Blog

Give speech a chance

Published on July 3, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle - home district paper of congressional candidate Jack Davis - ran a pair of op-eds (including one by Davis) examining the wider impact of the Supreme Court's decision in overturning the Millionaire's Amendment.  The opinions were predictable.

Davis contends that the current system allows lobbyists to have too large a voice in Washington. Naturally, voters should cast their ballots for him because his wealth allows him to be independent "from status quo politics and fundraising."

A representative of the League of Women Voters predictably counters that the decision makes it easier "to buy a seat in Congress."  But as Justice Samuel Alito suggested in the Court's majority opinion overturning the Millionaire's Amendment, if one believes that contribution limits "make it harder for candidates who are not wealthy to raise funds and therefore provide a substantial advantage for wealthy candidates...then the obvious remedy is to raise or eliminate those limits."

Notably absent from the paper's opinion pages was any suggestion that the best thing for our democracy is a return to First Amendment principles.

More after the jump.

Welfare Fraud

Published on July 3, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

In a delicious piece of irony, the Hartford Courant reports today that Connecticut state senator Joe Crisco, who voted for the state's new government-financing program, was denied the $85,000 government handout for failing to properly certify his application.

Instead of having his campaign treasurer sign an affidavit pledging to abide by the rules of the political welfare scheme, Crisco allowed his treasurer's secretary to sign the name of the treasurer.

District Court Denial of Preliminary Injunction Request Leaves SpeechNow.org Silenced

Published on July 1, 2008

A federal judge today denied a preliminary injunction request by SpeechNow.org, effectively silencing the citizen group in the midst of the 2008 election season.

SpeechNow.org is an independent group of citizens formed to protect the First Amendment at the ballot box.  The group is challenging federal campaign finance laws that say that any time two or more people pool their resources to support or oppose a federal candidate, they become a "political committee" subject to government limits-$5,000 per supporter per year-and bureaucratic red tape.

SpeechNow.org asked for a preliminary injunction so that it could begin its political advocacy immediately and without fear of legal penalties from the Federal Election Commission as the case proceeds.  Accepting or spending just $1,000 on speech opposing candidates would trigger those penalties-so the group has remained silent.

More after the jump.

Web politics

Published on July 1, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: Internet Regulation

The impact that the internet has had on Barack Obama's ability/decision to opt out of the presidential public financing system has been examined to the point of near exhaustion. Over the weekend, the New York Times offered an insightful look into another way that the internet has transformed politics.

This phenomen has turned "political activists" into "communications political strategists" and allowed citizens to reach an audience the size of which watches Meet the Press for as little as $50. The cause, of course, is the ability of just about anyone to use inexpensive editing software to produce their own political videos that could be viewed by millions on YouTube and other video sharing sites.

"For years I sat in conversations with people who said the only way we can be effective is we have to raise $1 billion and buy CBS. Well, Google raised a couple of billion and bought YouTube, and it’s here for us, and it’s a huge, huge difference,” observed one online activist.

The internet's ability to amplify the voice of ordinary citizens should merit protection across the political spectrum.

CCP welcomes new Government and Coalition Relations Director

Published on July 1, 2008

CCP welcomes Kristi Meade as our new Government & Coalition Relations Director.  Kristi most recently worked for Purdue University's Office of Governmental Relations, working on federal affairs.  Before becoming the voice of Purdue in DC, Kristi worked at the Leadership Institute. While at LI, Kristi worked with students throughout the mid-Atlantic to help them develop plans to engage politically on college campuses. She also aided in the cultivation of LI's donor base. Kristi graduated from Purdue University in 2004.

A bit of irony

Published on July 1, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

Just days removed from a victory at the Supreme Court, congressional hopeful Jack Davis was dealt a blow when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced it would support Iraq veteran Jon Powers in the Democratic primary.

The DCCC certainly has the freedom to support whomever it wishes in primary fights, and now, thanks to the Supreme Courts ruling, Jack Davis has the freedom to spend his own money on his behalf without penalty.

Stevens: Politics Shouldn't be as Tough as Beanbag

Published on June 27, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: Faulty Assumptions, Jurisprudence & Litigation

 Yesterday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the "Millionaire's Amendment" was a great victory for the First Amendment (you can read CCP's amicus brief on the case here), strengthening earlier decisions by the court rejecting the notion that Congress can infringe on First Amendment rights in order to "equalize" speech by competing candidates.

Reading the dissent by Justice Stevens, however, should send a chill down the spine of anyone who values political speech free of government management. In his dissent, Stevens explicitly endorses the idea of limiting the quantity of speech in politics. Apparently, all of the ads filling the airwaves encouraging voters to support one candidate or oppose another, or care about this issue or that one, hurt the Justices preference for an "orderly debate," as he puts it.

"... the imposition of reasonable limitations would likely have the salutary effect of improving the quality of the exposition of ideas," Stevens writes. "After all, orderly debate is always more enlightening than a shouting match that awards points on the basis of decibels rather than reasons."

More after the jump

Thoughts on Davis

Published on June 26, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

Before McCain-Feingold even became law, First Amendment and campaign finance attorneys knew that its wreckage would keep them busy for years to come. 

"I feel like the tow truck driver who just heard about the 100-car pileup on the freeway," said respected campaign finance attorney Jan Baran.

Today, the Supreme Court removed more of the debris caused by the law when it issued its decision in a case challenging the so-called Millionaires' Amendment provisions of McCain-Feingold.

The court's decision had the potential to impact campaign finance jurisprudence even more profoundly -either positively or negatively - than last summer's successful challenge to McCain-Feingold's "electioneering communications" provision. 

More after the jump.

Supreme Court overturns Millionaire's Amendment

Published on June 26, 2008

The Supreme Court overturned the so-called Millionaire's Amendment provision of the "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance law in a decision issued by the court today.

"The First Amendment secured an important victory today," said Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, which filed an amicus brief in the case.  "The Court reaffirmed that Congress cannot use campaign finance regulations to ‘level the playing field.'"

More after the jump.

Millionaires Amendment ruled unconstitutional

Published on June 26, 2008

via SCOTUSblog

Next 10