1. Monday November 18, 2013
OBJ: SWBAT form an opinion on campaign finance reform and whether it is necessary or not.
Drill: What were the facts of Citizens United vs. FEC? Why was this an important case?
Homework: Read Pivotal Campaign Finance Case…” CLUES

2. Current Events
Four presenters.

3. Agrree or Disagree
Write an A for Agree or D for disagree for each scenario.
Watch the short video clip, Does this seem like a campaign ad, or an example of First Amendment Rights? Why

4. Decision in Citizens United v. FEC
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
In Citizens United v. FEC the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment federal statutory prohibitions on “independent expenditures” by corporations and labor organizations.
Essentially, the Court’s ruling permits corporations and labor organizations to use their treasury funds to make independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering communications.
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not affect the ban on corporate or union contributions to candidates or the reporting requirements for independent expenditures on electioneering communications.
The 5/4 decision overruled two precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations:
A 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates;
A 2003 decision in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

5. Decision in Citizens United v. FEC
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision did continue the Supreme Court’s 1976 distinction, in its decision in Buckley v. Valeo, between constitutionally impermissible regulation of election “expenditures” and constitutionally permissible regulations of “contributions.”
The Court in Citizens United also upheld the validity of federal law disclosure and disclaimer requirements applicable to election-related advertising by corporations and unions. These disclosure requirements will now apply to advertising by corporations and unions that is permitted as a result of this opinion.
Currently, organizations spending more than $250 with respect to a given election in a calendar year on election-related ads must report those expenditures to the FEC on FEC Form 5.

6. What Changed
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
This decision allows corporations (and labor unions) to fund, directly, independent media communications (including, but not limited to radio, television, internet, and mail) expressly advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates.
Example – “Vote for Obama” or “Defeat Obama”
Broad Impact – The same First Amendment analysis applies equally to state and municipal statutes that similarly prohibit corporate expenditures advocating the election or defeat of state candidates, including judicial candidates in those states that elect judges.
All corporate independent expenditures must be truthfully disclosed to the FEC, subject to civil or criminal penalties.

7. © 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
What Didn’t Change
Direct corporate or union contributions to federal candidates or federal party committees remain prohibited.
While the First Amendment distinction between permissible “expenditures” and prohibited “contributions” is somewhat artificial, the Court has long recognized such a distinction since its seminal 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo.
Public Communications by corporations that are coordinated with candidates and parties remain prohibited.
Foreign nationals are still prohibited from involvement in U.S. elections.
2 U.S.C 441e and 11 C.F.R prohibit “contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals” directly or indirectly.
FEC regulations have long recognized that U.S. domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations may participate in U.S. election-related activities, where only U.S. citizens or foreign nationals with U.S. permanent resident status may be involved in such activities.
The “soft money” limitations of the McCain-Feingold Act on national parties and others were not changed by the decision.

8. Impact on Corporate PACs
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
Impact on Corporate PACs
Although the statutory requirements and FEC rules were not changed by the holding, there is a practical impact.
Because corporations can spend money directly on electioneering communications, one permissible use of the PAC (electioneering) can now be accomplished outside the PAC and outside the restrictions on PAC fundraising and expenditures.
A PAC does remain useful as a vehicle for direct contributions to federal candidates and other committees.

9. Practical Implications
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
Practical Implications
A corporation (and labor union) for the first time can communicate with the public, directly through any media, at any time, in support of any federal candidate.
Direct corporate (and labor union) contributions to federal candidates and federal committees remain prohibited. Such contributions can be made by individuals or a PAC.
Many corporations and labor unions may revisit the use of a corporate PAC.
Some existing state prohibitions that are narrowly tailored to prohibit the time and manner of electioneering expenditures by registered lobbyists may have stronger compelling state interests that survive the First Amendment challenge.

10. Two Sides of CFR Read your article.
Make notes in the margins or another sheet of paper
Be prepared to defend your article’s position in a small group discussion
You will be placed with 3 other people, 2 with different articles one with the same.
Discuss each point, vote on whether you think your author has the correct argument and why.

