The Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to providing transparency and accountability in politics, has announced that it’s suspending some of its popular reporting tools and considering mergers with other like-minded organizations. It seems likely that if it doesn’t find an appropriate partner, the organization could be shuttered for good.

The Sunlight Foundation is best known for data-heavy tools like Politiwoops, Open States, and Scout that were favored by journalists and policy wonks.

There are a number of reasons for the Sunlight Foundation’s struggles in recent years, according to a statement released by its chairman Mike Klein. Klein lists the organization’s struggle to find a new executive director, as well as its difficulty keeping its variety of tools funded and well maintained as issues. Klein also seemed to chalk up some of the Sunlight Foundation’s problems to the current technology and political climates, writing:

We are aware that the robust maturation of technology over the past decade has — happily but substantially — reduced the urgency of Sunlight’s early role as a leading transparency innovator. In addition, the board had to recognize that Sunlight’s initiating objective— to build support for better legislation against and regulation of the power of money in politics— has been significantly limited by the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United decision.

There are also reports of layoffs for the Sunlight Foundation’s staff; Poynter reports that the Sunlight Foundation has laid off or is in the process of laying off five members. Poynter also explains that these layoffs track with a downward trend in members of the Sunlight Foundation’s staff over the last few years, stating:

Today’s reductions notwithstanding, the current headcount at The Sunlight Foundation is about 20, roughly half of what it was in early 2014, according to a source at the nonprofit. In the last two years, Sunlight has trimmed staffers working for its news and technology divisions.

No one really appears to know what to make of the organization’s announcement, although journalists who have relied on the organization’s tools were by and large upset:

Open government advocacy group Sunlight Foundation cuts staff, suspends reporting toolshttps://t.co/yDyOzoa6nx pic.twitter.com/kJX1QcT4nf

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) September 20, 2016

Heartbreaking. @SunFoundation‘s legacy is immense. A huge influence on open data and data journalism and on me personally. https://t.co/7OhO5huO7M

— Scott Klein (@kleinmatic) September 20, 2016

the impact @SunFoundation had on government, journalism, the open data movement, and so much more is p much unparalleled. a *huge* loss.

— dan sinker (@dansinker) September 20, 2016

This is very sad/worrying news from @SunFoundation.https://t.co/7WPts0Ep02

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) September 20, 2016

It’s unclear exactly what happened to the Sunlight Foundation–whether it’s a lack of funding, vision, some combination of the two, or something else altogether. But for those of us who feel strongly about the power of data to shed light on our government, this is upsetting and concerning. While a merger may keep the organization alive, at least somewhat, there’s no doubt that this is in some ways the end of an era.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Happening with the Sunlight Foundation? appeared first on Law Street.

This is the second article in a two-part series about Lee Drutman’s plan for political reform. Click here to read the introduction. The first part looks at the debate between realism and reform and why Drutman sees his vision as the most practical approach. 

In his recent paper, Lee Drutman outlines three specific areas of the government that are in dire need of reform–namely, elections, lobbying, and Congressional structure. While Drutman acknowledges that his reforms may not solve all of America’s problems, they provide an important starting point to help make the government more dynamic and capable of responding to new challenges. Read on to see an overview of his plans to fix government dysfunction and empower public interest policymaking.

Click here to read Lee Drutman’s paper, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again”

Reforming Elections

Drutman’s most ambitious reforms focus on Congressional elections and policies that can help increase voter participation and decrease the barriers for new viewpoints to enter the mainstream. To do so, he calls for two specific changes: creating multimember districts and a small donor matching program.

Most campaign finance reform agendas focus on either overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed unlimited political spending from corporations and interests groups in the form of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, or passing a constitutional amendment with the same goal, both of which are unlikely. Instead, Drutman argues that we shouldn’t focus on restricting influence, rather we should seek to make it more equal with donor matching. Not only will matching promote more contact between candidates and voters, it will lower the barriers for new candidates to run for office, no longer restricted to people with fundraising connections.

