul denounce the “plutocrats” he claims created the Federal Reserve?
I hope everyone heard the story about Goldman Sachs in the other hour today. The guest made the very important point that campaign contributions don't just "buy" candidates, they buy access - allowing the companies being regulated to write the regulations! I'm disappointed that none of the guests on this hour raised that point.
By the way, for all those engaged in "corporate bashing", corporations are not necessarily evil. But as with everything else in life, their power must be checked. That is one of the principles our Constitution adopted for the government: checks and balances. I see nothing wrong with the government trying to check corporate abuses.
As for the "money equals speech" doctrine adopted by the Burger Court (sorry, my conservative friends, the Roberts Court didn't do it all), I've always felt it was one of the dumber decisions in history. At the very least, since we can impose reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions on "real" speech, I see no reason not to restrict "monetary speech". After all, several million dollars isn't "speech", it's screaming!
Nor do I agree with the idea of corporate "personhood". That concept began as a legal fiction to allow for limited personal liability. (Since corporations are "persons", the company is responsible for its debts, not the shareholders.) Turning that into a claim of "personhood" under the Constitution is nonsense. Corporations are creations of the law. If every state repealed the laws that allow the formation and operation of corporations, all corporations would cease to exist!
(I'm not suggesting we do that. But it illustrates one of the problems with corporate "personhood".)