US Campaign Law - Part 1

AlterNet said in fear #3 - Never mind that everybody gets pummeled by propaganda and bile. But the issue is far bigger than letting the public know who is behind today’s political advertising barrages. One of the biggest campaign finance abuses in 2012 is the use of nonprofit tax structures to run shadow campaigns for specific candidates. Efforts by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a bill that would require people who write big checks for campaigns to disclose that activity so Americans would know who is paying for the television, radio, Internet ads, billboards, political junk mail and robo-calls in their states. McConnell was called the nation’s “hypocrite in chief” for this effort because for years he preached no regulation of campaign donations or spending just timely disclosure so an informed public could make up its mind (see 2003 Supreme Court case below). That pretense evaporated during the Senate’s recent DISCLOSE bill debate in which he and other senators who long supported disclosure closed ranks, blocked and defeated the measure.

On July 16, 2012 with a 51-44 vote the Senate Republicans unanimously voted to block the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act which would have required political organizations to disclose the names of donors who give $10,000 or more. On July 17 with a party line vote (53-45) Senate Republicans blocked a second attempt to end the GOP filibuster on the DISCLOSE Act. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that if Congress doesn't do something to curb the torrents of money being spent on political campaigns by secret donors then "17 angry old white men will wake up" on the morning after Election Day "and realize they've just bought the country." Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the bill's lead sponsor, said the current system permits "legalized political money laundering" that is "a perfect recipe for corruption. Hang on to your wallets. Here come the special interests. And you won't even know who they are." McConnell said it is "member and donor harassment and intimidation. We have serious problems in this country. Too much free speech is not one of them." Republican Senator Orrin Hatch called the Democratic ploy "pathetic" and called DISCLOSE "one of the most deliberately political pieces of legislation you will ever see." The Office of Management and Budget said it strongly supports the act which it called a "necessary measure to ensure transparency and accountability."  I believe there has been a lot of wasted court time and business money put into political campaigns. As of August 9 $1.3 billion had been spent for this election that could have been used to help the American people.

In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, the US Congress prohibited labor unions or corporations from spending money to influence federal elections and prohibited labor unions from contributing to candidate campaigns (an earlier law, the 1907 Tillman Act, had prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns). Labor unions moved to work around these limitations by establishing political action committees to which members could contribute. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1974, amendments to FECA defined how a PAC could operate and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (McCain–Feingold version was replaced by Connecticut Republican Representative Chris Shays’ HR 2356) amended the FEC Act of 1971 which regulated the financing of political campaigns, became effective November 6, 2002 and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003. In the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC most of the BCRA of 2002 was upheld (it was also partially overruled in 2008 with the Davis v. FEC, 2009 with Citizens United v. FEC and in 2010 with the Citizens United v. FEC decisions). The case was brought by groups such as the California Democratic Party and the National Rifle Association, and individuals including US Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell who argued that the legislation was an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights. Senator McConnell had been a longtime opponent of BCRA in the Senate and had led several Senate filibusters to block its passage. In December 2006 the FEC entered settlements with three 527 groups the Commission found to have violated federal law by failing to register as "political committees" and abide by contribution limits, source prohibitions and disclosure requirements during the 2004 election cycle. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was fined $299,500; the League of Conservation Voters was fined $180,000; MoveOn.org was fined $150,000. In February 2007, the 527 organization Progress for America Voter Fund was likewise fined $750,000 for its failure to abide by federal campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle. In June 2007 SCOTUS held in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Some election law experts believed the new exception would render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless while others believed the new exception is quite narrow.  

There’s more to come.