.

Since the beginning of the current election cycle, extremely wealthy individuals, corporations and trade unions — all of them determined to influence who is in the White House next year — have spent more than $160 million (excluding party expenditures). That’s an incredible amount of money.

To put it in perspective, at this point in 2008, about $36 million had been spent on independent expenditures (independent meaning independent of a candidate’s campaign). In all of 2008, in fact, only $156 million was spent this way. In other words, we’ve already surpassed 2008, and it’s July.

In the near term, there’s nothing we can do to reverse this dramatic increase in independent expenditures.

Yet what really alarms us about this situation is that we can’t find out who is behind these blatant attempts to control the outcome of our elections. We are inundated with extraordinarily negative advertising on television every evening and have no way to know who is paying for it and what their agenda might be. In fact, it’s conceivable that we have created such a glaring loophole in our election process that foreign interests could directly influence the outcome of our elections. And we might not even know it had happened until after the election, if at all.

This is because unions, corporations, “super PACs” and other organizations are able to make unlimited independent expenditures on our elections without readily and openly disclosing where the money they are spending is coming from. As a result, we are unable to get the information we need to decide who should represent us and take on our country’s challenges.

Unlike the unlimited amount of campaign spending, the lack of transparency in campaign spending is something we can fix and fix right now —without opening the door to more scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

A bill being debated this week in the Senate, called the Disclose Act of 2012, is a well-researched, well-conceived solution to this insufferable situation. Unfortunately, on Monday, the Senate voted, mostly along party lines, to block the bill from going forward. But the Disclose Act is not dead. As of now, it is 9 short of the 60 votes it needs.

The bill was introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who deserves tremendous credit for crafting such comprehensive legislation, listening to his critics and amending his bill to address their concerns in a bold display of compromise. At its core, Whitehouse’s bill would require any “covered organization” which spends $10,000 or more on a “campaign-related disbursement” to file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of the expenditure, and to file a new report for each additional $10,000 or more that is spent. The F.E.C. must post the report on its Web site within 24 hours of receiving it.

A “covered organization” includes any corporation, labor organization, section 501(c) organization, super PAC or section 527 organization.

This is a huge improvement over the status quo, where super PACS currently have months to disclose their donors (often withholding this information until after an election) and 501(c) organizations have no requirement to disclose their donors at all.

The report must include the name of the covered organization, the name of the candidate, the election to which the spending pertains, the amount of each disbursement of more than $1,000, and a certification by the head of the organization that the disbursement was not coordinated. The report must also reveal the identity of all donors who have given more than $10,000 to the organization.

We have no doubt that the Disclose Act will be spared any credible constitutional challenges if it were to pass the Senate and the House. In its Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court, by an 8-1 majority, upheld the provisions of federal law that require outside spending groups to disclose their expenditures on electioneering communications, including the donors financing those expenditures. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court, noted that these provisions “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities” and “do not prevent anyone from speaking.”

We believe that every senator should embrace the Disclose Act of 2012. This legislation treats trade unions and corporations equally and gives neither party an advantage. It is good for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. Most important, it is good for the American people.

What’s more, every senator considering re-election faces the possibility of being blindsided by a well-funded, anonymous campaign challenging his or her record, integrity or both. The act under consideration would prevent this from happening to anyone running for Congress.

Without the transparency offered by the Disclose Act of 2012, we fear long-term consequences that will hurt our democracy profoundly. We’re already seeing too many of our former colleagues leaving public office because the partisanship has become stifling and toxic. If campaigning for office continues to be so heavily affected by anonymous out-of-district influences running negative advertising, we fear even more incumbents will decline to run and many of our most capable potential leaders will shy away from elective office.

No thinking person can deny that the current situation is unacceptable and intolerable. We urge all senators to engage in a bipartisan effort to enact this critically needed legislation. The Disclose Act of 2012 is a prudent and important first step in restoring some sanity to our democratic process.

Former Senator Warren Rudman, Republican of New Hampshire, is a chairman of Americans for Campaign Reform. Former Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, introduced disclosure legislation in 2001.

[...]One would like to think that the court will eventually admit the folly of its 2010 ruling and reverse it. But we can’t wait that long. And out of this dreary landscape, hope is blossoming in the state of New York. There’s irony here, since New York is where a lot of the big national money is coming from. No matter. The state is considering a campaign finance law that would repair some of the Citizens United damage, and in a way the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to touch.

The idea is that to offset the power of large donors, citizens without deep pockets should be encouraged to flood the system with small contributions that the government would match. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has pledged to a state overhaul of this sort, based on the one already in force for New York City elections. In his state of the state address in January, Cuomo spoke of how urgent it is to “reconnect the people to the political process and their government.” He could make himself into a reform hero across the country if he and the Legislature created a model law for other states, and the nation.