Drutman’s plan for small donor matching is based on a program implemented in New York City, where donations under a certain amount receive a 6-to-1 match using public funds. The goal of the program is to put the influence of small donors on the same level as wealthy donors and increase candidates’ communication with voters. In his paper, Drutman provides a powerful illustration of how matching could lead to change:

Under the current system, members of Congress know if they go to a lobbyist-hosted fundraiser, they can pull in $10,000—enough to make it worth their time. By contrast, under the matching proposal, if a constituent can get 30 friends to each pledge $50, that’s $1,500. Then, with the 6-to-1 match, that’s another $9,000, bringing the total up to $10,500—better than the D.C. fundraiser.

In doing so, candidates would be much more interested in actually spending time with voters rather than big donors, as the financial benefits would be much more similar. In fact, existing donor matching and public financing projects have had that effect. In research on New York’s matching program, the Brennan Center for Justice concluded,

The city’s public financing system gives candidates an incentive to reach out to a broader and more diverse array of constituents to fund their campaigns. In so doing, the city’s public financing system appears to have achieved one of its key goals—strengthening the connections between public officials and their constituents.

While it is fair to criticize Drutman’s plan for not changing the role of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, which can take even larger donations, his plan would significantly impact campaign level fundraising.

The change to multimember districts is probably the most significant of Drutman’s proposed changes, but it could have a profound impact on political polarization. One of the biggest issues Drutman sees with our current electoral system is the fact that it has become largely uncompetitive–very few districts are contested in House elections and Senate elections, which involve voters across a state, are only marginally better. This leads him to conclude, “The United States is increasingly becoming two one-party nations, instead of a two-party nation,” meaning that both parties are largely safe within the areas that they currently control based on the natural placement of voters. There is little geographic overlap between voters in both parties.

Drutman’s idea of multimember districts is largely based on work from FairVote, a nonpartisan group seeking to increase the representativeness and fairness in American elections. According to FairVote, ranked choice voting for multi-winner elections would be an American form of proportional representation where any candidates who earn a minimum number of votes is elected. For voters, ranked choice voting is pretty simple–they rank as many candidates as they want in terms of their preference. Counting votes is a little more complicated, but it essentially ensures that all votes are properly distributed to pick the winners, eliminated wasted votes. For more details on the process behind it, you can watch Minnesota Public Radio’s explanatory video.

With a multimember district system that uses ranked choice voting, existing districts would expand to elect multiple representatives at once. When combined with small donor matching, multimember districts could allow a much wider range of potential candidates. The change may also allow for the rise of third party candidates who could not win in a winner-take-all style election, but could reach a vote threshold in larger, multimember districts.

Reforming Influence

Much like his plans to help alleviate issues with campaign finance, Drutman argues that in order to reform lobbying and influence in politics, we need to empower citizens and general welfare organizations. He focuses on expanding the role and resources of these general-interest welfare groups by creating a similar 6-to-1 matching program for “citizen lobbying” organizations. Drutman cites the balance of spending on lobbying, which overwhelmingly comes from businesses and their trade associations. In fact, there are very few groups that represent a wide range of public interest issues.

Drutman’s matching program would help direct money to rebalance lobbying spending and ensure that businesses aren’t the only interests represented on certain issues. Drutman also calls public defender style system for lobbying where public lobbyists would lobby on behalf of underrepresented constituencies in order to ensure that multiple viewpoints are always heard. While his reforms to the lobbying system are arguably his vaguest proposals, the general goal of ensuring that business interests are not the only people at the table when it comes to lobbying could have a notable impact on public policy and, importantly, the public’s perception of political influence.

Reforming Congressional Staffing and Organization

When it comes to Congress, Drutman sees two changes that would empower representatives to create new coalitions and develop better policies that serve the general welfare. First, Drutman would increase the funding available to Congressmen to pay their staff. On its face, this might seem like a ridiculous position–why would we simply want to pay staffers more money? But upon further review, Drutman argues that providing more resources to Congress is the best way to make it resist outside influence.

Drutman and Steve Teles wrote an article in Washington Monthly last year in which they introduced a new way to think about lobbying reform. The central idea behind this vision is, “Instead of trying to weaken the pressure of corporate money in Washington, let’s try strengthening Congress’s capacity to resist it.” By increasing staff salaries, Congress will lessen the influence of the so-called “revolving door,” where staffers work on Capitol Hill for a couple years and then move on to the more lucrative lobbying sector. As Drutman puts it, “Congress has become a farm league for K st.” But if staffers are able to earn more while working for Congress they will be less interested in going to work for big business.

