Newsroom

Newsroom

KUNC Colorado: Reps. Buck And Polis Want Better Enforcement Of Campaign Finance Laws (In the News)

By Michael De Yoanna
Twelve members of Congress are supporting the Restoring Integrity to America’s Election Act, including two from Colorado: Reps. Ken Buck and Jared Polis, a Republican and a Democrat, respectively.
Buck said the commission was “set up in a way that invited deadlock, and that’s just what we’ve got.”…
The act seeks to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five. No more than two members of the commission could be from the same party. A fifth proposed commissioner would be the chairperson and nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a 10-year term.
Groups like Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy organization focused on government ethics and political reform, are supporting the legislation as a way to restore enforcement surrounding money in politics.
Other groups, like the Center for Competitive Politics, worry that the bill’s deciding presidential pick would create an ideological tilt on the commission.
“It would transform campaign finance law enforcement into a partisan exercise, no matter how the agency markets itself,” the group said in a press release.

Filed Under: In the News, Quotes CCP

Daily Media Links 4/28: Should ‘Dark’ Money Power the Resistance to Trump?, NYCLU’s request for donor exemption is denied, and more…

  In the News KUNC Colorado: Reps. Buck And Polis Want Better Enforcement Of Campaign Finance Laws By Michael De Yoanna Twelve members of Congress are supporting the Restoring Integrity to America’s Election Act, including two from Colorado: Reps. Ken Buck and Jared Polis, a Republican and a Democrat, respectively. Buck said the commission was […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

Daily Media Links 4/27: The Bipartisan Urge to Suppress Dissent, Campaign finance reform measures die in Colorado legislature, and more…

In the News Forbes: Stop Using ‘Special Interests’ As An Insult By Joe Albanese The way the term “special interests” is used in practice suggests that it’s simply shorthand for “bad thing my opponent supports.” After all, depending on one’s views, “special interests” may encompass big business or big labor, fossil fuel or green energy […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

Forbes: Stop Using ‘Special Interests’ As An Insult (In the News)

By Joe Albanese
The way the term “special interests” is used in practice suggests that it’s simply shorthand for “bad thing my opponent supports.” After all, depending on one’s views, “special interests” may encompass big business or big labor, fossil fuel or green energy companies, and single-issue and ideological groups like the Club for Growth or EMILY’s List.
In fact, one can fairly say that all of those groups are “special interests.” And that’s okay.
“Special interests” – or the more fitting term, advocacy groups – simplify democracy rather than subvert it. Most Americans don’t have the time or ability to analyze legislation, organize grassroots activity, or follow the ins and outs of the political process. Advocacy groups bridge the gap between citizens and government. They communicate their members’ views to public officials and inform the public of important political developments. For every advocacy group with one viewpoint, there is almost certainly another one making the opposite case. Some groups you’ll support, and others you’ll oppose, but they all contribute to the exchange of ideas that makes democracy work.

Filed Under: In the News, Joe Albanese, Published Articles

Daily Media Links 4/26: Lawsuit Challenges Oregon Law Prohibiting Mathematical Criticism Without a License, Social Media in Politics-and The Problem of What (or Not) to Do About Fake News, and more…

Supreme Court Courthouse News Service: Justices Reject Alabama Campaign-Finance Case By Dan McCue The Supreme Court said Monday they won’t take up a case challenging Alabama’s ban on the transfer of campaign contributions between political action committees. The decision of the justices left in place an 11th Circuit ruling that the 2010 law does not […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

Daily Media Links 4/25: U.S. top court preserves Alabama campaign finance curbs, Bill Would Force Maine-Based PACs to Shed Light on Secretive Contributors, and more…

Free Speech Washington Post: A scholar asks, ‘Can democracy survive the Internet?’ By Dan Balz The rise and power of the Internet has accelerated the decline of institutions that once provided a mediating force in campaigns. Neither the legacy media nor the established political parties exercise the power they once had as referees, particularly in […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

Daily Media Links 4/24: Floyd Abrams Sees Trump’s Anti-Media Tweets as Double-Edged Swords, Internet Speech 2016: More Regulation Needed?, and more…

CCP Trust No One – Except Politicians? By Luke Wachob Just as most of us wouldn’t leave it up to McDonald’s and Burger King to tell us how healthy a cheeseburger is, we shouldn’t leave it up to political candidates to tell us the whole truth about their voting record, character, and qualifications for office. […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

Daily Media Links 4/21: On Party Line Vote, FEC Rejects Continued Exemption from Disclosure for Socialist Workers Party, Privacy as a Philanthropic Pillar, and more…

Disclosure Election Law Blog: On Party Line Vote, FEC Rejects Continued Exemption from Disclosure for Socialist Workers Party By Rick Hasen The Supreme Court has long recognized that a group facing a realistic threat of harassment for revealing its donors or vendors has a First Amendment right to exemption from generally applicable campaign finance laws. […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

Philanthropy Magazine: The Legal and Political Landscape of Donor Privacy (In the News)

By Sean Parnell
A 2014 lawsuit challenging the California attorney general’s demands, filed by the Center for Competitive Politics, argued that mandatory donor disclosure violates the First Amendment. Several additional 501c3 nonprofit organizations, including The Philanthropy Roundtable, filed amicus briefs in support of CCP’s petition…
Unfortunately, the way campaign finance laws are written they often encompass speech by charities related to issues, not candidates or elections. This is exactly what happened to the Independence Institute, a Colorado-based think tank organized under section 501c3 of the federal tax code and thus prohibited from intervening in elections. In 2014 it wanted to pay for radio advertisements encouraging Coloradoans to contact their two U.S. senators and urge them to support criminal-justice reforms, something well within the scope of proper activity for a charity.
But because one of the state’s two senators was running for re-election at the time, the Independence Institute would have been forced to reveal its major donors if it had run the ads within 60 days of the election. It decided not to run the ads and sued to challenge the application of campaign finance law to organizations that cannot legally engage in election campaigns.

Filed Under: In the News, In the News Our Cases

Daily Media Links 4/20: FEC Mulls How Much Harassment Is Enough for Disclosure Exemption, Advocacy Groups Challenge Ethics Laws, and more…

In the News                                            Philanthropy Magazine: The Legal and Political Landscape of Donor Privacy By Sean Parnell A 2014 lawsuit challenging the California attorney general’s demands, filed by the Center for Competitive Politics, argued that mandatory donor disclosure violates the First Amendment. Several additional 501c3 nonprofit organizations, including The Philanthropy Roundtable, filed amicus briefs […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links