CCP files Amicus in Washington Case

Sarah Lee, Communications Director,

Center for Competitive Politics

703.894.6824

slee@campaignfreedom.org

Alexandria, Va. - The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) on Thursday, Sept. 22, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Robin Farris and the “Recall Dale Washam” committee in Washington State.

Farris has been involved in trying to recall Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer Dale Washam for, among other charges, using his office to retaliate against his personal and political opponents, actions that are grounds for recall in Washington State.

After the state’s Supreme Court determined Washam was eligible for a recall, Farris and her group began a campaign to gather signatures to place the recall on the ballot. Because of Washam’s tendency to retaliate against his opponents, Farris had difficulty recruiting volunteers to gather signatures. She then attempted to hire less intimidated professional signature gatherers but was stymied by the cost. Moreover, due to the contribution limits imposed by the state’s campaign finance laws, the group wasn’t able to afford the costs of raising funds, a necessary element in trying to pay professionals to gather signatures.

 

 

Filed Under: Completed Case, Farris v. Seabrook Other Links, Litigation Blog/Press Releases, Press Releases, amicus brief, Washington

Testimony of Allen Dickerson before the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Policy Committee

This is the testimony of Allen Dickerson before the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Policy Committee, September 23rd, 2011.

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Comments, Contribution Limits State, Disclosure, Disclosure Comments, Disclosure State, External Relations Comments and Testimony, External Relations Sub-Pages, Legal, Legal Center, State, State Comments and Testimony, Comments and Testimony, Pennsylvania

Amicus Brief: Farris v. Seabrook

Amicus brief of the Center for Competitive Politics in Farris v. Seabrook.

Filed Under: Completed Amicus Briefs, Farris v. Seabrook, Legal, Legal Center, amicus brief, Farris, seabrook, All CCP Legal Documents, Amicus Briefs, Completed Cases (Amicus), Farris v. Seabrook, Amicus Briefs, Completed Cases (Amicus), Washington

Clean Elections & Scandal: Case studies from Maine, Arizona & New York City

On June 27, 2011 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett that the election policies of several states were unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court declared the use of “matching funds,” whereby a privately-financed candidate for political office would be forced to trigger state-granted matching funds for any publicly-funded opponent if he or she spent above a certain threshold, were an unconstitutional demand on a candidate whose speech would be chilled by the mandate.

Filed Under: Research (Contribution Limits), Tax Financed Campaigns Research, Tax-Financing, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, clean election, tax finance, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Arizona, Maine, New York

CCP Releases New Research on Clean Elections and Scandals

Sarah Lee, Communications Director,

Center for Competitive Politics

703.894.6824

slee@campaignfreedom.org

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Center for Competitive Politics has recently released a new research report titled, “Clean Elections and Scandal: Case Studies from Maine, Arizona and New York City.” The report, which details the potential for scandal inherent the matching funds programs included in many states “Clean Elections” legislation, was compiled and produced by Jason Farrell of CCP’s Research Department.

The report uses data collected from a number of news reports and official sources that detailed problems with Clean Election systems in the state campaign finance systems in Maine, Arizona, and New York City. In light of the June 27, 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett that stated the use of “matching funds,” whereby a privately-financed candidate for political office would be forced to trigger state-granted matching funds for any publicly-funded opponent if he or she spent above a certain threshold, were an unconstitutional demand on a candidate whose speech would be chilled by the mandate, the goal was to show how these programs not only fail to deter corruption, they can often exacerbate it, and public funds granted to candidates are often wasted in ways that are both difficult to prove and difficult to track.

 

Filed Under: External Relations Press Releases, External Relations Sub-Pages, Press Releases, State Press Releases and Blogs, Tax Financed Campaigns Press Release/In the News/Blog, Tax Financed Campaigns State, Maine

Manhattan Institute: Political Activism Meets Corporate Governance

Filed Under: Other Resources – Corporate Governance – Manhattan Institute – Articles, Books, Publications

Manhattan Institute: Political Activism Meets Corporate Governance

Filed Under: Other Resources – Corporate Governance – Manhattan Institute – Articles, Books, Publications

Don’t Feed the Alligators: Government Funding of Political Speech and the Unyielding Vigilance of the First Amendment

Academic Advisor Joel M. Gora analyzes the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club Pac v. Bennet, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011), which struck down the Arizona program for providing government “triggered” matching funds in political campaigns. Under that scheme, a publicly funded candidate, whose campaign is almost wholly funded by [...]

Filed Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research (Contribution Limits), Tax Financed Campaigns Research, Tax Financed Campaigns State, Tax-Financing, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Arizona

Corruption fighting tool or political weapon?

Although Citizens United struck a blow against the government’s ability to moderate political speech, the “reform” community quickly decided their new tack would be to exploit the decision’s section on disclosure requirements to limit their opponents.  The decision, as the New York Times put it

…actually upheld disclosure requirements,  saying that “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

Disclosure regimes play an important role in determining whether there is a corrupting interest at play.  However, there is a line at which point the legitimate role of disclosure is hijacked for the benefit of political opposition. 

Filed Under: Blog

Election Spending to Exceed $6 Billion Thanks Partly to Jim Bopp

-

Filed Under: In the News