The below are copied and pasted from the website of the Center For Competitive Politics. This (and other material on the website) might be matters for discussion and debate.
Contribution Limits
In many federal and state elections, the size of contributions which candidates may legally receive from individuals, parties, political action committees (PACs), corporations, and unions are capped at a specific financial amount. In most states, individual contributions to political parties and PACs are also restricted. These limitations restrict the ability of individuals to associate with the candidates and groups of their choice, a problematic outcome in a country whose First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such limitations are only permissible when they are based on a non-partisan effort to reduce corruption or the appearance of corruption. The First Amendment, according to the Court, prohibits the imposition of campaign contribution limits that attempt to “level the playing field.”
Proponents of restrictions on campaign contributions frequently argue that campaign donations “corrupt” government in a variety of ways, from raising the cost of government through inappropriate giveaways to larger contributors to lowering the overall quality of government by diverting the attention of policymakers away from average citizens who opt not to make large campaign contributions. However, the Center’s compilation of theexisting research on the effects of money in politics, and our own research on contribution limits and corruption cast doubt on these assumptions. Additionally, we find no correlation between contribution limits on individual giving to candidates and “good” government, or limits on corporate and union giving directly to candidates and “good” government, and thus look negatively on any legislation which seeks to needlessly limit citizens’ First Amendment rights through arbitrarily low limits on campaign giving.
Low contribution limits are especially attractive to incumbent legislators because they allow these officials to claim that they are not influenced by lobbyists or special interests (although research refutes the contention that the presence or absence of contribution limits has any effect on the factors influencing elected officials), and because low limits often perversely serve as an incumbency protection measure. Challengers, who ofter have significantly less name recognition and lack an established donor base, typically spend more time fundraising than incumbents. In this manner, limits on the size of campaign contributions have the effect of disproportionately harming challengers. This is yet another reason why the Center argues against the imposition of low contribution limits on what individuals can contribute to their favored candidates.
For an in-depth examination of contribution limits and their failure to achieve their stated policy goals, please readCCP’s Policy Primer on campaign contribution limits here.
The subject of corporate political speech is controversial, but the principles underlying it are rather simple. Corporations have the right to spend money on political speech because corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. When John has the right to spend his money on political speech, and Jane has the right to spend her money on political speech, it makes no sense to argue that John and Jane should not have a right to spend their money on political speech together. Corporate political speech is no different except that it typically involves a far greater number of people than John and Jane, but size shouldn’t be an issue. Just as political parties and non-profit advocacy groups have the right to speak on political issues, so too do corporations and unions.
Although this principle is simple and consistent, it has only recently been acknowledged in law as the result of two Supreme Court rulings from 2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and SpeechNow.Org v. Federal Election Commission. Following these rulings, those wishing to silence corporate voices have been forced to abandon attempts to legislate away these associations’ rights, and have adopted a new tactic of “activist investing.”
Activist investing is the process whereby politically concerned individuals and groups purchase a minimum number of shares in a company, not solely or principally with the intention of maintaining those shares for their wealth-generating potential, but instead to attempt to force corporate votes on political initiatives concerning labor relations and political spending. Accommodating these activists could hurt a corporation’s bottom line, and the mere threat posed by their presence could lead to corporate self-censorship that harms the societal discourse surrounding political issues by silencing business organizations and industry advocates. With more than half of Americans owning shares of publicly traded companies, and many more owing their income to corporate employment (and, by extension, a healthy corporate balance sheet), corporations represent a vital economic viewpoint. Americans are entitled to have their political choices informed by a broad range of interests, including those of corporations.
Put simply, shareholder activists are asking corporations to surrender their constitutional rights because these activist investors oppose what they presume will be the existing political interests of these businesses. As a result, corporations may voluntarily choose not to participate in the political process, but both corporate managers and engaged citizens should be concerned about this outcome. Bullying certain voices out of the political discussion is never a good idea, and neglecting to speak out on important issues may lead corporations, and therefore their shareholders and employees, to suffer from bad laws that could have been improved by political participation from corporate interests.
