New York is stepping up to challenge corporate control of elections. New York City already has a pioneering public financing program for its municipal elections. On Wednesday, it joined a growing list of cities by adopting a resolution calling on Congress to start the process for amending the U.S. Constitution to say corporations don’t have the rights of natural persons. Meanwhile, in Albany, Gov. Andrew Cuomo included a robust call for public campaign financing in his State of the State speech. His backing, fulfilling a 2010 campaign pledge, and the pro-reform NY House make the Empire State the likely epicenter for expanding Voter-Owned Elections programs in 2012. A host of nonprofit groups have been working in the state for years; their efforts are paying off.
Voter-Owned Elections Category
You are welcome to submit comments to this moderated blog. Please treat others with respect, avoid partisan rhetoric, and help us provide a fact-based discussion of issues related to North Carolina’s political landscape. Thank you.
LOD: Mr. Jones v. Citizens United
Wednesday, December 21st, 2011
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., Republican member of Congress from eastern North Carolina, is again stepping up to sponsor legislation to reign in the power of big money in politics. In 2010, he co-sponsored the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide a much-needed alternative path for candidates to finance their campaigns. Yesterday, he’s joined Kentucky Democrat US Rep. John Yarmuth in introducing a Constitutional amendment to overcome the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The amendment would say that political spending is not protected by the First Amendment and may be regulated to protect the common good. “Corporate money equals influence, not free speech,” says Yarmuth. The amendment would also establish a system for public financing and make Election Day a federal holiday. If you’re having trouble keeping track of all the proposed amendments to elevate your voting rights over a corporation’s right to buy an election, here’s a handy guide from United Republic: “Idiot’s Guide to the Amendments.”
LOD: Colbert’s Super Magic
Thursday, November 17th, 2011
What can those new Super PACs do with their money. Stephen Colbert’s ad with presidential candidate Buddy Roemer gives you the clue. Meanwhile, Larry Lessig of Rootstrikers is joining with Dylan Ratigan’s “Get Money Out” to create a new organization to work against special-interest control of government: United Republic. Lessig also has a new book out about the corrupting culture of dependency that dominates Congress. As one reviewer said, “If anything unites the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street protesters, surely it is the sense that the system is rigged in favor of big shots in Washington and against little guys back home. Money is at the heart of it.”
LOD: Election Results, Beyond NC
Wednesday, November 9th, 2011
Three results from yesterday’s elections: (1) Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a staunch opponent of the state’s successful Clean Elections program, was defeated on Tuesday by a political newcomer in a recall election. Pearce is the author of Arizona’s notorious anti-immigration law. He was also tainted by a corruption scandal involving tens of thousands of dollars worth of trips and freebies connected with the Fiesta Bowl. (2) In Maine, voters overrode the conservative legislature’s decision to eliminate Election Day Registration, which allows eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day. The program, in place since 1973, has helped Maine rank among the top two or three states for voter turnout for years. Angry at the legislature’s vote to kill EDR, a progressive coalition gained the necessary signatures, put the issue on the ballot, and won by a 60% to 40% margin. (3) On the other hand, Mississippi passed a referendum by a similar margin to require a photo ID for voters, with the promise of free IDs and backup measures to avoid disenfranchising eligible citizens. The state NAACP, ACLU and others are waiting to see how the state intends to implement the requirement before immediately challenging the proposal through the judicial system.
LOD: Inside Clean Elections
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011
What does it mean to have elections about ideas and people instead of big money and mud? Read this great story of the nation’s pioneering Clean Elections program after a decade in action. Candidates for the state legislature in Maine have a real alternative to the private money chase that turns well-meaning lawmakers into professional hucksters. The program has paid off with better legislation for consumers, children, the environment, workers, the uninsured – the 99%. It’s now facing new challenges from the current Supreme Court’s hostility to protect free elections from the tyranny of paid speech – check it out. We face the same threats in North Carolina.
LOD: Justice at Stake
Thursday, October 27th, 2011
A trio of groups that analyze judicial elections today released a report documenting a national campaign “to intimidate America’s state judges into becoming accountable to money and ideologies instead of the Constitution and the law.” The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2010 examines the “hostile takeover” of judicial elections by special interests and the attacks on impartial courts by state legislatures. The report was written by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
North Carolina is held up as a national model because it provides state judicial candidates with a viable public financing alternative to the private money chase. The pioneering program has earned acclaim from reformers, the American Bar Association, and NC judges across the political spectrum. A blog entry today by Mark Binker at the Greensboro News & Record notes that Republican leaders in the NC General Assembly plan to keep the program, but delete a rescue-funds provision that mirrors one struck down by the US Supreme Court. The public grants and a state voter guide are not funded from the NC General Fund. A similar program for some Council of State offices will be suspended because it only has money from the General Fund; efforts last year to provide an independent source of funding for that Voter-Owned Elections program were stymied.