Moreover, by limiting staff turnover and providing additional resources to policymakers, expert lobbyists will have less importance in the policy drafting process. Drutman, an expert on lobbying who wrote a book on the subject, argues that business of lobbying can often be misunderstood. Rather than simply providing campaign donations to Congressmen in order to get their desired policies enacted into law, the role of a lobbyist is more about providing expert advice to Congress. If Congress had more expertise of its own, the need for help from lobbyists would decrease significantly, particularly on arcane issues that directly impact big businesses. In a Q&A with Melinda Henneberger, the Editor-in-Cheif of Roll Call, Drutman laid out the alternatives:

Look, policy is going to get written–do you want it to be written by lobbiests who mostly represent the biggest companies and the wealtheist industries who are not particularly interested in the general welfare. Or do you want it written by staffers who work for democratically accountable members.

A prime example might be the case of financial regulation, where in certain cases lobbyists are essentially writing some of the legislation used the regulation the interests they represent.

Finally, Drutman says that Congress needs to be reorganized in order to prevent the top-down influence of the party leadership. He proposes a new way to decentralize power in Congress by empowering committees and subcommittees. Doing so would create new space for dealmaking and new crosscutting coalitions based on policy goals rather than partisanship. It will also encourage participation from a much wider range of representatives who could bring new viewpoints.

Will it work?

The major policy proposals endorsed by Drutman will clearly change the current state of politics, but it’s still worth questioning whether they will meet his ambitious goals of reducing political polarization and inequality. It is impossible to say for sure whether these policies will solve all of our problems in terms of equity and representation, and Drutman himself concedes that reforms are needed in other areas of the political system, but these policies make those goals more approachable. The underlying objective in each of Drutman’s reform proposals is to increase what he calls “political dynamism,” or the ability of Congress to effectively respond to new challenges with policies that promote the public interest.

Rather than espousing a utopian vision of politics or a narrowly tailored set of policy goals to restrict the outside influence, Drutman wants to realign policymaking to support common goals. He seeks to make government more accountable to each and every citizen while ensuring that Congress has the necessary expertise to govern effectively. So yes, it’s fair to question whether this will fix everything, but if the status quo is the alternative, taking steps to bring experts and the public into the policy process is certainly a laudable goal.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Bold Plan to Fix Government Dysfunction appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court saw an unusual and unexpected moment of chaos yesterday when protesters interrupted Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ announcement of opinions. There were only seven of them but they made quite a ruckus. Right as Roberts began speaking, one yelled, “We are the 99 percent.” Others yelled demands such as “one person, one vote.” Eventually, they were escorted out of the chamber. The group taking credit for the protest is 99Rise and they were arguing against the 2010 Citizens United decision that ushered in a whole new era in the way that politics and money interact. Today was the fifth anniversary of that historic decision.

The seven people escorted out of the chamber have also been charged with violating a law by making “a harangue or oration, or utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building,” among other charges. An eighth individual was also slapped with conspiracy-related charges but it’s unclear how he or she was involved.

99Rise has now dubbed them the “Supreme Court 7.” They appear to be a grassroots-type organization that seeks to take the influence of big money and corporations out of politics. Their website outlines the group’s main goals as the following:

We thus seek a Constitutional Amendment and supplemental federal legislation that would guarantee the principle of political equality, as well as ensure that neither private wealth nor corporate privilege could be used to exercise undue influence over elections and policymaking. To this end, we are committed to deploying the most powerful tool of social and political change: strategic nonviolent resistance.

Despite the splash that the protesters made in the media with their actions, not everyone was that impressed. According to ScotusBlog, Roberts muttered “Oh, please” while all the chaos was going on.

After the protesters were taken out of the chamber, the justices continued with business as usual. One of the more closely followed cases of this term–Holt v. Hobbs–was decided. SCOTUS unanimously decided that Gregory Holt, a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas, should be allowed to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.

