The charges against Michael Cohen have renewed public interest in campaign finance regulation. The essential questions: Do campaign regulations accomplish their stated goals? Do they violate the First Amendment?
The expertise required to comply with reporting requirements and other campaign regulatory measures gives political professionals and party bosses an advantage over novices running for office. In some ways, the gauntlet of regulatory compliance and restrictions on fund raising makes American politics resemble that of ancient Rome, where leadership was restricted to a small field of “great men” with the personal resources to run.
As noted by the CATO study,
“Limitations on contributions and spending, by definition, require significant regulation of the campaign process, including significant reporting requirements as to amounts spent and sources of funds. Such regulation creates opportunities to gain an advantage over an opponent through use of the regulatory process, and litigation has now become a major campaign tactic. Typically, regulation favors insiders already familiar with the regulatory machinery and those with the money and sophistication to hire the lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists needed to comply with complex filing requirements. Indeed, there is some evidence that campaign enforcement actions are disproportionately directed at challengers, who are less likely to have staff familiar with the intricacies of campaign finance regulation.
Perhaps those most likely to run afoul of campaign finance laws are unaffiliated individuals engaged in true grassroots activities. For example, in 1991 the Los Angeles Times reviewed Federal Election Commission (FEC) files and found that 62 individuals had violated FECA contribution limits by making total contributions of more than $25,000 to candidates in the 1990 elections. As the Times noted, though many of these 62 were “successful business people” who ‘usually have the benefit of expert legal advice on the intricacies of federal election laws,’ the next largest group of violators consisted of ‘elderly persons . . . with little grasp of the federal campaign laws.’ Political involvement should not be limited to those with “the benefit of expert legal advice on the intricacies of federal election laws.”
Supporters of campaign restrictions allege that they are seeking to reduce the influence of money in politics. In reality, their goals fall into two categories:
First, incumbent protection. By establishing complicated and arcane rules concerning filing reports, with significant penalties for any less than perfect compliance, rather than simple requirements that the names of donors and the amounts provided (filed following the end of a campaign) be provided, they impose significant financial and legal burdens on challengers. Absent the access to professional assistance incumbents possess, citizens seeking to run must spend scarce resources and even more scarce time running a legally hazardous maze of requirements established by and for incumbents.
Second, partisan advantage. The Citizens United decision held, as summarized by ScotusBlog, that “ Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.” Many on the left of the political spectrum believe that this upset advantages they long held, and have sought to enact legislation and regulation to restore that advantage.
There have been measures, some of which have passed and others blocked, that have sought to reduce the effectiveness of the First Amendment in an attempt to regain that advantage.
The causes, which can lead to male impotence is quite heavy for many men to bear and thus opt to live with the condition rather than seek medical help. viagra 100mg for sale This fear often made consumers to keep a women viagra order distance from various sex pills. An outdoors or sample viagra for free activity web site could review the latest climbing books and then use their associates program to link to the same item. Many of these toxins can mimic hormones and cause specific signs pfizer viagra tablets http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/valson-annual-report-15-16-notice.pdf and symptoms. 1. One extremist measure that failed was a piece of legislation introduced by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to initiate the constitutional amendment process in order to limit the effectiveness of the First Amendment. The proposed limitation on free speech rights would have excluded paid political speech from constitutional protection.
A radical legislative item has been approved by the New York State Legislature. The measure openly headlines its goal as “Enacting the nation’s strongest protections to combat Citizens United.” Among other mandates, it imposes a requirement of across the board disclosure of donors and staff, and provides a first-ever disclosure requirement for “political consultants.” At first glance, that appears comparatively innocuous. However, the devil is in the details. According to the legislation’s language, almost anyone who has ever had any relation or association with anyone even remotely connected to a campaign would have to be disclosed. In essence, it criminalizes anyone with an active interest in politics. Further, it substantially intimidates anyone seeking to provide summaries of their perspectives on the issues or advice on how to present those views from speaking with a candidate in any substantive manner. Independent advocacy groups promoting anything from environmental protection to benefits for veterans would be handicapped.
The details of the law provide a chilling attack on First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association, in a manner that clearly helps incumbents and handcuffs challengers. Even nonpartisan organizations that openly disagree with particular policies of elected officials would be subjected to onerous reporting requirements merely for stating their beliefs, while incumbents could continue to speak their views unencumbered.
It gets even worse. Assume you are a motorist who has become tired of replacing tires destroyed by potholes not repaired by the state, and you are angered that your elected official has done nothing to address the problem. You, acting entirely on your own, decide to air your grievance on social media, and perhaps write a few letters to newspapers. Under the law’s definition, you should have registered as an independent committee, subject to all the red tape and legal requirements that implies. Clearly, that prevents private citizens not wishing to be subjected to penalties from criticizing their errant local official, or even seeking to organize friends and neighbors to protest.
The anti-First Amendment drive involves regulation as well as legislation. Previously, The Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission attempted to impose a penalty on one news station that had been uniformly critical of the Obama Administration, based on a complaint from an obscure candidate that he wasn’t invited to a televised debate. Of course, those same commissioners never considered imposing similar sanctions against the Democrat National Committee, which had inappropriately tilted towards Hillary Clinton in her primary effort against Bernie Sanders. The attempt was blocked by Republican Commissioners.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held, even long before the Citizens United case, that campaign contributions and expenditures are protected by the First Amendment. Legalities aside, common sense in a free nation dictates that public statements made by citizens or organizations disagreeing (or agreeing) with their elected officials is a vital activity.
The numerous attempts to use campaign regulation, which should reasonably only consist of open disclosure of all contributions, as a vehicle to immunize incumbents and “establishment” favorites from criticism, and to tilt the balance of power in a partisan manner, is an affront to the entire concept of a free people.
Illustration: Pixabay