Campaign Finance Board – USA Gov Policy

Free elections in the United States are increasingly endangered. The threat comes from a number of fronts, including the use by the Obama Administration of federal agencies to intimidate political opponents, and the increasingly oppressive and biased actions of campaign regulatory agencies.

The most well-known scandal is the action by the Internal Revenue Service to attack Tea Party groups, which oppose President Obama’s policies. Despite the clearly illegal nature of the IRS action, and the mandate of the court to produce information about its misdeeds, the tax agency continues to evade compliance with the law.

Last month, as noted by the Courthouse News Service :

“The Sixth Circuit slammed the IRS for continuing to resist, after nearly a year, an order compelling it to release lists that Tea Party groups say singled them out for harsh scrutiny….The targets of such attention allegedly faced year-long delays in the processing of applications, tight deadlines for responses, and requests for large amounts of unneeded documents. After a federal judge cracked the whip ….the IRS continually shrugged off the court order and filed its own petition claiming that the documents were confidential. Disagreeing with that characterization, the three-judge appellate panel said applications that were accepted or rejected are not considered “tax-return” information, and are not afforded such confidentiality… the decision does demand the documents be released “without redactions, and without further delay.”

Judicial Watch’s Investigation revealed that email exchanges between former Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and enforcement attorneys at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) demonstrated that the IRS provided “detailed, confidential information concerning the tax exempt application status and returns of conservative groups to the FEC,” a violation of federal law. Included with the email exchanges were IRS questionnaires to a conservative group that contained questions of a hostile nature.

In its March 16 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court bluntly stated:

“Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen…should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial: most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for Tax Administration. Those findings include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information.” Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it. The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and other groups whose applications the IRS treated in the manner described by the Inspector General. The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court. At issue here are IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of organizations allegedly targeted for unfavorable treatment because of their political beliefs. … almost a year later, the IRS still has not complied with the court’s orders.”

The IRS defiantly continues to seek to use its enormous power to influence elections. A Capital Research analysis reports:

In this situation, brand viagra pfizer when it is not possible for everyone to hear. In most instances, blood vessel impairment is the crucial reason behind erection breakdown quandary. http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/01/12/slim-name/ online cialis pills To provide aid levitra 60 mg view my website of pain, especially leg pain which can be quite severe and debilitating. 2. Sure, in the past you’ve free cheap viagra dismissed it, but it can have side effects. “President Obama’s IRS is still holding nonprofit applications from conservative and Tea Party groups hostage even now, years after the IRS targeting scandal first made headlines. The IRS remains a powerful instrument of political repression in the hands of Obama. Always on the hunt for new ways to disadvantage his political adversaries, Obama is also now moving forward with a fresh campaign of political intimidation against nonprofit groups that strikes at the heart of the American democratic process. Ominously, IRS boss John Koskinen has vowed ‘to have new rules to limit political activities of nonprofit organizations in place before the 2016 election, raising the specter of another major fight over the tax agency and political targeting,’ the Washington Times paraphrased Koskinen saying. The IRS already tried to impose a rule preventing nonprofits from running voter registration drives (which is currently legal if done on a “nonpartisan” basis), but backed down in the face of a public backlash.”

The concept of campaign regulation is also threatening the future of free elections in the United States. It is, under the guise of “taking the influence of money out of politics,” placing both free speech and free elections under the thumb of biased bureaucrats intent on replacing the will of the people with the goals of a politically biased elite.

A CATO examination of campaign regulation noted:

“campaign finance regulations favor incumbents, stifle grassroots activity, distort and constrict political debate, and infringe on traditional First Amendment freedoms. There is little reason to believe that still more regulation and public funding will yield positive results.The framers of the Bill of Rights provided for the First Amendment to keep the government from attempting to limit political debate and criticism. We should recognize the wisdom of that decision and return to the system of campaign “regulation” that the Founders intended: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

An Institute for Justice study concurs:

“the federal government and most states have passed campaign finance laws that blatantly violate [free speech] rights. Sold as efforts to control the influence of ‘money’ in politics, the laws in fact regulate what money buys—political speech—and what it represents for many citizens—a meaningful opportunity to participate in the political process…In short, in America, it is now constitutional for the government to control and even ban political speech and participation. To borrow from Justice Thomas in his now-famous dissent in the Kelo case: Something has gone horribly awry with the Court’s—and the country’s—approach to the First Amendment.”

The New York Post’s examination of the Big Apple’s local campaign finance board concluded:

“Tired of voting? Here’s good news: The city’s Campaign Finance Board might soon do the choosing for you. It’s headed that way, anyhow. Even now, the CFB’s independence is in doubt, as current members may curry favor to win reappointment…the CFB, which pretends to boost democracy … operates as an unelected barrier to campaigns and political speech. In fact, the city’s entire campaign-finance system, which costs taxpayers millions, has proven itself a sham that’s only invited abuse and corruption.”

To many, the regulation of political campaigns is a matter of deepest principle, an essential tool in preventing corruption. To others, it is an intense and unacceptable violation of the First Amendment, an attempt by bureaucrats to hinder candidacies that don’t have the support of party bosses and other powerful elites. Critics of the concept point to the success of ultra-rich candidates who gain an edge since they can finance their own elections without dealing with campaign restrictions on donations.