Regardless of what happened in the Holt v. Hobbs case, however, the protesters ended up being a bigger news story. It’s rare that people interrupt government procedure like they did today, particularly in somewhere as stoic as the Supreme Court.

From an actual goal-oriented perspective, 99Rise’s choice to interrupt the Supreme Court doesn’t make that much sense. While it obviously handed down the Citizens United decision, it has no ability to enact the type of reform, like an amendment, that 99Rise ostensibly is looking for. That being said, from a public relations standpoint, it made total sense. A relatively unknown group got the chance to brand itself, put its message out there, and create martyrs out of its seven members who were arrested.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Interrupt SCOTUS Over Campaign Finance appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

In an ideal world elections would be determined by a competition of ideas. But in today’s world, politics in the United States is determined by fundraising, wealth, and access. Regulations stipulating how campaigns can be financed determine who can donate how much in elections and what the money can be used for. Some argue campaign donations should be protected as a form a free speech while others see these donations as giving the wealthy undue political influence. Read on for the history, controversy, and future for campaign finance reforms.

What is campaign finance?

Campaign finance refers to all money raised to support political candidates, organizations, parties, or initiatives in elections. Any successful political campaign typically costs a significant amount of money. Money is needed to cover travel expenses, pay for political consulting, and to communicate with voters. Advertising costs are by far the most significant expense in heated political campaigns.

This fundraising takes a new turn with corporations and wealthy individuals interested in spending as much as possible to support their candidate. At the federal level, campaign finance is regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). At lower levels, it is governed by state and local law. Most campaign spending comes from private groups, but qualifying presidential candidates can opt to use public money.  Regulation typically takes the form of disclosure, contribution limits, and the limits that come with public financing. The strange array of political terms surrounding campaign finance often makes it hard for people to follow the actual debate.

• Political Action Committees (PACs) – the private groups that fundraise from individual contributors to spend money for political purposes. PACs are necessary since corporations and unions cannot directly donate money to a candidate or national party committee.
• Super PACs – emerged more recently due to Supreme Court decisions. These organizations have no legal limit on the amount they can spend so long as they are politically independent of the actual campaign.
• Hard money – includes donations regulated by the FEC that are made directly to political candidates by individuals and corporations. The names of those who contribute and how much they contribute are publicly available.
• Soft money – known as an indirect donation, it is often given to a political party rather than a candidate and thus can avoid certain legal limitations.
• 527 organizations – refers to advocacy groups like traditional PACs and political parties, named after their IRS code and tax-exempt status.

Watch below for more on how campaign finance works:

What is the history of campaign finance?

Numerous laws and Supreme Court cases have attempted to regulate campaign finance. Typically it is not until a political scandal that there is a push for more stringent regulation in financing.

Tillman Act

In 1907 the Tillman Act became the first ever campaign finance law after Theodore Roosevelt faced questions about which corporations funded his campaign in 1904. The Act banned corporate contributions to national campaigns; however, the law lacked any real method of enforcement.

Federal Election Commission Act (FECA)

In 1971 modern campaign finance rules were born. FECA instituted disclosure requirements for federal candidates. The Act was rewritten in 1974 after it surfaced that Richard Nixon used corrupt funds in his re-election campaign. These amendments established a system of regulation and enforcement through the Federal Election Commission. FECA also created new public financing for presidential elections to limit the influence of money. The new law put limits on individual contributions to candidates, contributions to PACs, total campaign expenditures, and spending by individuals or groups to a specific candidate.

The constitutionality of FECA was challenged in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court upheld the limits on individual donations and disclosure requirements, citing the compelling state interest to prevent corruption. However, the Court stated that the limits on what campaigns and individuals could spend was a violation of the First Amendment. Further, disclosure could only apply to communications expressly advocating for a candidate. There are three key takeaways from the case:

1. Free speech allows individuals to spend unlimited political money.
2. TV or radio ads that expressly advocate for or against a specific candidate, by using words like “elect” or “defeat,” must be financed with regulated money.
3. Corporations, unions, and individuals can contribute unlimited “soft money” to political parties in an effort to influence campaigns. This encouraged many companies to set up PACs to donate.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain-Feingold Act, was passed after it came out that wealthy Democratic donors were given special privileges and the Party had illegally accepted foreign money. The Act prohibited corporations and unions from donating directly to candidates. However, it did not regulate 527 organizations. Because of this many soft money activities previously funded by parties were now done by 527 groups.