The New York City program is straightforward: The government gives participating candidates $6 in matching funds for every dollar raised from individuals who live in the city, up to the first $175. At a maximum, this means a $175 contribution is augmented by $1,050 in public funds. That’s a mighty incentive for politicians to involve more citizens in paying for campaigns. In the city system, participating candidates have to live within certain spending and contribution limits. In a new statewide system, there are likely to be no spending restrictions but lower limits on contributions.

[...]

Full article

The people of Maine blazed a trail over ten years ago when they voted to establish a new way to elect their political leaders through the Clean Elections System.  In the elections since, both Republicans and Democrats have embraced this approach to politics, as 80% of all Maine legislators have been elected by using the program and over 75% of the state’s voters approve of it.  As a former U.S. Senator and co-chair of Americans for Campaign Reform, I applaud the people of Maine and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections for leading the effort to defend this important and proven program that puts voters in the driver’s seat of democracy.

I strongly support a small donor driven campaign finance reform for Congress and the presidency, an approach that expands speech and respects the first amendment by allowing more voices to be heard in our political process.   Maine has led the way, providing an alternative to the obscene money chase that occupies countless hours and distracts candidates and legislators from the jobs they were elected to do.

Some political leaders in Maine cite the current financial difficulties that state government is facing as reason enough to reduce or even eliminate the funding for the program.  This is so shortsighted.   Unlike in most other states, lawmakers in Maine are not dependent upon lobbyists for campaign contributions.   As a result, it provides qualified people from all walks of life to serve in the legislature without the usual ties to special interests, and allows more opportunity for issues to be considered on the merits – not with a perceived or real quid pro quo.  For about $2 per person per year, Maine voters can be confident that candidates and elected officials answer to them, not wealthy donors and special interests.  The Maine Clean Elections System puts citizens first, an investment in democracy that surely has paid dividends in responsive government.

Maine citizens of all political views have a shared interest in a government that is accountable, effective, transparent, and truly representative.   The Clean Elections system is important not only because it has increased confidence in the operation of government in Maine, but stands as an inspiration to the nation.  In this era of undisclosed campaign contributions and the undue influence of wealthy donors over our political process, successful alternatives that empower voters should be celebrated and strengthened, not challenged.  The Maine Clean Elections system works.

Former US Senator Al Simpson (R-WY) is a co-chair of Americans for Campaign Reform

Petition text:

We petition the Obama administration to:
Nominate New Commissioners to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

We expect candidates for federal office to follow our campaign finance laws, but the FEC – the agency charged with enforcing those laws – is completely dysfunctional.

Three of the six commissioners staunchly refuse to enforce the law and five of the six are serving despite expired terms.

Prior to your election, you professed support for campaign finance reform. We agree with you that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision was disastrous and the failure of Congress to require disclosure of campaign-related spending was outrageous. Nevertheless, you have failed to appoint new commissioners who actually would enforce such laws.

To restore some faith into the democratic process, we urge you to nominate new commissioners to the FEC prior to the 2012 elections.

See the petition here.

A new poll released this week by Americans for Campaign Reform and the Committee for Economic Development shows deep frustration among likely New Hampshire Primary voters over the increasing influence of special interest money on the federal government. The poll, fielded by The University of New Hampshire Survey Center between September 26 and October 4, shows that 57% of likely New Hampshire Primary voters said they are “not confident at all” that the president and Congress can work together.
Almost 8 in 10 likely GOP Primary voters think members of Congress are more interested in serving special interest groups than the people they represent and more than half acknowledge that political contributions influence what the federal government does.

About two thirds (61%) of likely NH Republican Primary voters “strongly disagree” with the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case asserting that political spending by corporations and unions is a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment. This 2010 decision allows corporations, unions, and non-profit groups to spend unlimited money for election purposes and political advertising without disclosing the source of their funding. What’s more, 73% of likely New Hampshire GOP Primary voters would “strongly support” a law that would require corporations, unions and non-profits to disclose their sources of spending when they participate in elections. And seventy percent would be more likely to support candidates who would support such a law.

When asked about other reforms, almost half (40%) of likely New Hampshire Republican Primary voters said they would support a proposal for public funding of all federal elections that would allow candidates who collect a large number of small contributions (up to a maximum of $100) from their home state to receive public matching funds on a five-to-one basis to run their campaigns. By a two-to-one margin (45% to 21%), likely New Hampshire Republican Primary voters said they would be more likely to support a candidate who supported a public funding system.

“This new poll reinforces CED’s belief that we continue to need comprehensive campaign finance reform. Our business leaders have worked for more than a decade to lessen the impact of money in politics. Respondents in this poll recognize that the Citizen’s United decision was a step backwards in the effort to reform the system. In this election cycle, we are saying to business people, ‘don’t contribute, but if you do contribute – disclose,’” said CED President Charles Kolb.

