Tag Archives: campaign finance

California Disclose Act, SB 52, Faces Important Assembly Vote Tomorrow

Contact Your Assemblymember to let them know you support clean elections

by Brian Leubitz

Disclosure can’t cure all that ails our political system. The problems run way deeper than that. But, given the tools we have available under the system the Supreme Court has given us, it is the best we can do for now.  SB 52, the California DISCLOSE Act, would make voters aware who is really paying for those ads they are seeing. Specifically, the measure would do the following:

  • Requires the three largest funders of political ads to be clearly identified for five seconds at the beginning of the ads, so voters know who is actually paying for them.
  • Applies to all television ads, radio ads, print ads, mass mailers, online ads, billboards, and websites for or against state and local ballot measures, to third party ads for and against state and local candidates, and to issue advocacy advertisements. It applies whether ads are paid for by corporations, unions, or millionaires.
  • Tells voters where to find the details – Requires ads to list a website that prominently lists the ten largest funders and a link to all funders of $10,000 or more (for state races).
  • Proposed Follow-the-Money Disclosure will require organizations that spend or transfer politically-available funds to report the actual original corporate, union, or individual contributors – not misleading committee and non-profit names.
  • Now, with some labor organizations pulling their support, the future of the bill is in question. Today might be a good day to let your Assemblymember know how you feel about disclosure.

    Nonprofit Disclosure Fails for Lack of Supermajority

    Senator Lou CorreaMeasure to require donor disclosure for nonprofit political dies in Senate

    by Brian Leubitz

    Take a step into my TARDIS, way back to 2012, when a group of conservative nonprofit groups with connections to the Koch Brothers poured around $15 million into the efforts to defeat Prop 30 and pass Prop 32. Eventually, they settled for a record fine of over a million dollars, but hey, if you can get away with it, #AmIRight? What’s a million dollars between friends trying to monkey with democracy?

    Well, a bill to fight just these sort of money laundering operations was working its way through the state Legislature. SB 27, introduced by Senator Correa would have required every ballot committee receiving more than $1 to disclose its top ten contributors.

    I say was, because with the loss of the votes of Sens. Wright and Calderon and the current lack of Democratic supermajority, that measure seems to be on ice for a while. No Republicans would cross party lines and vote for public disclosure, so despite the passage in the Assembly, the measure goes nowhere. CORRECTION: A previous version of this post said a supermajority was required due to a requirement of constitutional amendments. However, SB 27 is not a constitutional amendment. Rather, the Political Reform Act of 1974 requires a 2/3 supermajority to make changes.

    “Senate Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for voting to keep Californian’s in the dark about who is funding political campaigns,” said SoS candidate Derek Cressman.  “How anyone favoring fair and transparent elections could have no preference between the party of dark money and the party that voted unanimously for sunshine today is a mystery to me.”

    Dark Money Details: Props 30,32, and the future of secret cash

    Charles Schwab with Mayor Gavin Newsom$10 million disappears in right-wing money laundering operation

    by Brian Leubitz

    How go those Gap jeans you are wearing today? And your Charles Schwab account is growing, I’m sure. And, of course, you totally bought Eli Broad’s support of Gov. Brown’s tax measure, right?

    Well, welcome to the world of dark money, a bizarro land where people get to say and do very different things. Reports released by state investigators show a complex money laundering scheme involving several shady right-wing money movers and organizations, all to help hide the donors of about $25 million intended to fight against Gov. Brown’s tax measure, Prop 30, and for the anti-labor measure, Prop 32. While many of the names will be unfamiliar, some of them are pretty much household names. But these are people that don’t really want the attention, they just want to get their way. Because they are rich and that is what happens.

    So, a pair of Republican consultants, Tony Russo and Jeff Miller, went about laundering the money through a vast network of Koch brother connected organizations in order to hide the true source of the money. Just to be clear, there is a word for that here in California: illegal.

    The Fisher family, of the clothing firm Gap Inc., contributed more than $9 million. San Francisco investor Charles Schwab gave $6.4 million, and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad sent $1 million.