Watch a musical overview of the history of campaign finance below:

How is campaign finance regulated today?

Rules regarding campaign finance continue to change, making many things fair game that were once illegal.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In a January 2010 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit corporations and unions from spending money for political purposes. Essentially this allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on campaigns.

In the March 2010 case of Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled there should be no contribution limit to groups that only make independent, uncoordinated expenditures to a campaign.

These rulings led to the rise of super PACs. Super PACs are known formally as “independent-expenditure only committees” because they cannot make contributions directly to candidates but instead spend on political advocacy independently of campaigns. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs have no legal limit to the funds they can raise from various groups, provided they are operated correctly.

Watch the story of Citizens United v. FEC below:

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

In April 2014, a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court struck down caps on what individuals can contribute to federal candidates in any two-year election cycle because they restrict the democratic process and violate the First Amendment.

Public Funding

At the federal level, public funding is available for presidential campaigns. If a candidate agrees to limit his spending according to a formula, the candidate will receive a matching payment for the first $250 of each individual contribution in the primary campaign. Additionally, the candidate receives financing for the national nominating convention and general election campaign. Candidates have to qualify for funding by privately raising $5,000 in at least 20 states. If a candidate refuses matching funds, she is free to spend as much money as she raises privately. In the 2012 election no major candidate opted to take public funds since candidates can typically raise and spend more on their own. The price of a winning election today has made public funding near obsolete.

What are the arguments surrounding campaign finance reform?

Many of the Supreme Court justices who ruled on recent campaign finance cases decided that spending money for political purposes is equivalent to free speech and should be protected by the First Amendment. The same reasoning extends to corporations, in citing that corporations are made up of individuals and should enjoy the same political rights as individuals. Those who argue for fewer donation restrictions cite their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Opponents argue the lack of restrictions gives the wealthiest unfair influence over the government. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told Retro Report, “If money is free speech, then the wealthiest people in America are those that get to speak the most freely.”

For example, a study by the Sunlight Foundation found that just one percent of the top one percent of the United States population accounted for 28 percent of all disclosed contributions in the 2012 elections. In a statement Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) echoed these findings: “The American people are angry that a billionaire can dole out $3.6 million to influence an election — meanwhile, it would take a full-time minimum wage worker 239 years to make that much money.”

Most take issue with the rapid expansion of dark money to organizations under a 501(c)(4) designation by the IRS. 501(c)(4)s are defined as social welfare organizations and are tax-exempt. However, these organizations are allowed to participate in political campaigns so long as their primary purpose is promoting social welfare. Examples of these organizations include the Sierra Club, NAACP, and National Rifle Association.

These organizations do not have to disclose spending on political activity nor the names of donors unless they donate expressly for political advocacy. The use of these organizations for political advocacy has contributed to a sharp rise in outside spending without disclosure. A 2011 report by the Center for Responsive Politics found that since the 2006 midterms, spending from groups that do not disclose donors rose from one percent to 47 percent. Many cite large donations by these groups as a form of legal bribery, with the expectation of political favors following each donation.

Are there new developments in campaign finance?

Many Democrats in Congress have called for an amendment to undo the Citizens United ruling, but that seems very unlikely to happen. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) proposed an amendment to undo the Citizens United case and instead allow Congress to regulate political money. Numerous Senate Democrats signed on. Harry Reid vowed to bring the measure to the floor, but most agree it has little chance of passing.