According to John Rauh, founder and President of Americans for Campaign Reform, ”With the Primary only a couple of months away, it’s startling to see the depth of concern that voters who are likely to turn out for the New Hampshire Republican Primary have over the influence of special interest money. It’s reassuring, though, to see how receptive these voters are to major reform that will give average voters a greater say in what goes on in Washington.” More information on the poll can be found here.

###

Americans for Campaign Reform (ACR) is a non-profit bipartisan organization dedicated to enacting public funding of federal elections. ACR Is chaired by former Senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Warren Rudman (R-NH), and Al Simpson (R-WY). Information can be found at www.ACRreform.org
CED is a non-profit, non-partisan business led public policy organization. CED is dedicated to policy research on major economic and social issues and the implementation of its recommendations by the public and private sectors. Membership is made up of some 200 senior corporate executives and university leaders who lead CED’s research and outreach efforts. Information can be found at www.ced.org

View Poll Results As A PDF

Orignally published in the Buffalo (NY) News

As former members of Congress, we were honored to represent the people of upstate New York in Washington, D. C., for many years. But as we look at our politics today, we are deeply troubled by the corrosive role that private money has come to play in Congress and Albany alike.

To illustrate our point and the need for fundamental reform, imagine that you are a member of the New York State Assembly. Facing re-election and the need to raise an average of $130,000 to keep your seat, you begin the unsavory task of asking lobbyists and other special interests in Albany for large donations. After a number of receptions at fancy restaurants downtown and hours spent dialing down lists of wealthy donors, you have collected the requisite $500, $1,000 and larger donations with which to run your campaign. But you did not enter politics in order to represent a wealthy few.

Now imagine that instead of the downtown fundraisers and dialing for dollars, you can raise the money you need through block parties and community dinners in the presence of friends and neighbors back home. Donations of $10, $25, $50 and $100 are matched 4-to-1 by a state voter-owned elections fund, giving you enough resources to run a viable campaign. Returning to the Assembly after the election, you feel beholden to your constituents and your conscience alone. The lobbyists whose business it is to win your vote have nothing more to offer than their ideas.

To many, this second method of funding political campaigns is all but impossible to imagine. “Albany ethics” is one of the great oxymorons of our time. But this need not be the case. For the first time in decades, the forces are arrayed so that an overhaul of the state’s campaign system has a real possibility of success.

Reform has been done before. For nearly a quarter century, New York City has run a voluntary matching funds program for the offices of mayor, comptroller, public advocate, borough president and City Council. The heart of the system is the 6-to-1 public match on small donations made by constituents.

The benefits of such a system are clear. A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice found that since the enactment of the match, the number of contributors and the number of small donors has increased significantly. In competitive races, the pool of candidates has become more diverse as more candidates have sufficient resources to wage a viable campaign and give the voters a choice in who will represent them.

But campaign financing in Albany is a world away from these citizen-driven campaigns. Candidates running for Assembly or statewide office can raise up to $37,000 and $400,000, respectively, from a single family, making the voices of a wealthy few far more important than those of everyday New Yorkers. Similarly, by the time we left the U. S. Congress, less than 10 percent of the money raised to fund congressional races came in small amounts of $200 or less and a small fraction of 1 percent of eligible voters were providing the lion’s share of campaign funds. The problem has only grown worse today.

Overhauling this broken system is not only necessary but possible.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo noted in his State of the State address that we “need public financing of campaigns” and the Assembly has passed such laws repeatedly in recent years, only to see them falter in the Senate. While a public campaign finance system will cost money — an estimated $30 million or .02 percent of the state budget — that cost pales in comparison to the billions in state contracts, tax breaks and regulatory benefits awarded to major donors every year.

Nonetheless, fiscal realities are important and several creative ways have been offered to fund this program without adding to the burden of taxpayers. These include asking attorneys, who frequently benefit from the current system, to pay a voluntary fee when renewing their bar licenses, and placing all fines paid by politicians and lobbyists who violate the state’s ethics laws into the election fund.

These and similar ideas are at work in other cities and states around the country that have long had success with voter-owned elections. We are confident that New York State would reap similar fiscal rewards to those seen in other states when special interest donors are no longer able to fund the campaigns of those who make the very tax and regulatory laws under which they do business.

Cuomo does not have to wage this fight alone. We are proud to work with a diverse group of leaders who have already stepped forward to call for real reform, including former senator Bill Bradley and former mayor Ed Koch, business executives Alan Patricof and William Donaldson, clergymen Father Joseph O’Hare and Rabbi Joseph Potasnik and concerned citizens across the great state of New York. Although our politics are not the same, we are united in our commitment to the simple idea that elections should be owned by the voters, not special interests. The time for reform is now.

Former Republican Congressmen Sherwood Boehlert and Amory Houghton represented the 24th and 29th Districts, respectively, of upstate New York. They are Advisory Board members of Americans for Campaign Reform.