Mission:

To promote and defend citizens First

Amendment political rights of
speech, press, assembly, and
petition.
Do campaign finance laws
help reduce perception of
corruption?
No:
This article examines forty years of survey
data of public attitudes toward corruption in
government. We argue that trends in public
perception of corruption may have little to do
with the campaign finance system....
Moreover, the survey data suggest that an
individuals perception of corruption derives
to some extent from that persons (1) position
in society (race, income, education level); (2)
opinion of the incumbent President and
performance of the economy over the
previous year; (3) attitudes concerning
taxation and big government; and (4)
propensity to trust other people, in general.
 Trends Since Adoption of Federal
Election Campaign Act Adoption in 1970s
From 1900 to 1972, of the 37 elections
held, 32 saw double digit shifts in party
seats, or 86%.
Since 1976 to 2016, there have been 21
elections, and only 9 have seen double
digit shifts, or 43%.
Trust in Government, Legislative
Branch
Gallup, 1972: 71% (a great deal or fair
amount)
Gallup, 2016: 35%
 Campaign Contribution Limits and Good
Government
Four of the ten least corrupt states
(Oregon, Nebraska, Utah, and Iowa) in
the country impose no limits on
individual contributions.
Seven of the thirteen best managed
states had no contribution limits on
individuals. Top two states have no
limits.
Studies show practically no link between
campaign contributions and legislative
votes. http://tinyurl.com/nlvrun9
Overall, our findings parallel that of the broader
literature. As regressions like these make clear,
the evidence that campaign contributions lead to
a substantial influence on votes is rather thin.
Legislators votes depend almost entirely on their
own beliefs and the preferences of their voters
and their party. Contributions explain a miniscule
fraction of the variation in voting behavior in the
U.S. Congress. Members of Congress care
foremost about winning re-election. They must
attend to the constituency that elects them,
 The Oligarchy Study

Google lists 321 news items with the word oligarchy

included in the search, 1010 with just the authors Martin
Gilens and Benjamin Page.
 The Oligarchy Study,
Debunked

Google lists 1 news item, a rebuttal by the studys original

authors, which was in response to a Vox blog post
summarizing three studies showing the Gilens/Page study
was wrong.
 Larry Lessig runs for
president, voters dont care.

Google lists over 3,400 news items. He doesnt even get in

the debates and later withdraws.
 Money in Elections
Campaign Spending in
Perspective
2015-2016
$6.3 billion spent on federal
campaigns.
$44 billion spent on salty
snacks, including $15 billion
on potato chips.
From July 2015 through
October 2016 Trump received
Why I Gave One Million Dollars
to Re-elect President Obama --
Mel Heifitz

I give money to political causes and

charities because I like to help those in
need.
Whatever I might want to contribute in the
future, the future is now -- and I refuse to
sit this one out as some try to take us back
with policies that will weaken the country I
love and have fought for all my life.
As a gay, man, I have lots of political issues
that are personal when I look ahead to the
Whats wrong with this
article?
 Putting Dark Money In Context
Election Percentage Percentage
Total Campaign Spending by Election Cycle Cycle Spending by Spending by
(in Millions) Political Nonprofits
$7,000 Committees (Dark
$5,977
$6,260 Money)
$6,000
$5,184 2005-2006 99.8% 0.2%
$5,000

$4,000
$3,496 $3,667 2007-2008 98.1% 1.9%
$2,848
Total Spending (Millions) $3,000

2009-2010 96.3% 3.7%

$2,000

$1,000
$309 $178$184 2011-2012 95.1% 4.9%
$5 $102 $136
$0

2013-2014 95.4% 4.6%

Spending by Political Committees
Spending by Nonprofits 2015-2016 97.1% 2.9%

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

 Dark money
All campaign spending is
disclosed.
Most spending is by well-
known groups (LCV, US
Chamber, NRA, Planned
Parenthood, etc.)
Contribution earmarked for
campaign speech must be
disclosed.
Unlikely to grow tax on
 Delusions about Dysfunction:
Understanding the Federal Election
Commission (FEC)
The FEC is bipartisan due to
concern about President Nixons
use of power.
Strong majority of FEC votes are
bipartisan.
Laws limiting contributions and
requiring reporting of contributors
to candidates, parties and PACs
 The First Amendments
Four Speech Freedoms

Congress shall make no law

abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of
grievances.
 Federal Election Law and Regulations:
Over 376,000 Words
Regulations define 33 types of speech and
71 speakers
Advisory Opinions: Over 1,900
Enforcement Actions: Over 7,000
Regulations Strangle Grassroots Activity,
Deter Smaller Donors
$250 threshold for filing reports on
independent expenditures.
$1,000 threshold to become a PAC.
$200+ ($20/month for 10 months)
donations appear on the internet.
Cases:
Coalition for Secular Government
Delaware Strong Families
Williamson Strong v Tennessee
Calzone v Missouri Ethics Commission
 Contribution limits
Hamper new ideas
Would have made Gene McCarthys campaign against
LBJ in 1968 impossible
Protect incumbents
Protect the corrupt
Protect the two major parties from new
competitors
Add incredible complexity to campaign finance
laws (e.g., coordination rules, contributions in
name of another)
Limit speech by candidates and parties
Reduce info for voters
Give advantages to non-party groups
Favor celebrities
 What was the Citizens United case
about?
The law made it a criminal offense for
a nonprofit corporation to buy time to
broadcast a documentary on Hillary
Clinton.
The government said that under the
First Amendment it could:
Ban a corporation from publishing a book
if it had once sentence advocating the
election or defeat of a candidate.
Prevent a union from hiring a writer to
author a political book.
From the opinion by Justice Kennedy:
Thus, the following acts would all be felonies
under [the law]: The Sierra Club runs an ad,
within the crucial phase of 60 days before the
general election, that exhorts the public to
disapprove of a Congressman who favors
logging in national forests; the National Rifle
Association publishes a book urging the public
to vote for the challenger because the
incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun
ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union
creates a Web site telling the public to vote for
a Presidential candidate in light of that
candidates defense of free speech. These
prohibitions are classic examples of
censorship.
 SpeechNow.org v. FEC
The Super PAC case
History of 527s in 2004
Liberalization of speech from the case
Independent expenditures only
No contributions to candidates or parties.
No coordination with candidates or
parties
Donations disclosed
Citizens and the Media, the Same Rights
The press has no greater rights under
the First Amendment than ordinary
Americans.
Nearly all media organizations are
corporations.
Anonymous sources and anonymous
speech are important for democracy.
Money facilitates speech, and all media
outlets need money to operate.
Suggesting that political speech should
be regulated erodes respect for all
speech, including that of the media.
 Justices Black, Douglas and Warren, dissent 352 US 567
United States v. UAW-CIO

Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign.

The people have the final say. The legislators are their
spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the
destiny of the nation. It is therefore important - vitally important
- that all channels of communication be open to them during
every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred,
and that the people have access to the views of every group in
the community.
***
Some may think that one group or another should not express
its views in an election because it is too powerful, because it
advocates unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless
action. But these are not justifications for withholding First
Amendment rights from any group - labor or corporate. First
Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and
groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld
merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group
is worthy or unworthy.