Mission:

To promote and defend citizens’

First Amendment political rights of speech,
press, assembly, and petition.
 Do campaign finance laws help
reduce the perception of corruption?
No:
“This article … examines forty years of survey data
of public attitudes toward corruption in
government. We argue that trends in public
perception of corruption may have little to do with
the campaign finance system....
“Moreover, the survey data suggest that an
individual’s perception of corruption derives to
some extent from that person’s (1) position in
society (race, income, education level); (2) opinion
of the incumbent President and performance of the
economy over the previous year; (3) attitudes
concerning taxation and ‘big government’; and (4)
propensity to trust other people, in general.”
“Overall, campaign finance regulations are
simply not important determinants of trust
and confidence in government.”
 Trends Since Adoption of Federal Election
Campaign Act Adoption in 1970s
• From 1900 to 1972, of the 37 elections
held, 32 saw double digit shifts in party
seats, or 86%.
• Since 1976 to 2016, there have been 21
elections, and only 9 have seen double
digit shifts, or 43%.
• Trust in Government, Legislative Branch
– Gallup, 1972: 71% (a great deal or fair amount)
– Gallup, 2016: 35%
 Campaign Spending in Perspective
2015-2016
• For 12 months ending Nov. 1, 2016,
value of media coverage:
• Trump $5.0 billion
• Clinton $3.2 billion.
• $8.2 billion combined.
Amount Spent by All Presidential
Candidates: $2.4 billion
Overall, our findings parallel that of the broader literature. As
regressions like these make clear, the evidence that campaign
contributions lead to a substantial influence on votes is
rather thin. Legislators’ votes depend almost entirely on their
own beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party.
Contributions explain a miniscule fraction of the variation
in voting behavior in the U.S. Congress. Members of
Congress care foremost about winning re-election. They must
attend to the constituency that elects them, voters in a district or
state and the constituency that nominates them, the party…
 Why I Gave One Million Dollars to Re-
elect President Obama -- Mel Heifitz

I give money to political causes and charities …

because I like to help those in need….
Whatever I might want to contribute in the future, the
future is now -- and I refuse to sit this one out as some
try to take us back with policies that will weaken the
country I love and have fought for all my life….
As a gay, man, I have lots of political issues that are
personal when I look ahead to the November elections.
 What’s wrong with this article?

Can Tech Make Democracy Great Again?

Trump may own Twitter, but there aren’t too many nonpartisan online tools tracking
everything politicians say and do

By
Geoffrey A. Fowler
Jan. 18, 2017 1:17 p.m. ET
21 COMMENTS

You can also find out who or what funded the officials representing you. There’s been
great work at digitizing campaign finance information on opensecrets.org and, on a state
level, followthemoney.org. I learned the largest 2016 donor to my congresswoman,
Nancy Pelosi, was Facebook.
 Putting “Dark Money” In Context
Total Campaign Spending by Election Percentage Percentage
Election Cycle Cycle Spending by Spending by
(in Millions) Political Nonprofits
$7,000 Committees (“Dark
$6,260
$5,977 Money”)
$6,000
2005-2006 99.8% 0.2%
Total Spending (Millions)

$5,184
$5,000

$4,000
$3,496 $3,667 2007-2008 98.1% 1.9%
$3,000
$2,848
2009-2010 96.3% 3.7%
$2,000

$1,000
2011-2012 95.1% 4.9%
$136 $309 $178 $184
$5 $102
$0
2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 2011-2012 2013-2014 2015-2016
2013-2014 95.4% 4.6%
Spending by Political Committees
Spending by Nonprofits 2015-2016 97.1% 2.9%

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

 “Dark money”
• All campaign spending is disclosed.
• Most spending is by well-known groups
(LCV, US Chamber, NRA, Planned
Parenthood, etc.)
• Unlikely to grow – “tax” on
contributions.
• Contribution earmarked for campaign
speech must be disclosed.
• More disclosure would mislead.
 Delusions about “Dysfunction”: Understanding
the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
• The FEC is bipartisan due to concern
about President Nixon’s use of power.
• Strong majority of FEC votes are bipartisan.
• Laws limiting contributions and requiring
reporting of contributors to candidates,
parties and PACs are enforced without
controversy.
 The First Amendment’s
Four Speech Freedoms

Congress shall make no law … abridging

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
 Federal Election Law and Regulations:
Over 376,000 Words
Regulations define 33 types of speech and 71 speakers
Advisory Opinions: Over 1,900
Enforcement Actions: Over 7,200
 Regulations Strangle Grassroots Activity,
Deter Smaller Donors
• $250 threshold for filing reports on
independent expenditures.
• $1,000 threshold to become a PAC.
• $200+ ($20/month for 10 months)
donations appear on the internet.
Cases:
• Coalition for Secular Government
• Williamson Strong v Tennessee
• Calzone v Missouri Ethics Commission
 Contribution limits
• Hamper new ideas
– Would have made Gene McCarthy’s campaign against LBJ in
1968 impossible
• Protect incumbents
• Protect the corrupt
• Protect the two major parties from new competitors
• Add incredible complexity to campaign finance laws (e.g.,
coordination rules, contributions in name of another)
• Limit speech by candidates and parties
• Reduce info for voters
• Give advantages to non-party groups
• Favor celebrities
 Campaign Contribution Limits and Good
Government
• Four of the ten least corrupt states
(Oregon, Nebraska, Utah, and Iowa) in the
country impose no limits on individual
contributions.
• Seven of the thirteen best managed states
had no contribution limits on individuals.
Top two states have no limits.
• Studies show practically no link between
campaign contributions and legislative
votes. http://tinyurl.com/nlvrun9
 What was the Citizens United case about?
• The law made it a criminal offense for a nonprofit
corporation to buy time to broadcast a
documentary on Hillary Clinton.
• The government said that under the First
Amendment it could:
– Ban a corporation from publishing a book if it had
once sentence advocating the election or defeat of a
candidate.
– Prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a
political book.
From the opinion by Justice Kennedy:
Thus, the following acts would all be felonies
under [the law]: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within
the crucial phase of 60 days before the general
election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a
Congressman who favors logging in national forests;
the National Rifle Association publishes a book
urging the public to vote for the challenger because
the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun
ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates
a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential
candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free
speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of
censorship.
 SpeechNow.org v. FEC
The Super PAC case
• History of 527s in 2004
• Liberalization of speech from the case
• Independent expenditures only
– No contributions to candidates or parties.
– No coordination with candidates or parties
– Donations disclosed
 The “Oligarchy” Study

Google lists 321 news items with the word “oligarchy” included in the search,
1010 with just the authors Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page.
 The Oligarchy Study, Debunked

Google lists 1 news item, a rebuttal by the study’s original authors, which was
in response to a Vox blog post summarizing three studies showing the
Gilens/Page study was wrong.
 Citizens and the Media, the Same Rights
• The press has no greater rights under the First
Amendment than ordinary Americans.
• Nearly all media organizations are corporations.
• Anonymous sources and associational privacy are
important for democracy.
• Money facilitates speech, and all media outlets
need money to operate.
• Suggesting that political speech should be
regulated erodes respect for all speech, including
that of the media.
 Justices Black, Douglas and Warren, dissent 352 US 567
United States v. UAW-CIO

Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The

people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people
determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore
important - vitally important - that all channels of communication
be open to them during every election, that no point of view be
restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of
every group in the community.
***
Some may think that one group or another should not express its
views in an election because it is too powerful, because it advocates
unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless action. But these
are not justifications for withholding First Amendment rights from
any group - labor or corporate. First Amendment rights are part of the
heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be
dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the
person or group is worthy or unworthy.