This memo dispells several popular myths surrounding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV), which is quietly being signed onto in state legislatures across the country.
Policy Memorandum: National Popular Vote
Filed Under: Electoral College, Research, national popular vote, npv, Electoral College, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Issue Analysis 6: Do Lower Contribution Limits Produce “Good” Government?
Often, proponents of increased campaign finance regulation argue that lower contribution limits will result in “good” government. In order to assess the validity of this claim, CCP President Sean Parnell and Government and Coalition Relations Assistant Matt Nese compared individual contribution limits in all 50 states to their ranking in a quality of governance study conducted by the Pew Center on the States.
Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Research, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Research, campaign contributions, Contribution, Contributions & Limits, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Kentucky ruling on low contribution limits
Last week, a federal district court judge enjoined Kentucky from enforcing the $100 contribution limit applicable to campaigns for Count Boards of Elections. That’s the right decision.
The order is here. Relying on Nixon v. Shrink Missouri (not the Randall plurality, notably) the court concluded that the $100 limit was not closely tailored to achieves the state’s interest in battling corruption. The court here instead found that plaintiffs had shown the limit was so low as to “make individual contributors’ political association ineffective” and credited the evidence that large independent expenditures in school board elections have taken over. “Candidates who rely on individual donations cannot compete.”
Keep Out: How State Campaign Finance Laws Erect Barriers to Entry for Political Entrepreneurs
In this report, the author explains how forms of state legislation stifle the political speech of political entrepreneurs, those individuals and organizations who form and grow new political voices and movements. Specifically, the report examines the effects of two types of state campaign finance regulations that act as barriers to independent citizen groups: contribution limits and political action committee (PAC) requirements. A lack of appreciation for the role of political entrepreneurs in promoting innovative public policy and electoral competition on the part of those in power has resulted in the erection of barriers for outside groups who wish to speak out. The report concludes that instead of encouraging civic engagement, states are attacking independent political advocacy through unnecessary, speech-limiting regulations.
Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Research, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Research, Super PACs, campaign contributions, Contribution, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Expenditure, Political Committees & 527s, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Contribution limits and voting rights
Is it time to ask the question: do low contribution limits run afoul of the Voting Rights Act?
Or, put another way, why might they not? First, one might say that the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965 and renewed several times since then, secures rights contingent to voting. Campaigns and other political frou-frou aren’t “voting.” That point might have made sense in the past, but the VRA today has been construed to apply to redistricting and at-large voting, neither of which impede casting one’s ballot, but instead get to whether that ballot can be effective.
