Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts

Monday, August 29, 2016

Donors to Be Named for Giving Over $5,000 to NY Nonprofits


Donors who give more than $5,000 to Nonprofits in New York must be publicly disclosed.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman won dismissal of a lawsuit by the Conservative Advocacy group Citizens United, which sued to block the rule.

Citizens United had argued its First Amendment rights were being attacked and that their donors "reasonably fear public backlash, financial harm, and worse" if their support of the group were revealed, according to a ruling on Monday in Federal Court in Manhattan.

Citizens United contends donors’ privacy is warranted because the organization has become politically contentious and controversial in recent years, even being compared to al-Qaeda and an "enemy of the people" by its detractors.

"Plaintiffs provide no factual background or support for their conclusory assertions," U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein said in the ruling rejecting the argument.

Schneiderman, a Democrat, said the decision was a victory for "common-sense oversight" of New York’s nonprofit sector. "New Yorkers deserve to know their donations are protected against fraud and abuse, and today the Court protected that right by dismissing each and every one of Citizens United’s claims,” he said.

Citizens United gained notoriety after its 2010 victory over the Federal Election Commission in the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision that cleared the way for unlimited political spending by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.

The group has been especially active in the run-up to November’s Presidential election, filing several suits seeking information about Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, including how much influence Clinton and her team had over the State Department’s Office of Inspector General.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Saturday, December 20, 2014

It's Time for Local Campaign Finance Reform


Nearly five years after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United altered the landscape for money in politics, Congress has done nothing to reverse the ruling's adverse side effects for disclosure and collaboration between independent groups and the candidates they support and the degradation of campaign finance rules in many states.

While reform remains unlikely in Congress, it's possible in some states, where extreme polarization on the issue of money in politics is less evident than in Washington.

Numerous states and municipalities have already enacted new disclosure laws and rules governing candidates' coordination with independent groups.  Still others have pushed for small-donor matching fund systems to dilute the power of big money, or have passed conflict of interest restrictions on gifts from lobbyists and contractors.

In some cases, these reforms included raising campaign finance limits.  In Maryland and Massachusetts, disclosure legislation was matched with higher limits for campaign contributions.  This pattern played out across in other states.  But in Minnesota and Florida, disclosure provisions were cut from bills that wound up increasing the contribution limits.

Over the next two years, there are possibilities for more reforms in states and municipalities.

Here's where action is likely:

Arkansas
Voters this year passed a ballot initiative with significant campaign finance and ethics reforms, including a total ban on direct corporate contributions to candidate campaigns.  The state-level reform group Regnat Populus hopes to build on this success with an initiative in 2016 to expand these reforms and enact new disclosure rules for independent groups.

Arkansas is one of a few states that does not require disclosures for independent spending (known as independent expenditures) and does not recognize issue advertising close to an election (known as electioneering communications) as subject to disclosure.  State laws also allow nonprofit groups to spend freely without disclosing their donors.

Regnat Populus’ initiative would expand disclosures for independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending, and require donor disclosure of certain nonprofits engaged in electoral activity.  The initiative also would tweak the 2014 ballot proposal’s ethics reforms.

Connecticut
Legislators are expected to update their public financing systems to adjust to changes in campaign funding.  This means lawmakers would be allotted public funds in an amount appropriate to counteract the dramatic increase in independent spending since Citizens United.  Groups involved in reform efforts, hope to work to get an initiative on the ballot in the next election.

New Mexico
One of the worst-prepared states for the altered campaign finance landscape wrought by the Citizens United decision.  The state’s laws had no legal definition or standard for either independent expenditures or coordination between an independent group and a candidate or party committee.  And, like every other state, New Mexico did not require disclosure of donors to nonprofits active in electoral politics.

State Sen. Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) will introduce two bills in the next legislative session on campaign finance reform.  One will establish clear rules for independent expenditure disclosure and coordination.  The other will seek to update the state’s public financing system by allowing candidates who are outspent to receive matching funds for small donations.

Both bills have had bipartisan success in previous legislative sessions.  The public financing bill passed both houses with substantial support in 2013, only to be vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez (R).  The disclosure bill passed the state Senate by voice vote in the most recent session, only to die in the House.

The state’s legislative makeup is different this year, after Republicans won control of the state House for the first time in 60 years.  But the campaign finance issue is not as polarized in New Mexico as it is in Washington.  Republican state Rep. Jason Smith will introduce the House version of Wirth’s bill.  Harrison said she has had conversations with supportive Republican members.

Maine
Likely to update their public financing systems to adjust to changes in campaign funding.  This means lawmakers would be allotted public funds in an amount appropriate to counteract the dramatic increase in independent spending since Citizens United.  Maine Citizens for Clean Elections is working to get an initiative on the ballot in the next election.

Missouri
On Dec. 8, local newspapers reported that Missouri mega-donor Rex Sinquefield contributed $1 million to the Lieutenant Governor campaign of Republican Bev Randles.  It was billed as the largest donation to a single candidate in state history, and an example of Sinquefield’s growing influence.  In recent months, the St. Louis financier made six-figure donations to other statewide candidates, including a $750,000 donation to Republican Gubernatorial candidate Catherine Hanaway.

These outsized contributions that came after Missouri ended its campaign contribution limits are sparking action.