Democrats introduced a DISCLOSE Act in 2010, 2012, and again in 2014, which would require organizations that spend $10,000 or more in an election cycle to disclose their expenditures and major donors. Republicans have opposed such bills from the standpoint that they give an unfair advantage to their Democratic opponents. Learn more about the DISCLOSE Act below:

The amount of money spent in elections continues to grow at an alarming rate. The Center for Responsive Politics predicts almost $4 billion will be spent in the 2014 midterm elections, making it the most expensive midterm ever. While the 2010 midterm cost $3.6 billion, 2014 will run an estimated $333 million beyond that. Candidates and parties will spend roughly $2.7 billion, but the explosion of outside money continues to significantly influence the races. Outside groups like super PACs and 527s are expected to spend $900 million on their own. Overall, conservative candidates and groups are projected to outspend liberal candidates and groups by $1.92 billion to $1.76 billion. Expect even more money, especially from outside groups, to come flowing in to the 2016 presidential election.

While there may not be action at the national level, 16 states and more than 500 municipalities have called for a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform. Yet both sides agree getting rid of dark money and enacting reform will not happen any time soon. Little change will happen without a large, Watergate-esque scandal to bring true reform to campaign finance.

Resources

Primary

FEC: Campaign Finance Reports and Data

SCOTUS: Buckley v Valeo

SCOTUS: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

FEC: Public Funding of Presidential Elections

Additional

The New York Times: The Cost of Campaigns

Politico: Waiting for the Next Watergate

NCSL: Campaign Finance Reform: An Overview

NPR: A Century of U.S. Campaign Finance Law

Washington Post: Campaign Finance: Special Report

Atlantic: Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign Finance Reform

Washington Times: No Major Takers for Federal Campaign Funds

Open Secrets: Super PACs

Sunlight Foundation: The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012

The New York Times: Milking the Money Machine

Open Secrets: Citizens United Decision Profoundly Affects Political Landscape

Mass Live: Senate Democrats Pushing Campaign Finance Transparency

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence? appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: July 18, 2014

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) isn’t living up to its responsibilities to the American people. According to an op-ed from the Center for Responsive Politics’ Robert Biersack published today in The New York Times, the FEC no longer does an “adequate job on disclosure” of campaign financial data. He’s right, and the scary thing is that this has the potential to turn into quite a major problem.

It’s ostensibly a simple concept: candidates, campaign committees, and the various other entities that collect and spend money during an election cycle are required to submit cash flow reports to the FEC, and the FEC in turn is required to disclose all that data in a timely manner so that the public is aware of who is financing American elections. But when the Center for Responsive Politics went to go check out the most recent set of disclosures, they weren’t all there. The FEC has promised that they would complete around 95 percent of processing within 30 days of receiving the data, but when asked why this didn’t happen, the FEC essentially just said that it’s running late. Nothing more. And even more concerning, the organization didn’t seem at all worried about this fact, explaining to the Center for Responsive Politics that, “In the current two-year election cycle, the Agency has taken more than 30 days to process 18.8 percent of the new reports filed as of June 20, as compared to 11.4 percent for the same period in the 2011-2012 cycle.” The FEC also referred to the lack of processed data as a “brief” delay. As of press time the FEC has yet to respond to Law Street’s request for comment.

In some ways the reaction from the Center for Responsive Politics and others may seem like making mountains out of molehills. Maybe you think it’s not that big of a deal, or they’ll have the data when they have it, or that government agencies are often unable to meet self-appointed deadlines. It’s easy to think that way, but it’s dead wrong. This is a big deal, one that we all should worry us all.

Although I recognize I’m about to plummet off a huge cliff of political clichés, it’s fair to quote the Gettysburg Address here. We’ve all heard it. We have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” That principle has held — we elect our officials to represent us, and we expect them to be held accountable to those citizens who voted for them. Recent Supreme Court rulings have made that principle a little more fuzzy — between the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the way in which politicians are influenced has changed. Super PACs dominate political real estate, and as we saw in the 2012 Presidential election, they have the ability to throw plenty of weight around. I’d put my money — disclosed to whoever would like it, of course — on the fact that in the 2014 and 2016 elections we’ll see even more incredible financial influence. And because of these rulings, we don’t necessarily know where that financial influence will come from — only certain types of donations require that the donor’s name is disclosed to the FEC.

That’s why it is so essential that the FEC does its job. There’s already an uphill battle here for Lincoln’s words, and the FEC not disclosing the data for the 2014 election in a timely manner makes it that much less likely that our elected officials are held accountable to those people who elected them. With the amount of money flowing in and out of campaign coffers, any chance we have to know more about that money is essential. The FEC is a government entity, so it needs to hold true to those principles, too: of, for, and by the people. That means that it provides a resource for the people, that’s its job, and the fact that the FEC can’t complete that job in a timely manner is a huge problem.