A Congressional Research Service Report to Congress described the dynamic tension:

“Campaign finance regulation invokes two conflicting values implicit in the application of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free political speech and association. On the one hand, political expression constitutes “core” First Amendment activity, which the Supreme Court grants the greatest deference and protection in order to “assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing

about of political and social changes desired by the people.”

On the other hand, according to the Court in its landmark 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, an absolutely free “political marketplace” is neither mandated by the First Amendment, nor is it desirable, because when left uninhibited by reasonable regulation, corruptive pressures undermine the integrity of political institutions and undercut public confidence in republican governance. In other words, although the Court reveres the freedoms of speech and association, it has upheld infringements on these freedoms in order to further the governmental interests of protecting the electoral process from corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

MAJOR CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED RCENTLY

Legal and legislative wrangling over campaign regulation has been particularly active since 2002, when Congress considerably altered campaign finance law in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The recent study, “The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny” notes:

“The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and a related lower-court decision, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, arguably represents the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades. Citizens United lifted a previous ban on corporate (and union) independent expenditures advocating election or defeat of candidates. Speech Now permitted unlimited contributions to such expenditures and facilitated the advent of super PACs. Although campaign finance policy remains the subject of intense debate and public interest, there have been few legislative or regulatory changes to respond to the 2010 court rulings. This report considers these and other developments in campaign finance policy and comments on areas of potential conflict and consensus. Legislative activity to respond to the rulings has focused on the DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House during the 111th Congress, and was reintroduced during the 112th and 113th Congresses (H.R. 148). Recent alternatives, which include some elements of DISCLOSE, include 113th

Congressional bills such as Senators Wyden and Murkowski’s S. 791, or proposals that would require additional disclosure from certain 501(c) groups.”

The recently released 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in the matter of McCutheon et al v. Federal Elections Commission complies with the view that attempts to interfere in the electoral process in ways not specified by the Constitution must be carefully screened to insure that they do not violate the First Amendment.

The decision is consistent with the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo: “The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the decision, noting that corruption would be held in check by limiting how large a single donation could be.

In its 5-4 decision, the Court held that “The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute. Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption…It may not, however, regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”

That part of the decision—stressing that campaign regulations cannot be used to enhance the influence of some at the expense of others– is of extraordinary importance. Although the McCutheon case involves the question of aggregate limits on individual political contributions, that part of the decision may be seen as a cautionary note that the growing environment at the federal, state and local levels of campaign regulation may be violative of free speech rights.

HAS CAMPAIGN REGULATION HELPED OR HURT?

Research indicates that campaign regulation efforts have not achieved the goal of reducing the influence of money in politics.
You should prevent intake of alcohol and order levitra online cigarettes. They often distorts levitra prescription Continue Shopping true glucose levels. Often occurred in the sildenafil no prescription menstrual period, and after ovulation decline in women on estrogen. The reason why the World Health Organization does not recognize the use of this medicine as amongst the vital medicines could possibly be partly since the drugs (vasodilator drugs) are costly and that is the reason, the online pharmacies are legitimate and sell only high quality tadalafil tablets in india products.
A study by the CATO institute found that “…there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has achieved or will achieve its goals of reducing the influence of money, opening up the political system, and lowering the cost of campaigns. Indeed, since the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, spending has risen sharply, the number of political action committees and the amount of PAC spending are up, and incumbents have increased both their election rate and the rate at which they outspend their challengers.”

Campaign regulation, particularly in the distribution of public funds to aid campaigns, has been abused in a number of ways. In some localities, New York City being a significant example, local Campaign Finance Boards have used their authority to heavily and unlawfully influence the outcome of elections and enhance the power of political bosses. In one extraordinary example, a candidate for New York City Council was a former State Assemblyman who had challenged the powerful Assembly Speaker frequently criticized for his iron rule and conflict of interest activities. The candidate was clearly not a favorite of the city’s political establishment. A highly irregular application of an ex post facto regulation was devised to deprive the candidate of funds, and to extract a penalty as well.

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.”

FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court—including both the McCutcheon case and Citizens United—have taken positions protective of the First Amendment.

The ban on any contributions from foreign sources, not part of the McCutheon case, continues. Scandals involving contributions from foreign sources have affected both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

According to a Washington Times report the web site Obama.com, owned by a China-based American business man, which attracted an overwhelming majority of foreigners to it, routed visitors to a donation site. Other published reports have revealed that an Obama web site accepted donations from abroad, while a similar Romney site rejected similar foreign donations.

Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign was also linked to a serious foreign contribution scandal. Approximately $100,000 from China’s military was funneled to the Democrat campaign in the summer of 1996 by the daughter of a top general in the People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing. The funds were not returned until after an investigation revealed the illegal activity.

Both the limits themselves, and the complicated system of reporting under federal, state and local campaign finance regulations, can be seen as favoring “party-boss” backed candidates who have both access to the specialized skills necessary to timely provide mandated filings as well as access to the type of fund-raising abilities that comply with the regulations.

CONCLUSION

Campaign regulations were enacted with good intentions, and when sharply limited to attack outright corruption, have some utility. In practice, however, they frequently afoul of the First Amendment, and have, by empowering political bosses and “professionals,” as well as opening the door for unlawful interference in the electoral process, caused more harm than good.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.