Disclosure
In most state and federal elections, if you contribute anything greater than de minimis amounts to a candidate running for elected office, a political party, or a Political Action Committee (PAC), you must acquiesce to having your name, address, employer, and occupation published in a government database. Often, this sensitive, personal information is posted on the Internet for anyone to see – including your coworkers and nosy neighbors. More political disclosure information is required currently than at any time in our history, and it’s troubling to see citizens being required to register with the government just to exercise their First Amendment rights. The Center works to ensure that disclosure requirements do not become overly burdensome or threatening to donor privacy.
Increasingly, we find donor information being used by non-governmental entities and individuals to harass, threaten, or financially harm speakers or contributors to candidates and causes with whom they disagree. Once contributor information becomes public, little can be done to safeguard against potential harassment. The government agencies that manage these databases have also shown a tendency to accidentally leak private and sensitive information about donors.
While disclosure of significant financial contributors can inform voters as to who is supporting a candidate, low disclosure thresholds make disclosure information less meaningful by muddying disclosure reports with the names and addresses of smaller, inconsequential donors. Although sold as a virtue, disclosure comes with a cost, and is often very invasive. Accordingly, disclosure should be mandated only at thresholds that capture the most significant donors to candidates and causes.
For an in-depth explanation of this complex and oft-mischaracterized issue, please read CCP’s Policy Primer on disclosure here.
Tax Financed Campaigns (Public Financing)
Taxpayer-funded political campaigns, often called “clean elections” by their supporters, are programs that seek to replace private, voluntary contributions from individuals to the candidates of their choice with government grants to qualifying candidates. Typically, these programs allow candidates to “opt in” if they agree both to limits on the size and source of their campaign contributions and to limits on their campaign spending. In exchange, these qualifying candidates receive either a lump sum grant of taxpayer funds, or “matching grants” of tax dollars for each small contribution they receive. Proponents have touted these programs as a way to “level the playing field” between wealthy citizens and average or poor citizens. However, the Center’s research on these programs disputes these claims. Accordingly, CCP urges policymakers to use caution and examine the full-body of evidence when faced with proposals to implement similar programs in their states.
Several prominent jurisdictions have attempted taxpayer-funded programs for legislative campaigns. New York City implemented its program in the 1970s, Arizona and Maine have had their own “clean elections” laws in effect since 2000, and Connecticut joined the club in 2008. Analysis of each of these systems finds that they overwhelmingly fail to live up to the lofty goals set by their supporters.
The Center has reported on how taxpayer-funded campaigns have been willfully exploited and manipulated by candidates seeking to abuse public funds for personal gain. Contrary to the claims of advocates, CCP’s research in Arizona and Maine has shown that taxpayer-funded elections do not reduce lobbyist influence, do not produce more occupationally diverse legislatures, do not increase the percentage of women in legislatures, and do not reduce government spending. Additional research by CCP has demonstrated that taxpayer-financed campaign systems do not increase voter turnout either, contrary to proponents’ frequent claims.
In addition, CCP studied the voting patterns of legislators who served in the Connecticut General Assembly in the 2007-08 and 2009-10 legislative sessions, and accepted taxpayer dollars for their re-election campaigns through the Citizens’ Election Program (CEP). Analysis of legislator voting records revealed that the CEP failed to change the frequency with which participating legislators voted in favor of the positions of organized interest groups.
The Center will continue to monitor and evaluate these programs, and will strive to author the best scholarship on taxpayer-funded elections, in order to provide citizens and policymakers with the information necessary to making wise decisions about the value of such programs. So far, they have performed poorly, opening up new avenues for corruption, and failing to achieve their stated goals.
For an in-depth explanation of this oft-touted, but severely flawed issue, please read CCP’s Policy Primer on taxpayer-financed campaigns here.
No comments:
Post a Comment