11. Tuesday November 19, 2013
OBJ: SWBAT understand why Campaign Finance Reform was introduced and the argument that continues about it today by examining the Bill through multiple perspectives.
Drill: What trends do you see in this chart for feelings toward CU vs. FEC? Surprised?
Homework: Wilson Cornell Notes DUE THURSDAY NOVEMBER 21

12. What you need to know about campaign finance
FEC – Federal Election Commission
BCRA – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
Hard money = Federal money
Political donations raised from federally permissible sources within the limits established by BCRA
Soft money = Nonfederal money
Political donations made in such a way as to avoid federal regulations.

13. Pivotal CF Case
What did the article predict will happen after this case?
Why do they think so?
Is this a good or bad thing? Explain.

14. Overview History of Campaign Finance Regulation
Beginning of time—Civil War: No regulation
Civil War—1910
Gilded Age
Exceptionally scandalous politicians nationally
Boss Tweed
1868: 75% of money used in congressional elections through party assessments
1867: Naval Appropriations Bill
First federal effort to regulate campaign finance
Aimed at stopping the political shakedown naval yard workers for political contributions
Prohibits officers and employees of the fed. gov’t from soliciting contributions
1883: Civil Service Reform Act (Pendleton Act) prohibits the same solicitation of all federal workers

15. Overview History of Campaign Finance Regulation
Corrupt Practices Acts of 1911 and 1925
Set disclosure requirements for House and Senate Elections
Spending limits ($25k for Senate; $5k for House)
Ridiculously weak and regularly violated
1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
1976: Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

16. Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo, (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

17. Campaign Finance Reform and Buckley I
Original Provision
Effect of Buckley v. Valeo
Expenditure limits
Overall spending limits (Congress and president)
Struck down partially (freedom of speech)
Limits on the use of candidates’ own resources
Struck down entirely (freedom of speech)
Limits on media expenditures
Independent expenditure limits

18. Campaign Finance Reform and Buckley II
Original Provision
Effect of Buckley v. Valeo
Contribution limits
Individual limits: $1k/candidate/election
Affirmed
PAC limits: $5k/candidate/election
Party committee limits: $5k/candidate/election
Cap on total contributions individual can make to all candidates ($25k)
Struck down (freedom of speech)
Cap on spending “on behalf of candidates” by parties

19. Federal Election Commission
Purpose
In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
the statute that governs the financing of federal elections.
The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to
disclose campaign finance information
enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions,
oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

20. FEC Rules & Regulations The Players
Government
FEC – Federal Election Commission
Campaign Committees
Candidates
National Party Committees
State & Local Party Committees
Separate Segregated Funds
PACs connected to corporations, unions, etc.
Nonconnected Committees
All other PACs
527s
Individuals

21. Various Election Law Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) 1975
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) 2002
Major changes under BCRA

22. McCain Feingold 2002
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold," after its sponsors, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits of expenditure set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions (called "soft money") to national political parties. ‘Soft money’ also refers to funds spent by independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns.

23. What does Federal Election Law Regulate?
In General
The financing of federal elections
Specifically
Disclosure of financial activity
Contributions
Receiving and Giving
Expenditures
Candidate support activities
Federal election activities

24. Types of Money Federal Funds Levin Funds Nonfederal Funds
Collected from permissible sources
Subject to contribution limits
Levin Funds
For state and local party committees only
Collected from any entity except fed cand.
Only used for certain types of FEA
Nonfederal Funds
Subject to state law only
May be used to pay for expenses related to not federal elections

25. Hierarchy of MONEY State Parties
Federal
“Hard Money”
Levin
Quasi-Fed $
State
“Soft Money”
Federal Money
Most limitations
Federal, state and local elections
Levin Money
Fewer limitations
Some Federal election activities, state and local
State Money
Typically, fewest limitations
State and local elections only

26. Where does my money go? It depends! Candidate
Candidate specific activities
Contributions to other candidates, parties or causes
DNC/RNC
Federal candidates
Allocated nationally
State Party Committees
Federal, state & local candidates
Allocated statewide
PACs
Support candidates, parties that agree on specific issues
527s
Separate campaign

27. Campaign Finance: Soft Money and Hardball Politics
You will be examining positions on Campaign Finance:
You will be divided into groups and assigned a number of questions.
As a group discuss these and decide on your position/answers for each.
Select one member of your group to present your results to the class.

28. Wrap Up Response
Using what you know about CFR, the First Amendment, and the US Government decide: Does the government need to regulate Campaign donations? If so why, and are they doing a good enough job?
Use specific examples.

29. Wrap Up
Based on your discussion does the First Amendment allow for a loophole in Campaign Finance? How so?