    The money went to a Virginia nonprofit that would use it to pay for the ad blitz and be allowed to keep the contributors secret. Nonprofits, unlike political action committees, are not required to identify their donors under federal law. … But things went from bad to worse. Although Russo handed over $25 million, only about $15 million ended up back in California. And when the money surfaced, it sparked an investigation by state authorities, who last month levied $16 million in penalties against the Arizona group and three others.(LA Times

    Somewhere along the line, Sean Noble, a Koch-affiliated operative, decided that he actually wasn’t into sending the last $10 million back to California through their little washing machine. The attention had gotten to be too much. The fact that Russo claims he still doesn’t know what happens to that cash is something of a funny post script.

    But the real fight is over the large penalty handed down to the Small Business Action Committee(SBAC), the California PAC that spent the money attacking Prop 30 and supporting Prop 32. The FPPC levied a “disgorgement” penalty that requires the group to pay to the state an amount of money equal to the dark money that they accepted. Of course, the SBAC is fighting the fine, and the result of that fight could mean a lot for how ballot measures are run over the next few years.

    Perhaps if voters had easy access to more information, they could simply vote against any initiative campaign that was using the shady money. But in the real world, cash is still king.  If the fine is upheld, dark money could stall at the state border. If it is overturned, expect the secretive cash to become an even bigger (yet still overwhelmingly shady) tool in initiative campaigns.

    Photo credit: Mayor Gavin Newsom on Flickr. Mayor Newsom (a prominent supporter of Prop 30) appeared with Charles Schwab at the opening of the Charles Schwab flagship space in San Francisco.

    Lessig, Kos, and other internet leaders discuss how to change campaign finance

    Google Hangout with a fine panel to discuss how we can fix campaign finance

    by Brian Leubitz

    The Reinventors network holds some pretty interesting roundtable discussions. In just over an hour, they’ll be getting together to talk about campaign finance via Google Hangouts. Click here to join the Hangout.

    This roundtable will take on this ambitious problem and will bring together, as Larry suggested, many key people who brought the internet, and internet politics, to scale. Any one of them could anchor their own roundtable : Internet pioneer Tim O’Reilly, Change.org Founder Ben Rattray, Moveon.org Executive Director Anna Galland, VC Brad Burnham, Executive Producer of TED Media June Cohen, Bram Cohen, creator of BitTorrent, and Markos Moulitsas, Founder of Daily Kos.

    Here’s a video from Lessig introducing the panel:

    Dan Logue Tells the Truth on Campaign Finance

    3/08AubMcC Pictures, Images and PhotosTermed out Assemblyman looks to spread cash with treasurer “campaign account”

    by Brian Leubitz

    I love it when people are honest. I particularly love it when they say things that most people don’t dare to actually mention.  So, hats off to Asm. Dan Logue for admitting that his “campaign” for treasurer is actually a fundraising trick to allow big donors to double give money to Republican extremists:

    Logue acknowledged that his setup could allow donors to essentially donate to GOP candidates twice — once directly and once through a transfer of funds given to his campaign account — circumventing campaign contribution limits. But he said he saw the move as necessary to protect the interests of businesses.

    “I am absolutely terrified that the Democratic majority is going to dismantle the business formula in Sacramento and make it even worse than it is now,” he said. “So I’m really committed to making sure small business has a voice in Sacramento, and this is how I’m doing it.”(SacBee)

    In case you forgot Logue, he’s the guy that worked very diligently to get Prop 23 on the ballot. You know, the one that would have ditched our landmark climate change legislation.  Logue likes to look at businesses and corporation as pure good in the world. Which is awesome for him, becuase that sounds like a great way to live.

    However, in the real world, we need regulations to protect our environment, consumers, and our general safety. But, Logue is all-in on his worldview, so no surprise that he’s looking to any and all techniques that can help him out.

    For better or worse, our campaign finance system has more holes than a good Emmental cheese. This is just one of them, and elected officials from both parties use the trick. But, credit where credit is due, Logue told the truth about his plan to circumvent the finance restrictions with the loophole.

    But, as the adage goes, don’t hate the player, hate the game.