LOD: Serving the Public
Tuesday, October 25th, 2011
So who do you want your Insurance Commissioner listening to when it comes time to regulate insurance rates? The public or the insurance companies? If the private companies supply the bulk of the commissioner’s campaign money, you can bet they’ll have an insider’s advantage. That’s one powerful reason why we need the Voter-Owned Elections program for NC Insurance Commissioner to continue. It gives candidates for the office an option: They can reject special-interest money, raise hundreds of small donations from voters, and earn access to a public campaign fund that allows them to stay loyal to the public interest. In 2008, the program meant that the Democratic and Republican candidates for IC raised only 5% of their total campaign funds from donors tied to industries regulated by the office; that’s an amazing drop from the 66% supplied by special interests in 2004 before the VOE program began. Unfortunately, legislative leaders are draining the VOE program of its money and pushing IC candidates onto “the money train,” as Common Cause’s Bob Phillips calls it in this article today about Commissioner Wayne Goodwin’s current fundraising travels. If people don’t like their local, state and federal candidates chasing the private dollars, they need to give them a meaningful public funding option. The payoff is huge: In 2009, Goodwin fought the auto insurance industry’s rate increase and eventually won a settlement that returned $102 to the average auto owner and cut the rate hike by $50 million a year.
LOD: Money for Lawmakers
Monday, October 24th, 2011
Here’s a story that deserves more attention: NC House Rules Co-chair Stephen LaRoque (R-Kinston) loaned his for-profit management company $200,000 from a non-profit organization that he set up to channel federal small-business loans to high risk ventures in rural North Carolina – and then he refused to disclose this insider dealing on the non-profit’s report to the IRS – abuses begging for state and federal investigation. The story, by Sarah Ovaska, is part of the on-going series on NC Policy Watch’s investigative blog; why aren’t more reporters digging into this unraveling scandal. Another blog, this one by Kirk Ross, provides the details of state Rep. David Rouzer’s new campaign finance report for his bid to Congress – piles of money from state lobbyists, hog farmers, state PACs, etc. You’ll recall that Rouzer (R-Benson) held a big fundraising event in late September hosted by several Raleigh lobbyists; because Rouzer is running for a federal office, the event didn’t violate the NC law against a state legislator raising money from lobbyists. Maybe his campaign will turn his cynical use of fundraising loopholes into an asset for serving in Congress. The Winston-Salem Journal describes how the money chase affects Congressional candidates, even those with weak opposition, including Democrat Mel Watt and Republican Virginia Foxx. Without a public campaign financing alternative, they all hustle the private money suppliers and often funnel a hefty amount into their party’s caucus accounts to shore up colleagues in tight races. Holding or gaining power takes a lot of money, and that’s a trap. The demand of the Occupy movement to stop corporate-financed elections requires, at a minimum, a strong public financing alternative to challenge the status quo.
LOD: Voting Rights Defended
Monday, September 26th, 2011
For North Carolinians concerned about the maze of bills in the General Assembly designed to make voting harder, here’s a link to a Democracy NC factsheet that provides an update of each bill’s status. The NC General Assembly is set to reconvene in November, when it could take up any of these bills – or it could revive its anti-voter initiative in the short session next May. Meanwhile, in an important voting-rights decision, a U.S. District Court judge turned down a challenge that African-American voters no longer need the federal government to review changes in election procedures affecting Section 5 jurisdictions – which include all of Alabama (where the case arose) and 40 counties in North Carolina. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires federal “pre-clearance” of election changes to prevent intentional or unintentional racial bias in areas with a history of discrimination. The judge made a point of saying that the 17,000 pages placed in the record when Congress reauthorized the VRA in 2006 demonstrated that the law was still relevant and constitutional. Opponents of voting-rights protections have a series of cases in the pipeline to challenge Section 5 and other provisions in the Voting Rights Act, and this case will likely reach the US Supreme Court, where the opponents have some sympathizers, they hope a majority.
LOD: Suing on the Money
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011
Anti-public financing lawyer James Bopp has filed a lawsuit to make North Carolina abandon part of the “voter-owned elections” program for state judicial candidates. It’s the part that awards candidates in the public program extra money if their privately financed opponents spend beyond a certain limit. But the US Supreme Court has already ruled that a similar matching funds provision in Arizona is illegal, and NC regulators say they have no intent of using the NC version of the provision. In fact, on Thursday, the State Board of Elections ordered the Town of Chapel Hill to abandon the provision in its program for municipal candidates in 2011. So why did Bopp file his lawsuit? Maybe he wants to make a point: He had challenged this provision years ago and the federal courts repeatedly ruled against him and his client, the NC Right to Life organization. But now that Chief Justice John Roberts is in charge, facts and precedent matter less than ideology and politics. As a result, James Bopp has been on a roll; he’s the same attorney who brought the Citizens United case to the Supremes. In his current suit against North Carolina, he also wants to collect attorney’s fees – and some say his suit may just be a way to get a judge to award him a million dollars or more for the expenses of his previous NC suits that failed. Hmm . . . J. Bopp, a publicly financed lawyer.
