In the continuing saga of Presidential Election 2012, the media and voters — and apparently candidates — are all still trying to get a handle on the role of SuperPACs and their influence in this new, exciting, and uncharted world of politics post Citizens United. While much has been written on the subject, things still seem murky. Especially for some of those writing about it. Unfortunately for the general public, the press is passing their confusion on to the voters.
This morning the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of a 3 judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, upholding the power of government to bar political contributions to parties, PACs, and candidates from non-resident aliens. The decision was no surprise here or elsewhere.
Filed Under: Blog
A pair of CCP friends and allies, Jim Bopp (aka “the Big Bopper”) and Chip Mellor of the Institute for Justice have been the subject of favorable profiles in the press this past week.
The effort to roll back restrictive speech regulation is a huge one. It is a good thing to have such talented allies in the fight, and the recognition they receive is indicative of the progress we’ve made in this fight since CCP was founded six years ago. It’s great to see both Jim and Chip and IJ get such well-deserved recognition.
Filed Under: In the News
The folks over at Democracy 21 have issued a report concerning the role of independent-expenditure-only committees (i.e., Super PACs) in this year’s presidential race. The report is modestly titled: “Leading Presidential-Candidate Super PACs and The Serious Questions That Exist About Their Legality.”
As a general rule, I wouldn’t comment on something this hysterical (words like “monstrosity” and “eviscerate” are thrown about with abandon). But this paper claims that specific people are violating the law, which is not the sort of charge that should ever be made lightly, no matter how upset Democracy 21 may be about the Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings.
Briefly, the report makes two major legal errors – errors I would expect seasoned election lawyers to have immediately noticed.
The Center for Competitive Politics has had a slew of media hits in the past week. We expect to have even more as the two-year anniversary of the Citizens United decision approaches at the end of January and discussion regarding SuperPACS, money in politics, the continued lack of negativity in campaign ads, and the increasing influence of grassroots groups in the election cycle continue to make the news. Here’s a list of our most recent mentions. We hope you find them informative and will continue to help us get the word out through your support.
In the nearly two years since the Citizens United decision, the progressive movement has used every avenue it can find to adapt anti-corruption regulation into a force for intimidating corporations out of engaging in independent expenditures.
One of the outcomes of this tactic has been a rise in activist investing. Taking advantage of SEC regulation, activist shareholders buy the requisite value of stock needed to introduce shareholder proposals and propose burdensome disclosure rules targeting political expenditures.
Reform groups can hem and haw all day about the merits of various disclosure regimes, but at the end of the day, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that these proposals are in the service of cultivating political power and control.