Democratic lawyer Brad Ketcher said he will propose a constitutional amendment for the ballot that would re-establish contribution limits for legislative candidates, place limits on lobbyist gifts and impose strong coordination rules on independent spending.

The issue is gaining attention from Republicans as well.  Republican state Rep. Caleb Rowden (R-Jefferson City) introduced legislation to require disclosure of dark money spent by nonprofit groups on elections, ban lobbyist gifts and increase campaign finance disclosure.

Missouri Roundtable for Life, an anti-abortion organization, is behind another ballot initiative that would reinstate campaign contribution limits.

The issue is also drawing attention from U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) who has said she's increasingly worried about the large contributions flowing into state-level campaigns.

Other states and municipalities:

Legislation related to the disclosure of donors to independent groups like nonprofits is likely to be considered in California, Minnesota and Nebraska.  Legislators from both parties in Arizona also have shown interest in disclosure legislation, which may translate into action, considering the outsized role dark money played in the 2014 election.

Dark money disclosure is also likely to be up for debate in Texas after the state’s ethics commission put new disclosure rules in place in 2014.  These will certainly face a court challenge from disclosure opponents.

Philadelphia City Council members are looking to pass legislation requiring similar donor disclosure rules, as well as stricter coordination language.

Public financing systems will be considered by municipal lawmakers in Buffalo, New York; Howard County, Maryland; and Seattle.

There also will be efforts by the anti-corruption group Represent.Us to push ballot initiatives packaging lobbying, ethics and campaign finance reforms together as they did to much success in Tallahassee, Florida in 2014.  The group will target multiple municipalities and states in 2016, but has not announced which ones yet.

Reforms are not the only thing on the docket in the coming years.  Those pushing for these changes are also paying attention to court cases and other legislative moves to rollback reforms and increase the amount of money in politics.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Citizens United to Sue NY Over Donor Info Requirement


The conservative group Citizens United says it is suing New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman over his interpretation of how much information the organization is legally obliged to disclose about its donors.

Citizens United President David Bossie said the legal challenge was filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court and would be on behalf of the group and an affiliate, the Citizens United Foundation.

Citizens United was the plaintiff in the landmark 2010 Supreme Court case that permitted unlimited independent corporate and union spending on elections.

At issue in the latest case is Schneiderman’s reading of a New York regulation adopted in 2006 that required donor disclosures for certain nonprofits.  Bossie’s groups argue Schneiderman is overreaching on a law that applies to non-political groups.

The court filing will argue that Schneiderman’s interpretation infringes on the conservative group’s First Amendment rights, as well as violating New York State laws.

“New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s constitutional overreach needs to be addressed in a court of law,” Bossie said in a statement. “… Citizens United will fight for our rights set forth by the U.S. Constitution.”

Schneiderman spokesman Damien LaVera said in an email that, “after seeing the growth of 501(c)(4) political spending in New York, the Attorney General’s office adopted new regulations to require nonprofits that spend more than $10,000 on state and local elections to disclose who funds these efforts and how they spend the money.”

He added: “Attorney General Schneiderman will continue to defend laws that promote transparency and integrity by charitable institutions.”

We need more states' AG's to take up the fight for transparency and stronger campaign finance reform.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Democracy is for People

I came across this article by Annie Leonard, the Director, The Story of Stuff Project, in today's Huffington Post.

A recent poll by Hart Research found that 85 percent of Americans say corporations have too much influence on our democracy. Corporations hire armies of lobbyists and corporate representatives sit on so-called" independent" advisory committees that feed policy recommendations to government.

And, as we saw in November, corporations pour huge amounts of money into campaigns to support or oppose candidates of their choice. Democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people. We can't have a healthy functioning democracy with corporations given legal status equal to real people. It just doesn't work.

In the 2010 case known as Citizens United v. F.E.C. - the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want from their corporate coffers to influence election outcomes. The corporations say it's free speech, but there's nothing free about it. If corporations - say Exxon, which made $30 billion last year - spend even a tiny percentage of their profits on influencing election outcomes, they can dwarf the contributions from real live citizens (that's you and me), skewing election results to favor their own interests. Which, let's face it, aren't always the same as the interests of workers, families and the environment.



The Story of Citizens United v. FEC (2011)

We can't solve today's pressing environmental, economic and social problems without a healthy functioning democracy. Which is why we need to band together to do two things: get the corporations out of our democracy and get the people back in.

One way to put the brakes on the excessive influence of corporations on our democracy is to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision. And the most lasting, meaningful way to do that is with a constitutional amendment. It's a tall order, but many organizations are launching campaigns for one. An amendment needs to confirm that the free speech protections in the First Amendment don't extend to for-profit corporations.

A constitutional amendment won't solve all the problems with corporate influence of our democracy, but it is a great place to start. If the Citizens United decision stands unchallenged, elections will be no more than auctions, with political offices available to the highest bidder, and unavailable to those who prioritize public - rather than corporate - interests.

Regardless of whether you're passionate about health care or the climate, product safety or workers' rights, this is your issue too. Corporate influence is in the way of our achieving a healthier, more secure, more fair society.

So let's defend our democracy by putting it to use right now.

Use the above link to join a campaign to get corporations out of politics.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon