The DISCLOSE Act- Antidote to the SuperPACs?

                                                            Robert A. Levine   2-17-12

Most citizens paying attention to the current Republican presidential primaries would agree that the new power of the SuperPACs following the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court two years ago is undermining the democratic process. By allowing unlimited contributions to these organizations by individuals, corporations, unions and other entities, the voices of ordinary Americans have been drowned out by advertising spawned by special interests.

 Though the Citizens United ruling by a 5-4 decision of the Court was purportedly to enhance freedom of speech, it has greatly tilted the political playing field in favor of the wealthy. And Republican candidates have benefited disproportionately. The pro-Romney SuperPAC, Restore Our Future, collected $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year, with 10% of America’s billionaires contributing. Newt Gingrich’s SuperPAC, Winning The Future, received $10 million from hotel and gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife. Foster Freiss, a wealthy investor, is the main backer of Rick Santorum’s SuperPAC, the Red, White and Blue Fund. With no financial or other restrictions, the SuperPACs have concentrated on negative advertising, using attack ads that bend the truth to tear down opponents. Obama recently reversed his stand on SuperPAC funds to try and bolster his own fundraising to compete with the Republican organizations.

The advent of the SuperPACs promises to make the 2012 election the most expensive and most negative in history, notwithstanding the electorate’s disdain for these ads. Political strategists employ them because they work. And since the SuperPACs are supposed to be independent of the campaigns, it allows the candidates deniability for the mudslinging.

How can America control the growth and power of these SuperPACs that allow the most affluent individuals and corporations to dominate the political dialogue? Though Citizens United could be overturned by a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, neither of these is very likely. However, increasing the transparency of the SuperPACs could have a significant effect. Donors might be more reluctant to contribute knowing that they and their businesses would be open to scrutiny if their names were promptly revealed. It would also show voters where the candidates were generating support and stockholders where their money was going.

The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) was originally introduced in 2010. It was passed by the House and blocked by Republicans in the Senate on a party-line vote. Though most of its provisions appear to be common sense in a democratic system, the problem with the bill is that it was formulated by Democrats; Schumer, Leahy and Whitehouse in the Senate and Van Hollen in the House. It has been recently reintroduced, but without any bipartisan support, it is virtually dead on arrival in both Houses of Congress.

Among the important provisions of the DISCLOSE Act-

Would require explicit disclaimers for political ads- the top fund raiser would have to issue a disclaimer standing by the information given, similar to what candidates currently must do. And the five top donors to the organization would be listed on the screen at the end of the ad.

Corporations receiving federal contracts worth more than $50,000, foreign corporations, and companies that have not paid back their TARP money would be banned from spending money on federal elections.

The act would also require that donors of $10,000 or more be revealed within twenty-four hours, which would go a long way towards transparency.

Though the DISCLOSE Act has been opposed by the ACLU as well as Republicans as an infringement on free speech and privacy, it seems reasonable to have people and organizations who sponsor political advertisements stand behind their messages. It’s merely truth in advertising and anonymous negative ads have no place in our democracy.

In terms of political advertising in America (and everywhere else), it’s obvious that- money talks; always has and always will.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Reversal for Fortune- Obama and the SuperPACs

                                                Robert A. Levine  2-13-12

The Citizen’s United ruling by the Supreme Court two years ago, equating donations of money with free speech, changed the political landscape for campaign fundraising, fostering the emergence of SuperPACs as the main conduit for wealthy contributors. President Obama’s recent change of heart regarding the pursuit of funds for Democratic SuperPACs to compete with Republican entities has provided another issue that allows him to be skewered by his opponents. The latter, of course, who are collecting sums at a breathtaking pace from their stable of affluent donors, do not acknowledge their hypocrisy in criticizing Obama for doing the very same thing.

However, Obama did previously take a strong stand in opposition to the SuperPACs. This position apparently changed when he became convinced that his unwillingness to seek financing for his own SuperPACs would place him at a competitive disadvantage in his current campaign for re-election. While the SuperPACs of the Republican candidates are engaged mainly in internecine warfare at the moment, they are still managing to fire regular broadsides at the president.
The organization tied to Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, raised $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year, with 10% of the billionaires in America contributing. Newt Gingrich’s campaign is being kept alive by one man, Sheldon Adelson, the hotel and gambling magnate, with him and his wife having donated $10 million to the Gingrich SuperPAC, Win Our Future. The SuperPAC of Rick Santorum, the Red, White and Blue Fund, is being supported by Foster Freiss, a wealthy backer of conservative causes. Though the Republican candidates and SuperPACs are fighting each other now, their antipathy for Obama will drive them to unite around the ultimate nominee, which means that all of their financing and vitriol will be directed at the president. In fact, Adelson has apparently already communicated his intention to donate money to support Romney if he is the nominee. And Karl Rove’s Republican SuperPAC, American Crossroads, collected $51 million last year, with an objective of an additional $200 million to be used in this year’s elections.

Did Obama have any alternative to trying to generate funds for his own Democratic SuperPAC? Obviously, there is some heavy financial artillery arrayed against him. But one of Obama’s strengths in the 2008 campaign resided in his ability to attract multiple donors to contribute small amounts for him over the Internet and through other channels. This time around, he already collected over $224 million for his campaign and the Democratic Party in 2011, with the efforts continuing this year. So he will not exactly be facing his Republican opponent “unilaterally disarmed” as Jim Messina, his campaign manager, claimed. However, direct donations to the presidential campaigns by any individual are capped at $2500 for this election cycle and $30,800 to party committees. There are no limits on donations to the SuperPACs, allowing huge sums to be harvested from a small number of contributors. This includes individuals, corporations, unions and other entities, making fundraising a lot simpler.

The SuperPACs are an invitation to corruption, with special interests able to buy support for their favored candidates with enormous sums. If President Obama had stuck to his guns in denouncing the SuperPACs and refused to use them in his current campaign, he would have held the moral high ground against his Republican opponent. Obama’s position would have elicited sympathy and backing from much of the electorate, fed up with the way special interests use money to dominate the political conversation. What’s more, it would have bolstered Obama’s standing with independent voters who strongly favor restrictions on campaign financing. And perhaps his viewpoint would have generated even more donations from an angry public to counter the SuperPACs. Now, Obama is just another candidate trying to raise as much money as possible to enhance his presidential race.

Obama’s current reversal mirrors a similar occurrence during the 2008 election cycle. Though John McCain and Obama had previously agreed on public financing for the presidential campaign, Obama reneged on the agreement when he realized that his fundraising would far surpass his opponent’s. It appears that whatever ideals Obama espouses when not under pressure, in the heat of an election battle he’s willing to do whatever he thinks is necessary to help him get elected. That’s what politicians do.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Scourge of the SuperPACs

                                    Robert A. Levine   

 In this era of unconstrained attack ads and extreme partisan politics, a plague has visited America that increases divisiveness and negativity, generated not by the hand of the Almighty, but through the pockets of the most affluent. This scourge of the SuperPACs has put democracy at risk. A small number of extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as unions and other groups, have been pouring money into the SuperPACs to hijack the political process and elect federal officials who favor their interests. Billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, financiers, private equity and hedge fund managers are the major contributors. Indeed, it appears that the support of Adelson and his wife ($10 million) is what is keeping the Gingrich candidacy for president alive.

While the SuperPACs have recently had an impact in the GOP primaries, the huge sums they are collecting will certainly play a role in the general election for president as well as congressional and senatorial races. This inflow of money was legitimized by the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United two years ago. However, it now threatens America’s democratic process, where everyone’s voice was presumed to be equal in electing officeholders. But in the name of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court provided a megaphone to wealthy political activists to promulgate their views, whereas ordinary citizens can only whisper.

 One person, one vote is no longer a realistic description of how elections work. When individuals can donate millions to tens of millions of dollars to these SuperPACs, enabling them to influence numerous voters, something is rotten in America. In the Republican primary races in contested states, the media buys of the SuperPACs have dominated the airways, even dwarfing advertisements by the campaigns themselves. While the SuperPACs are supposed to be independent of the campaigns, the strong connections between them are thinly veiled, with many personnel employed by the SuperPACs previously having worked for the campaigns.

Though contributors to the SuperPACs are supposed to be revealed periodically, this is often done after the relevant election has passed, preventing voters from learning who was donating and how much to each candidate. And many of the donations are completely concealed from the public by the donors’ use of limited liability corporations or other entities to shield their identities. Some of the SuperPACs also employ 501(c)(4) affiliates to hide their donors, supposed non-profits that do not have to disclose who gives them money. The Republicans have benefited most from the advent of the SuperPACs, with Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney group, leading the pack. This PAC reined in close to $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year. 10% of all the billionaires in America have already contributed to Romney. But the Obama campaign has recently signaled that it is going to step up its efforts to fund its own SuperPACs to compete with the Republicans.

 While there are strict limits on how much any individual can donate to a specific campaign ($2500) or party committee ($30,800) during an election cycle, the big hitters previously got around these restrictions by bundling contributions from friends, relatives and associates together. The Federal Election Commission was able to police these donations to be certain the limits were not being disregarded. But with the SuperPACs after Citizens United, there are no limits and no policing of political donations. A wealthy person or corporation can give any amount to support politicians of his or her choice. It is likely that over time, direct campaign financing will become less significant as the SuperPACs become the main conduit by which people, corporations, unions and other groups back candidates.

Can anything be done to reverse the pernicious ruling of the Supreme Court that has provided the moneyed interests with even more political power than they previously had? Overturning Citizens United which unleashed this scourge would take a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, neither which is likely. Though it does not appear that Congress can stop the influx of cash (even if it were so inclined), it can increase transparency by making all of these contributions immediate public knowledge. Perhaps the negative publicity and rebuke that might follow would be enough for some of the affluent players to opt out of the SuperPAC sweepstakes, not wanting to subject themselves and their businesses to the kind of scrutiny that would result. Of course, getting Congress to act on this is another story.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Federal Election Commission and Citizens United

                                  Robert A. Levine  

 With the increasing role Super PACs are playing in the 2012 Republican primaries, and will play in the general election, isn’t there some entity to police the donation of unlimited funds to these groups and make these donations more transparent? Theoretically, for awhile, there was; the Federal Election Commission (F.E.C.).

 Congress established the F.E.C. in 1974 as an independent regulatory agency. Its mission was to enforce the provisions of campaign finance law for federal elections, including the public disclosure of information, the limits and prohibitions on contributions, as well as to supervise the public funding of presidential campaigns.
To insure a balanced political approach by the Commission (as well as future gridlock), it was to consist of six members, with no more than three permitted from the same party, and with four votes necessary for any action. The Commission was structured this way to supposedly ensure bipartisan, or nonpartisan, rulings, (and to be certain that no decisions would be overly detrimental to either of the two major parties). The members were to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve six year terms, with a rollover of two new appointees every two years.

Critics of the F.E.C. point to the balance between Republicans and Democrats as being responsible for its inability to force adherence to campaign finance regulations over the years and for seeming to be supportive of the interests of the two major parties. When the Commission has acted, it is usually long after the fact, the elections being over and the winners ensconced in their offices, the penalties often minor. Currently complicating the picture, the terms of five of the six F.E.C. commissioners have expired. Though President Obama could appoint new members, Senate Republicans would undoubtedly block their confirmation.

 The original Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971 along with its subsequent amendments produced guidelines with the objective of legally limiting campaign contributions. As ways to evade these regulations were found, a further attempt to control runaway contributions, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) was enacted. This was subsequently emasculated by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision two years ago.

 The impotence of the F.E.C. and indeed any government agency to limit campaign contributions has become more evident (and tragic) since the Citizens United ruling. Special interest money has been surging into so-called Super-PACs and independent organizations, some of them masquerading as social welfare advocates, to run attack ads against political opponents. The Supreme Court held that unlimited contributions by corporations and unions, as well as wealthy individuals, to these so-called “independent” organizations are permissible, based on the concept that political spending was a form of free speech. The use of 501(c)(4) non-profit affiliates by these organizations allows some donors to remain anonymous while they covertly influence elections with vast amounts of money. In those SuperPACs where donors are revealed periodically, it is often after the election has taken place, so that voters are not aware of where the money in support of a candidate came from.

 While the F.E.C. can still monitor and limit contributions that go directly to political parties and candidates, unrestricted spending on campaigns by outside organizations makes this power of scant value. It is possible that SuperPACs and independent groups will collect and spend more during the current election cycle than the candidates and the political parties themselves, as occurred in the media blitz during the recent Florida G.O.P. primary. The ability of these organizations, by utilizing special interest money, to shape politics in America is a grave threat to the democratic process.

 The impotence of the F.E.C. to control campaign spending is another symptom of the dysfunction in Washington. The two parties continue to be unable or unwilling to agree on how to bring the nuclear arms race of campaign financing under control. Unfortunately, overturning Citizens United may take a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, both of which seem unlikely. Until Americans understand the ramifications of Citizens United and pressure politicians to limit the influence of special interest money, spending on federal elections can be expected to escalate indefinitely.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Best Election Money Can Buy

                                 Robert A. Levine   January 31, 2012

They say that money can’t buy happiness, but the Florida G.O.P. primary shows once again that it can buy elections. Unlike the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, winning Florida with its large and diverse population can not be accomplished by “retail campaigning.” It’s impossible to reach enough voters to make a difference by shaking hands and scheduled appearances. The only way to influence people is through the media, which means the more money, the more exposure.

 After Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina, one would have thought his momentum would have led to a surge in his numbers in Florida, another Southern state that elected a conservative Republican governor and senator in 2010. Indeed, Gingrich was ahead of Romney by 9 percentage points in Florida after his South Carolina win according to the Rasmussen Reports. However, massive spending on advertisements by the Romney campaign and the SuperPACs aligned with Romney, bombarded the airwaves with negative sound bites about Gingrich that transformed the outlook for the two candidates. As of January 29, the same Rasmussen poll had Romney leaving Gingrich in the dust, leading 44% to 28%, a stunning reversal in a short period of time.

But virtually unlimited funding can buy a lot of airtime on radio and TV, allowing Romney to constantly pound away at his opponent. ABC News has estimated that Romney and his SuperPACs have outspent Gingrich and his by a four to one ratio. And total spending by the two campaigns in Florida has been projected at over $22 million.

 On local, network and cable TV stations, Romney ads have been appearing eight to ten times as frequently as those of Gingrich. Day after day, hour after hour, the Romney machine has blasted away at Gingrich, an unending stream of negative messages that have taken a toll on the former House Speaker. Gingrich has been called an influence peddler, his role with Freddie Mac highlighted, the $1.6 million he received in fees contrasted with the housing mess in Florida. His ethics problems while in Congress with the $300,000 fine have also been featured in numerous advertisements. To target the large Latino population, the reports that Gingrich had called Spanish the language of the ghetto were repeatedly emphasized in the Hispanic media. With the barrage of damaging portrayals of Gingrich saturating the airwaves, is it any wonder that his image as a smart electable conservative has been torn to shreds.

 The Romney campaign’s funding advantage has also produced a far superior organization, with many more boots on the ground to do canvassing, make phone calls, hand out flyers, get supporters to the polls, etc.
 The developments in Florida have certainly pacified the Republican establishment that was fearful of Gingrich’s ascendancy. While Romney’s winning of the Republican presidential nomination is not yet a foregone conclusion, he will be well on his way to victory after the Florida primary. When differences among the candidates on important issues are relatively minimal, it’s evident once more that the deciding factor is who has the deepest pockets. Unfortunately, even more money will be spent and more negativity spewed forth when the general election campaign commences.

Resurrecting Democracy

http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/