Issue Analysis No. 9: Aggregate and Proportional Limits in the States: Have they Reduced Corruption or Promoted Better Government?

The Center’s ninth Issue Analysis examines the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision on the states with existing aggregate limit provisions, particularly as it relates to the effect of those provisions on both public corruption rates and how well a state is governed. For background, on April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued […]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Handouts, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, State, aggregate limits, Center for Competitive Politics, Contribution limits, First Amendment, Good Governance, Matt Nese, McCutcheon v FEC, money in politics, Pew Center on the States, Public Corruption, Shaun McCutcheon, Supreme Court, Contribution Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Contributions & Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Citizens United, States Divided: An Empirical Analysis of Independent Political Spending

This study examines the effect the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC has on independent spending in American politics. Previous attempts to answer this question have focused solely on federal elections where there is no baseline for comparing changes in spending behavior. The authors, Douglas M. Spencer and Abby K. Wood, overcome […]

Filed Under: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Super PACs, 50 States, Abby K. Wood, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Corporate spending, Douglas M. Spencer, Independent Expenditures, Indepent Spending, Indiana Law Journal, money in politics, Supreme Court, Union spending, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, 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

$60 Million Down the Drain

No matter how many times we set the record straight, it seems we just can’t rid the world of myths surrounding tax-financed campaigns (for an introduction to tax-financed campaigns, see here). The latest comes from an opinion piece in the Huffington Post by a tax-financing advocate, who claims that New York State will actually save […]

Filed Under: Blog, External Relations Sub-Pages, Tax Financed Campaigns Press Release/In the News/Blog, Tax Financed Campaigns State, Tax-Financing, campaign finance reform, Citizen Action New York, clean elections, Empire State, Karen Scharff, Luke Wachob, money in politics, Moreland Commission, New York, public financing, tax financing, Maine, New York

Policy Primer: Campaign Finance Disclosure – The Devil is in the Details

As this Policy Primer on campaign finance disclosure explains, although advocates for greater regulation of political speech claim that there are large amounts of undisclosed money in politics, in fact, all spending that calls for the election or defeat of candidates is already disclosed, as is all spending and all but the smallest donations to […]

Filed Under: Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Federal, Disclosure Handouts, Disclosure State, External Relations Sub-Pages, Research, Buckley v. Valeo, campaign finance disclosure, campaign finance reform, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Dark Money, Disclosure, Good Government, Major Purpose Test, money in politics, Reformers, transparency, Disclosure, Disclosure

The Curious Case of Contribution Limits in an Era of Independent Expenditures

Minnesota was one of eight states to raise contribution limits in 2013, but according to some, the Gopher State hasn’t gone far enough to resolve concerns surrounding its campaign finance system. The AP reports: Minnesota campaign finance regulators are wrestling with how to maintain proper separation between candidates and political groups independently spending money on […]

Filed Under: Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure Press Release/In the News/Blog, campaign contributions, campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Contribution limits, coordination, First Amendment, independent speech, independent spending, Luke Wachob, Minnesota, Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, money in politics, super PACs, Minnesota

In Defense of “Super PAC’s” and of the First Amendment

In this article, CCP Academic Advisor and Brooklyn Law School Professor Joel Gora offers a defense of “Super PACs” and of the First Amendment principles that they embody; namely, that in order to make our democracy work, we need a robust, wide-open and uninhibited discussion of politics and government. Although Super PACs have gotten bad […]

Filed Under: First Amendment, Independent Speech, Research, Super PACs, Academic Advisory Board, ACLU, Brooklyn Law School, Buckley v. Valeo, campaign finance, campaign finance reform, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, First Amendment, free speech, independent expenditure, independent speech, independent spending, Joel Gora, money in politics, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, super PACs, First Amendment, Independent Speech, First Amendment, Independent Speech

Blatant Partisanship and Outright Misinformation: Public Citizen’s Press Conference

Yesterday’s Public Citizen event calling for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to promulgate a rule forcing corporations to disclose their political spending was a disappointing mixture of blatant partisanship and outright misinformation. Headlined by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) – for the first twenty minutes or so – Public Citizen’s panel […]

Filed Under: Blog, Communications, Corporate Governance Press Release/In the News/Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure Press Release/In the News/Blog, campaign finance, campaign finance reform, corporate contributions, corporate disclosure, corporate governance, corporate speech, First Amendment, IRS and the Tea Party, money in politics, proxy, public citizen

UPDATED: Issue Analysis No. 6: Do Lower Contribution Limits Produce “Good” Government?

Advocates for strict campaign finance laws and low contribution limits often suggest that such limits will do much to improve government. For this reason, proposals and groups urging the adoption of low contri­bution limits are often characterized as pro­ducing “good government.” One of the more respected evaluations of how well a state government is operated […]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Handouts, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Handouts (Contribution Limits), Research, Campaign Contribution Limits, campaign finance reform, First Amendment, Good Government, Issue Analysis 6, Luke Wachob, Matt Nese, money in politics, NCSL, Pew Center on the States, Contribution Limits, Contributions & Limits, 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

Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research

Despite long-standing scholarly literature on the electoral effects of campaign spending, academic research provides little practical policy guidance. In part, this is because existing studies have focused narrowly on some vexing statistical issues, while ignoring many others. However, this is also because political scientists have not devoted enough effort to conducting evaluation studies of how […]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contributions & Limits, Expenditure, External Relations Sub-Pages, Faulty Assumptions, First Amendment, Political Parties, Research, campaign finance, campaign finance reform, campaign spending, First Amendment, Jeff Milyo, money in politics, political science research, Contribution Limits, Expenditure, Faulty Assumptions, First Amendment, Political Committees & 527s, Contributions & Limits, Expenditure, Faulty Assumptions, First Amendment, Political Committees & 527s

Richer Parties, Better Politics? Party-Centered Campaign Finance Laws and American Democracy

Campaign finance laws effect how money is channeled through organizations to influence elections. In contrast to most other democracies, American campaign finance laws have been designed to be “candidate-centered” with relatively weak political parties. Additionally, recent trends have seen independent forms of speech such as political action committees (PACs) and Super PACs become much more […]

Filed Under: Contributions & Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Political Committees & 527s, Political Parties, Research, campaign contributions, campaign finance, campaign finance reform, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, money in politics, Political Parties, Raymond La Raja, super PACs, Contribution Limits, Independent Speech, Political Committees & 527s, Contributions & Limits, Independent Speech, Political Committees & 527s, Political Parties