    Photo credit: photobucket user AmRivCn2-. . Logue is in the upper left, supporting Tom McClintock’s 2008 congressional campaign.

    California Legislature Calls for Citizens United Repeal

    Our campaign finance needs reform, but not fake reform that hurts working Californians

    by Brian Leubitz (Note: I work for the Stop Special Exemptions Campaign. Cross-posted to DailyKos)

    On Thursday, the California Senate approved AJR 22, a joint resolution from the Assembly and Senate calling for the repeal of the Citizens United decision. It doesn’t change the very real threat from moneyed interests, but it does put a flag down for change in our campaign finance system. Here is a portion of that:

    WHEREAS, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission purports to invalidate state laws and state constitutional provisions separating corporate money from elections; and

    WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission represents a serious and direct threat to our democracy; and

    WHEREAS, The general public and political leaders in the United States have recognized, since the founding of our country, that the interests of corporations do not always correspond with the public interest and that, and, therefore, the political influence of corporations should be limited; and

    *** **** ***

    Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully disagrees with the majority opinion and decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; and be it further

    Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of California calls upon the United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people;…(Resolution)

    But what does that mean?

    Under Citizens United and subsequent decisions and FEC regulations, SuperPACs (and their California analog, Independent Expenditures) can raise unlimited, and often anonymous, funds to spend on a candidate or campaign. In theory, SuperPACs are supposed to operate entirely independently of the actual campaigns. However, as we’ve seen over the last few months, that is more theoretical and less factual. In fact, Karl Rove, who runs one of the biggest SuperPACs (Crossroads GPS) was at a “strategy” retreat for GOP nominee Mitt Romney in late June. As was Charles Spies, the man who runs the Romey-backing SuperPAC Restore Our Future.

    And the amount of money is simply staggering. Karl Rove wants to raise $600 million to spend to get Mitt Romney and other Republicans elected in November. So far, Republican SuperPACs have raised $158mil and Democratic SuperPACs have raised $47mil. While the Republican balance is notable, any way you look at it, the amount of money has grown exponentially for the 2012 election.  Just this week, Restore Our Future reserved over $7 million of Olympics advertising.

    With the balance of money being tilted heavily towards Republicans, the next questions is what do they want? If you look at the big federal SuperPACs, the big names that jump out at you are Sheldon Adelson, a gambling magnate.  Also high on the list? The Koch brothers, who made their money in oil business. Harold Simmons is a banking tycoon, and Bob Perry is a developer in Texas. Both were prominent in the so-call Swift Boat Veterans campaign, and are now two of the largest GOP SuperPAC donors.

    In California, independent expenditure committees are also spending millions upon millions of dollars upon candidates and campaigns. And while the Special Exemptions Act looks like “campaign reform,” in reality it just gives these same folks more power.  And guess what, they have ideas on how to use it as well.  Just this week, William Oberndorf, a hedge fund manager, gave $150,000 to the Act. Oh, and he’s prominent in the school privatization movement, in case you are wondering at his angle.  He’s not the only one, of course, with several other prominent right-leaning funders already on board.

    Take a look at who is financing the Special Exemptions Act. (links here and here.) You’ll find there is a long list of folks who have an interest in changing California in a way that runs counter to working Californians. The Lincoln Club, the Jarvis group, etc. The Special Exemptions Act is just a step in the wrong direction.

    California progressives need to work together to defeat this measure. If you haven’t joined the campaign online yet, please take a moment to get connected now. You can also like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter.

    Assembly: Overturn Citizens United

    by Brian Leubitz

    SuperPACs. They’ve changed the political landscape, for better or worse. Mostly worse.  Now, here in California, Independent Expenditures have pretty much had the same leeway as SuperPACs do on the federal level for years. But the stakes for the presidency are worth, apparently, far more for corporate special interests and billionaires than control of our Legislature.  Apparently.