This isn’t meant to be an alarmist rant about the state of our elections; that’s not useful. Instead I hope that this piece, as well as the Center for Responsive Politics’ op-ed, serves as a kind of call to action. The FEC needs to pull it together, and without public pressure that’s just not going to happen. Part of democracy is that we all hold each other accountable — here’s the opportunity to do that before this gets out of hand.

UPDATE: July 18, 2014

Judith Ingram, Press Officer at the Federal Election Commission responded to Law Street’s request for comment, and the organization does acknowledge that the backlog is a problem:

“The Commission acknowledges that there were delays in the processing of itemized data in the current election cycle, and the Commission has eliminated the backlog. At this time, the agency’s coding of data is over 99% complete. Moreover, the agency has introduced new procedures to prevent such delays in the future. Our goal for the current reporting period is to process 95 percent of electronically filed reports within 30 days of the July 15 reporting deadline.”

Whether or not these new procedures will help will has yet to be seen.

The problems at the FEC aren’t just an isolated incident or a singular example of the ways in which our democracy is struggling. In fact, they’re representative of a bigger problem. The FEC is supposed to have six commissioners — three Republicans and three Democrats. Each term is supposed to be six years, but if a term expires without some sort of appointment, that seat stays with that commissioner who gets to sit until the Senate approves a new commissioner, or he or she retires or dies.

Currently, only two of the FEC’s six commissioners are serving on active terms — Chair Lee E. Goodman and Vice Chair Ann Ravel. They were both appointed by President Obama last year, after the FEC actually reached the point where all its commissioners were serving on expired terms. It was a struggle to even fill those two seats — the nominee prior to Goodman and Ravel got shot down, and Obama didn’t try to nominate anyone else.

Let’s be clear, the very people whose election races the FEC is supposed to monitor have a hard time filling spots at the FEC. Now the FEC is struggling. I’m not going to blame the backlog in reporting solely on the commissioners serving expired terms, but it’s clear that something isn’t working here, and new blood can sometimes be a very good thing. The FEC will be making changes, and that’s good, but maybe a review of the whole system is needed to prevent this kind of problem in the future.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Beverly & Pack via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FEC is Failing the American People appeared first on Law Street.

RANT WARNING: Be advised, this post may cause bouts of annoyance, defeatism, and pessimism.

Courtesy of Wifflegif

Initially, I planned to write an upbeat post about the recent celebrations of pride happening across the country: the Puerto Rican Day Parade, LGBT Pride, America’s success in the World Cup, and the Fourth of July, to name a few. I thought it would be interesting to extrapolate from these events a larger analysis of celebrating (or not) one’s identity. And then damn Hobby Lobby happened. Womp womp.

Last week, the Supreme Court held in two cases collectively referred to as Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on the basis of religious beliefs. Specifically, the Court found that the ACA’s contraception mandate was not the “least restrictive” way for the government to implement this law and thus it created too substantial a burden on the religious freedoms of the companies at issue. In reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed to a less restrictive workaround in the ACA for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.

More broadly, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued in her 35-page, no-I’m-not-retiring-yet-assholes, dissenting opinion, Hobby Lobby stands for the principle “that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

That’s right: corporations are indeed people. Those legal entities (which, by the way, are created for the purpose of separating the individuals involved from the corporate entity so that those individuals may be shielded from legal liability) apparently eat, sleep, breath, love, and pray? They sound more human than Darth Vader Cheney.

And as persons, corporations can also speak freely (i.e., wholly bankroll political campaigns) and freely exercise their religion (i.e., infringe on a woman’s reproductive rights).

Hell, with the direction in which this Court is taking corporate personhood, businesses — like any actual individual person in this country — may be able to discriminate on a wider scale. What happens when a business owner’s religious beliefs clash with, say, Title VII’s ban on discrimination in employment? What happens when a business owner acts on his belief that being gay is a sin? In answering these questions, I keep seeing the Jim Crow days when business owners were free to discriminate on the basis of race; I keep seeing the 1980s when they were openly homophobic and sexist. That idea is indeed what makes this “a decision of startling breadth,” as Justice Ginsberg put it.

