Supreme Court Instructions to FEC on McCutcheon

In testimony submitted to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Public Citizen invoked the instructions of the U.S. Supreme Court to guide the agency’s rulemaking in response to the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision.  Chief Justice John Roberts’ guidance in that decision includes the call for full transparency of money in elections, stronger coordination and earmarking rules to capture single-candidate PACs and limits on joint fundraising committees.

“The damage done to our democratic system by the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions has been even worse than feared,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.  “The Roberts court recognized some of the damage that might ensue and suggested important regulatory responses to rein in part of that damage.  The FEC should listen.”

In the April 2014 McCutcheon decision, the same bloc of five justices who said in 2010’s Citizens United decision that corporations may spend unlimited amounts to influence elections ruled that the nation’s aggregate contribution limits also were unconstitutional.  Prior to McCutcheon, an individual could contribute up to $123,200 per election cycle to all federal candidates and committees combined.  The decision voided the aggregate limit, allowing a wealthy donor to contribute up to $3.6 million in an election cycle to the candidates and committees of a single party, and up to $5.9 million if officeholder leadership PACs are included in the calculation.

However, in both Citizens United and McCutcheon, the court praised the value of full transparency of money in politics.

“First and foremost, where the FEC has deviated most sharply from the court is over disclosure,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division.  “The court has consistently upheld disclosure laws and even touted the virtue of disclosure for mediating damages from the new flood of campaign money.  Yet the FEC has gutted the disclosure requirement.”

Public Citizen calls upon the FEC to restore the full disclosure system that was in place before the agency began to dismantle it in 2007, when it revised its disclosure rules to mandate disclosure only of contributions earmarked for campaign ads, leaving all other donors to an electioneering group outside the disclosure requirement.

The McCutcheon decision poses another serious problem for campaign financing: circumvention of the remaining individual contribution limits.  Wealthy donors can now get around the existing contribution limit of $2,600 per candidate by earmarking large amounts of money to support the candidate through other groups or joint fundraising committees.

Citing the advice of Roberts in McCutcheon, Public Citizen strongly encourages the FEC both to strengthen its coordination rules to prevent multiple political action committees from supporting just a single candidate, and to limit the amount a single joint fundraising committee can pull in for congressional leaders and party bosses.

CLICK HERE to read Public Citizen’s testimony to the FEC (PDF).











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Public Citizen v. Federal Election Commission

In direct contrast to Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, Public Citizen just filed a lawsuit "Public Citizen v. FEC" that will bolster democracy, not subvert it.

Last week, Public Citizen filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Unlike Citizens United and McCutcheon, the new lawsuit is not a maneuver to hand democracy over to billionaires and Big Business.

The lawsuit is about making sure the FEC does its job and enforces campaign finance laws, those the Supreme Court hasn’t yet dismantled, anyway.

The lawsuit demands that the FEC take action against Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation that works in conjunction with American Crossroads.  As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Crossroads GPS's primary purpose is the advancement of social welfare including public policy advocacy, although it is permitted to engage in political spending as well.  Crossroads GPS is required to report what it spends, but it is not required to publicly disclose any donor information.

This is the “dark money” Super PAC founded by Republican operative Karl Rove that has spent millions pushing corporate-friendly candidates in the wake of Citizens United.

Amazingly, the FEC has permitted Crossroads GPS to promote and attack candidates without disclosing the moneyed interests behind its schemes.

What does that mean?

It means that Crossroads GPS is exploiting protections intended for supporters of legitimate social welfare groups, including Public Citizen, and raising untold millions from undisclosed plutocrats that it turns around and spends distorting our democracy.

It means that as long as the FEC indulges this sham, Crossroads GPS and similar outfits can continue functioning as conduits for essentially unlimited secret money from the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations.

Crossroads GPS is a political committee, not a social welfare organization.

A political committee is legally defined as any group that receives or spends more than $1,000 during a calendar year to influence elections and whose major purpose is to support or oppose the election of federal candidates.

So let’s look at just a few facts about Crossroads GPS:

The FEC’s own legal team determined that Crossroads GPS spent $20.8 million on federal campaign activity between June and December 2010, which was more than half of what the organization reported spending on everything it did that entire year.  Karl Rove himself boasted on FOX News that Crossroads GPS is an outlet for anyone who has maxed out on lawful contributions to Republican political committees.

In the 2010 and 2012 elections combined, Crossroads GPS spent more than any other outside group, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It even outspent all but two super PACs, one of those was its own partner, American Crossroads.  The law requires political committees to disclose their donors and expenditures.

We the People are entitled to know who is spending what in an attempt to bury the principle of “one person, one vote” under an avalanche of cash.

Working with allied watchdog groups, Public Citizen filed a complaint with the FEC back in 2010 about the bogus claim by Crossroads GPS that it is not a political committee.

In response to the complaint, the FEC’s lawyers found substantial evidence that Crossroads GPS is a political committee.

And half of the FEC’s six commissioners agreed.  But partisan deadlock, which has hamstrung the agency for many years now, resulted in the complaint being dismissed in December.

So they are suing to have the dismissal overturned.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us