    But, this week the Assembly joined several other states in calling for the overturning of Citizens United:

    The California Assembly yesterday approved a resolution urging Congress to overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The split decision helped give rise to super PACs by allowing unlimited contributions from corporations and unions to attack or support politicians, as long as the committees don’t coordinate with candidates. The California bill, AJR 22, is part of a campaign to pass such resolutions around the country.(CalWatch)

    This is a noble sentiment, and I applaud the Assembly Democrats for making it. However, let’s be real here. The Supreme Court, with its conservative core, isn’t particularly interested in seeing a return of regulated campaign finance. Since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, it has all been a big race to deregulate campaigns.  SUre, there have been fits and starts of trying to come up with some way to control spending. To find some way to equalize the voice of the people, so that the rich don’t hold vastly more power than those who can’t afford to buy nationwide TV spots.

    But that hasn’t happened.  Overturning Citizens United is an important step. However, as the “Move to Amend” groups are pointing out, the key underlying distortion is that for some reason the Court thinks that money is speech, and that corporations are people. It isn’t, and they aren’t.

    CGS Calls for Clean Money 2.0

    Model bill accounts for Supreme Court ruling

    By Brian Leubitz

    In a report recently released, the Center for Governmental Studies calls for a modified version of clean money to control the excessive spending and allow for additional competition.  In fact, they’ve gone ahead and produced a full model bill, complete with language that has some rather grand goals.

    It establishes a hybrid system of full and partial public financing systems for statewide and legislative candidates. It provides candidates with an initial lump sum of funds  and then allows them to continue raising matching funds.  

    The Act first requires candidates to qualify for public financing by raising a specified amount  of small campaign contributions, ranging from 750 contributions of $5 or more for Assembly  candidates, to 25,000 contributions of $5 or more for gubernatorial candidates. Qualifying  funds can only come from individual residents of the state. Once candidates qualify, the state  provides them with a lump sum of funding to run their campaigns, depending on the office  and the size of the jurisdiction.

    The Act also places contribution limits on all state and local candidates running in California.  Specifically, it lowers California’s contribution limits and brings them into line with federal  limits-establishing contribution limits of $2,500 per candidate per election. In addition, the  Act closes a number of loopholes in existing laws, bringing under the same contribution limit  money raised by candidates and officeholders for ballot measure committees, legal defense  committees, inauguration committees and officeholder accounts. The Act also prohibits  off-year fundraising.

    Of course, the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona’s clean money system makes all of this susceptible to a court challenge.  And it is really hard to say which way the Court would go, as their regulation on campaign finance has really gone off the rails.  Ultimately to get the campaign finance system we really need for a robust democracy, we’ll need to repeal Buckley v Valeo and reject the notion that money equals speech.  Otherwise the richest among us get to speak far louder than those that can’t afford to put a million bucks worth of TV commercials on the air.

    This Act would be a good start, but don’t expect it to come through the Legislature.  Republicans would fight it tooth and nail, and, of course, they have their own ideas about how to “fix” campaign finance.  Rob Stutzman, a former Schwarzenegger aide, has some suggestions:

    Stutzman, however, said lowering contribution limits will put even more pressure on candidates to start raising money early. He said legislators facing term limits should be allowed to plan for future statewide campaigns. Stutzman, instead, would propose raising contribution limits to $100,000 per election and require immediate public disclosure of the donations. (California Watch)

    Yes, really $100,000.  That is the Republican plan to “reform” system.  Allowing people to contribute $100,000 to a candidate.  I know that the IEs are kind of outrageous these days, but do we really think that allowing people to give $100K is really the way to solve that?  Seems like a long way down the slippery slope that just leads to unlimited contributions.  Are we eventually just going to give in and let Larry Ellison, Reed Hastings, Stewart Resnick, the gambling tribes, and Chevron sit around a table and decide who will be our next set of leaders?

    I know a lot of people complain about “we can’t afford” to spend money on political campaigns, but the truth is that we can’t afford not to.  As it stands, we throw billions of dollars, from all levels of government, at stupid projects pushed by the wealthy.  Yet we can’t afford publicly financed campaigns. Funny how that is.

    On Being Bumped, Or, Let’s Have Another Roundup

    WordPress › Error

    There has been a critical error on this website.

    Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.