LOD: Sizing Up Small Gifts
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011
The recent Supreme Court decision knocking down rescue funds is pushing advocates of public campaign financing to look at alternative models that meet many of the goals of the Voter-Owned or Clean Elections approach. In a new report, the Campaign Finance Institute has applied its favorite model to state legislative elections in six Midwestern states. Its model matches on a five-to-one basis the first $50 an individual donor gives a qualified candidate; i.e., a $50 donation earns the candidate $250 in public funds. (The model follows a six-to-one matching program that has worked well in New York City and a variation is used in the federal Fair Elections Now Act.) The new CFI report points out that small donors typically account for only 3% to 12% of the money raised in state legislative campaigns. That share would rocket up thanks to the public funds triggered by small donations – and it would make small donors more important to candidates thanks to the matching funds. Rather than restrict opposition or outside spending, which the Roberts’ Court abhors, the model focuses on providing incentives that empower small donors and increase their influence in campaigns.
LOD: The Supreme Five
Thursday, June 30th, 2011
When the US Supreme Court liberated purchased political speech from nearly all regulation in the Citizens United decision, it opened a Pandora’s Box loaded with all sorts of strange creatures: partisan c-4s, super PACs, corporate slush funds. The Federal Election Commission is struggling to apply its rules to new creatures served up by operatives across the political spectrum. Even Stephen Colbert sought FEC approval for using his show’s resources to produce partisan ads. On the same day the FEC gave Colbert partial approval, it did the same for federal candidates who wanted permission to raise unlimited donations for their super PACs to support candidates of their choice. The FEC said, No, neither President Barack Obama nor Sen. Mitch McConnell can ask General Electric to give $2 million to a super PAC, but they can ask for the current limit ($5,000) AND attend the event where others ask for and receive the $2 million. The money suppliers and fundraising arms race never had it so good, thanks to the Supreme Five. As E. J. Dionne writes, “The United States Supreme Court now sees its central task as comforting the already comfortable and afflicting those already afflicted. If you are a large corporation or a political candidate backed by lots of private money, be assured that the court’s conservative majority will be there for you, solicitous of your needs and ready to swat away those pesky little people who dare to contest your power.” Given that mission, Arizona’s matching fund provision didn’t stand a chance for fair treatment.
Is that a Politician in Your Pocket??
Thursday, June 30th, 2011
This week has definitely been one for the books!!!! We’ve been tabling, phone banking, writing letters to the editor, researching, base building, and even some picketing. Our week began on Saturday. We tabled at an event in Ayden, North Carolina to try to get residents up-to-date with the Voter Photo ID bill and also to introduce our work on money in politics. We were expecting a large turnout but the heat must have kept people inside because there weren’t as many people as we expected. Monday afternoon we phone banked after we realized that in the haste of week 4 we forgot to phone bank on Friday night. We’ve had VERY successful phone banking nights the last past two weeks so we were pumped about phone banking again (never thought we’d say that). Monday, Shaunee told us that things may get a little more interesting in the week. A picket protesting the GOP fundraiser had been scheduled for Wednesday and we were going. Tuesday we went to work with posters, markers, and posterboard in hand to make signs for the protest and we brainstormed catchy slogans that we could use. Of course work never stops so on Wednesday, even though we had a picket later in the day in Raleigh, we still traveled to Halifax early in the morning to do some base building and go out to a few one on ones we had set up. We received and impromptu tour of the Tillery Community Center which was definitely nice and informational. On Wednesday we definitely learned something new. After our tour we were back on the road again to Raleigh. As we turned down Franklin Street we approached a crowd of people, signs, and police cars. Yes….we were in the right place. We enjoyed our first protest under Dem NC and it was definitely nice to see people come together from different organizations and walks of life. While we have enjoyed our work so far, we would be lying if we said that we were not excited about our upcoming 4 day weekend.
P.S. We got another letter to the editor published in the Wilson Daily times on redistricting in Wilson, NC (see letter below)
2010 marked the year of another Census, which means another round of redistricting. Every 10 years when the Census is counted district lines are examined and adjusted if deemed necessary to accommodate shifts in populations. The city of Wilson is offering a public hearing to discuss two redistricting plans that the city council is considering. This public hearing allows citizens to come out and voice their concerns, issues, and suggestions about the districts in the city of Wilson.
This is an effort to get residents of Wilson to let their voice be heard, so why not take advantage? If your districts change and you have not educated yourself on the proposals, or taken the time out to voice your opinion on them, your complaint is in vain.
Individuals like transparent government; this is transparency in one of its best forms. I strongly urge residents of Wilson to attend the redistricting public hearing on July 21 during the city council meeting. I have attended several redistricting public hearings and workshops across the eastern North Carolina area and can attest to the fact that they are informative and allow input from residents.
Redistricting maps out who you vote for, it’s only right that you have a voice in that process.
Jasmine Johnson
Elm City
Onwards,
Jasmine and Shaniqua
