LWV UPDATE ON… With thanks to the LWVMA Study Committee for all its efforts on this topic. MONEY IN POLITICS

The League of Women Voters

LWV Current Position on Campaign Financing Methods of financing political campaigns should: – Ensure the public’s right to know – Combat corruption and undue influence in the political process – Enable candidates to compete equitably – Allow maximum citizen participation in the electoral process Most recently, using this position, the League has advocated for: – Transparency in financing political campaigns – Reducing the influence of big money in elections and government

Democracy or Plutocracy? Fill in the blank People / Wealthy Government of the ___________, By the _______________, For the ________________.

Tillman Act (1907) Tillman Act (1907) Taft Hartley (1947) Taft Hartley (1947) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) Banned Contributions to Candidates from Banks and Corporations Updated FECA Limits Enhanced Soft Money Regulations Banned Contributions to Candidates from Labor Unions Federal Election Campaign Act (1971 & 1974) Federal Election Campaign Act (1971 & 1974) Set Limits on Contributions made to Candidates Set Limits on Expenditures by Campaigns Established Disclosure Laws Created The Federal Election Commission

Free Speech v. Campaign Finance Regulations Who’s entitled to Free Speech Protections? Are Limits on Contributions and Spending Constitutional?

Defining Corruption Quid Pro Quo Corruption: A direct exchange of favors Appearance of Corruption: An implied expectation of an exchange of favors

Major Supreme Court Cases Buckley v. Valeo – Challenged Limits on Direct Contributions to Candidates – Challenged Limits on Campaign Spending Citizens United v. The FEC – Challenged Limits on Independent Expenditures McCutcheon v. The FEC – Challenged Aggregate Limits on Contributions to Candidates and Political Organizations

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) What It Said Limits on Candidate Spending Infringe on Free Speech Rights Limits on Contributions to Candidates are Justifiable MONEYISSPEECH! The Bottom Line Candidates can spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns to get their message to the voters

Citizens United v. The FEC (2010) What It Said Free Speech rights do not depend on the identity of the speaker – whether corporate or individual Independent Expenditures can’t be limited as they don’t give rise to corruption The Bottom Line This ruling granted free speech rights to corporations and gave them the OK to spend unlimited amounts of money on “independent expenditures” to influence voters. The Dissent “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” Justice Stevens

McCutcheon v. The FEC (2014) What It Said Aggregate limits on individual contributions infringe on the donors free speech rights The Bottom Line Donors can now give the maximum contribution to an unlimited number of candidates in federal elections, and an unlimited number of party committees. The Dissent Taken together, Citizens United and McCutcheon eviscerate our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the problems… that those laws were intended to resolve. Justice Breyer

American Politics is Now Open for Business We Gladly Accept: Master Corps Master Corps with large Treasury Funds American’s Express American’s Expressing their views via money. VISA And all Foreigners possessing the proper VISA…accounts

Money in Elections Hard Money Direct to Candidates Caps on Contributions Disclosure Soft Money Political Parties  Caps on contributions  Disclosure Super PACs Independent Expenditures No Caps on Contributions or Expenditures Reporting Requirements Lobbyists Fundraising Bundling Dark Money 501(c)(4)‘s No Disclosure No Cap on Contributions Expend Only 50% On Electioneering

The Creation of the SUPER PAC Everyone wants to have one

In the first six months of 2015 $258 million dollars has been raised by Super PACs backing presidential candidates, compared to 16 million raised at this point in the 2012 cycle. 58 people have contributed at least $1 million to these groups.

Reasons NOT to Regulate Money in Politics Money allows the funding of modern communications, which is essential to reach voters Political communications inform the voters Government should not regulate political speech, which is fundamental to a democracy

How Money Distorts The Political Process Erodes the trust of the voters Creates a system of favored access and donor influence on policy making Erodes political equality and makes it harder for candidates to compete equitably for public office Forces elected officials to spend too much time on campaign fundraising

What Can We Do? Enact Policies in Regard to: Campaign Finance Reform, including Publicly Funded Elections Clean Elections Reform - Disclosure and Anti-Coordination Regulations A Constitutional Amendment Voter Rights and Access Used with permission from Steve Sack 1/28/15

What Can You Do? VOTE in every election—local, state and national, and encourage your friends and family to vote too Familiarize yourself with money in politics issues - Use the Money in Politics (MIP) Review resources on the LWVMA website (and join the Google Groups – websites on next slide) Get Involved – there are many grassroots orgs doing great work that could use your help; attend events, donate, volunteer Participate in the League’s Money in Politics Study and/or Member Consensus Group on January 21 st

Come join the effort and become a member of LWV, if you are not one already! Learn more about Money in Politics and the League Studies: LWVMA website - constitutional-amendment-study-and-mip-review/ Google Groups - politics

Barbara Zia, SC – Chair Peggy Appler, SC Jeanne Brown, CA Amy Fitzgerald, TN Jeanne Logsdon, NM Corlette Moore McCoy, MA Susan Murnane, OH George Schumann, KY Lonni Skrentner, MN Launa Zimmaro, MA Betsy Lawson, Staff Support LWVUS MIP Committee