Sure, I understand that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles arguments are necessarily illogical. But tell that to African Americans who lived through the aftermath of Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate-but-equal holding. Yes, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Hobby Lobby, did promise that the ruling would not open the door to discrimination (exemptions to our anti-discrimination laws). Call me cynical, call me a blasphemer, but frankly I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this Court’s word — this Court that has been so adept at totally flouting precedent and stare decisis when it suits its political ends. Remember Citizens United? Bush v. Gore anyone?

Courtesy of DPMS via Flickr

In fact, we need look no further than last Thursday. Just days after the Court issued its Hobby Lobby ruling, it granted an unsigned emergency order in a new case involving Wheaton College, finding that the very workaround it had hailed as a less restrictive means by which the government could implement the ACA was also unconstitutional — that it substantially burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. What on Earth?! In the span of less than a week Hobby Lobby has already gone further than Hobby Lobby!

So now I sit here wondering what’s next. I wonder how far down this road the Supreme Court will take us. Debbie Downer over here, I know. But this is seriously like the worst season finale ever.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Down the Hobby Lobby Rabbit Hole: Are Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Next? appeared first on Law Street.

The new Supreme Court term has begun! Over the past few years, the nation’s highest court has dealt with many historic cases, including the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act, Proposition 8, and the Defense of Marriage Act.  Many of these decisions were closely split, contentious, and received a poignant mix of outright disgust and frantic applause from various political factions. This upcoming term promises an equally exciting set of decisions. On the docket in upcoming weeks are cases that include campaign contribution limits, abortion rights, affirmative action, public prayer, and the ability of the president to make recess appointments.

Here are some of the upcoming cases that could be important to keep an eye on:

Already in progress is McCutcheon v. FEC. Under current law, there is an aggregate limit on how much an individual can give to campaigns over two years: $123,200. McCutcheon, backed by the RNC, alleges that these caps are unconstitutional because they limit freedom of speech. This case can be seen as a follow up to the controversial Citizens United case that allowed corporations and groups to levy free speech through making unlimited campaign donations.

In an upcoming case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, the high court will address the constitutionality of recess appointments. A recess appointment is exactly what it sounds like—an appointment to a position that normally requires Senate approval made unilaterally by the President during a Senatorial recess. This case specifically deals with whether or not recess appointments can be made during a recess that occurs in the middle of a Senate session, and whether or not recess appointments can be made to vacancies that existed before the appointment. There is no precedent on which the Supreme Court will be influenced, meaning the outcome of this case is a total tossup.

Town of Greece v. Galloway asks whether starting a town council meeting with a prayer violates the separation of church and state. Greece, a small town in Rochester starts each meeting with an (usually) overtly Christian prayer. A few non-Christian members complained that they felt coerced to participate.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action will deal with the of question of whether by amending their state constitution to prohibit race and sex based discrimination in public college admissions—meaning affirmative action—Michigan has violated the Equal Protections Act.

McCullen v. Coakley  deals with a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics so that protesters urging women to make different choices are not allowed to protest within 35 feet of an abortion clinic. The plaintiffs believe that this buffer zone violates their freedom of speech rights.

Bond v. US is a truly interesting case in which a woman attacked her husband’s pregnant girlfriend with a potent mix of chemicals to attempt to kill her. She was charged by the government with being in possession of chemical weapons, and violating the Chemical Weapons Convention that was ratified by the United States. This case will offer an interesting view on the intersection between domestic courts and international law.

These are obviously not the only cases to watch in the current term. Other cases such as Kansas v. Cheever deals with the issue of self-incrimination. The Affordable Care Act Contraception mandate is being challenged in a number of cases. Limits on abortion-inducing drugs will be questioned in Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice. All of these cases promise that the 2013-2014 season of Supreme Court decisions will be as revolutionary and exciting as the last few have been.

[Christian Science Monitor]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Term, New Cases, New Surprises appeared first on Law Street.