1. AN UPDATE ON MONEY IN POLITICS LWV Money in Politics Review and Update Money in Politics Committee 2014-2016 With thanks to LWV of Massachusetts for its continuing work on this topic.

2. LWV Leadership in U.S. democracy has been important since 1920.

3. LWV POSITION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE (January 1974; revised 1982) Methods of financing political campaigns should: – Ensure the public’s right to know – Combat corruption and undue influence – Enable candidates to compete more equitably – Allow maximum citizen participation in the political process This position is applicable to all federal campaigns for public office — presidential and congressional, primaries as well as general elections. It also may be applied to state and local campaigns.

4. LWV WORK ON MONEY IN POLITICS Using this position, the League has worked toward two main goals in recent years: Transparency in financing political campaigns Fighting big money and its influence in elections and government

5. Legislation to Regulate Campaign Finance Response to corruption in the Gilded Age Tillman Act (1907) Tillman Act (1907) Response to growing unionization after WWII Taft-Hartley Act (1947) Taft-Hartley Act (1947) Response to campaign finance abuses and Watergate Federal Election Campaign Act (1971) and Amendments (1974) Federal Election Campaign Act (1971) and Amendments (1974) Response to fundraising and issue ad loopholes Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold, 2002) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold, 2002)

6. THE FIRST AMENDMENT “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”

7. LEAGUE UPDATE Build member understanding and agreement on the extent to which political campaigns are protected speech under the First Amendment. Consider: What are the rights of individuals and organizations, under the First Amendment, to express their political views through independent expenditures and the finance of election campaign activities; and How those rights should be protected and reconciled with the interests set out in the current LWV position.

8. MAJOR SUPREME COURT RULINGS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE 1976 – Buckley v. Valeo 1990 – Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 2010 – Citizens United v. FEC 2014 – McCutcheon v. FEC

9. AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE A "different type of corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form...” (1990)

10. CITIZENS UNITED DECISION “All speakers... use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.” (2010)

11. CITIZENS UNITED MAJORITY OPINION “This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Justice Kennedy

12. JUSTICE STEVENS’ DISSENT Before Citizens United the Court “did not rest our holding on a narrow notion of quid pro quo corruption. Instead we relied on the governmental interest in combating the unique forms of corruption threatened by corporations, as recognized in Austin’s anti- distortion... rationale.”

13. QUID PRO QUO… A Latin phrase that means “this for that.” An explicit agreement by a candidate or elected official to perform a specific act in exchange for something of value. The Court narrowed quid pro quo corruption so that it’s virtually the same as bribery.

14. SUPER PACS Everyone wants to have one.

15. MCCUTCHEON V. FEC DID AWAY WITH AGGREGATE LIMITS Used with permission from Steve Sack 1/28/15 Now there are no limits to the total amount of money an individual may donate in an election season.

16. MCCUTCHEON v. FEC MAJORITY OPINION “…government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.” (2014)

17. JUSTICE BREYER’S DISSENT “The anticorruption interest... is an interest in maintaining the integrity of our public governmental institutions. And it is an interest rooted in the Constitution and in the First Amendment itself.”

18. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of every American to speak out. “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”

19. Arguments in Favor of Unlimited Campaign Spending Money allows the funding of modern communications, which is essential to reach voters. Political communication informs the voters. Government should not regulate political speech, which is basic in a democracy. Just because a candidate takes contributions does not mean that as an elected official s/he will do favors for the contributor—particularly if the spending is “independent.” The funds simply flow to representatives who believe in the position on the issue of the group who is making the donation.

20. Opponents of Unlimited Money See...

21. Some Reasons To Control Election Spending Combat corruption and undue influence in government through special access and special treatment. Prevent distortion of the election process by big spending. Enhance political equality. Enable candidates to compete equitably for public office. Reduce the time and effort that elected officials and candidates for public office expend on campaign fundraising. Prevent office holders from pressuring donors for campaign funds. Ensure through disclosure that voters have sufficient information to make their choices.

22. It Can Get Complicated From the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)

23. 2014 EXPENDITURES From Open Secrets.org 2014 Another Way House – 1442 candidates – $1,032,840,762 raised – Average amount raised about $716,256 Senate – 229 Candidates – $658,358,749 raised – Average amount raised about $2,656,600 Based on data released by the FEC on 19 February 2015. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/

24. Money in Elections Lobbying Hard Money Candidates Caps on Contributions Disclosure Soft Money Political Parties & PACs  Caps on contributions  Disclosure Super PACs Independent Expenditures No Caps on Contributions or Expenditures Dark Money 501(c)(4)'s No Disclosure No Cap on Contributions Expend Only 50% On Electioneering Fundraising Bundling

25. WHAT STATES CAN DO  Voter rights and access  Citizen funded elections  Clean elections reforms  Get Disclosure and Stop Coordination

26. WHAT YOU CAN DO Learn how politics is financed at federal, state and local levels. Offer community education forums. Use Money in Politics Review resources found on the League Management site, http://forum.lwv.org/category/member- resources/our-work/money-politics-review

27. WHAT YOU CAN DO cont. Participate in the League’s Money in Politics member study and consensus. Familiarize yourself with money in politics issues by reading the background papers Leagues will receive study guide and consensus questions in Fall 2015. Hold consensus meetings. Report consensus results to LWVUS by February 1, 2016.

28. VOTE! Local Elections State Elections National Elections Encourage your friends, families and neighbors to be active, involved citizens like you!

29. Come join the effort and become a member of LWV, if you are not one already!

30. Barbara Zia, SC – Chair Peggy Appler, SC Jeanne Brown, CA Amy Fitzgerald, TN Jeanne Logsdon, NM Corlette Moore McCoy, MA Susan Murnane, OH George Schumann, KY Lonni Skrentner, MN Launa Zimmaro, MA Betsy Lawson, Staff Support LWVUS MIP Committee