Money in Politics Study Kit
Reaching Consensus On Money In Politics
Why
The 1974/1982 LWVUS position on campaign finance, though broad, does not specify what
political activity we believe constitutes free speech protected under the First Amendment
For almost 40 years the Supreme Court’s approach and the League’s approach recognized
the risk that campaign contributions could be corrupting or appear corrupting. That changed
with the 2010 Citizens United decision. The Court extended its view of the First Amendment
to allow unlimited “independent” spending by corporations and unions and by narrowing the
meaning of corruption to quid pro quo - essentially bribery. The League’s current position
does not balance the First Amendment interests of candidates, donors, independent
spenders and issue advocates against equitable competition among candidates, preventing
undue influence, and maximizing citizen participation in the political process. To be able to
take action in the current context of campaign finance reform we must be prepared to
answer such questions.
The Consensus Questions
Part I questions address the regulation of campaign financing in terms of democratic
values.
Part II questions relate to the extent to which we believe that First Amendment protections
of free speech and freedom of the press should apply to various speakers and activities.
Part III questions ask what actions should be taken to regulate campaign financing to
protect the democratic process.
When
The League of Women Voters of Concord/Carlisle will hold a Public Forum on
Keeping the American Promise: Money, Free Speech and Democracy on the evening
of Wednesday, January 13 from 7:30 to 9:30pm. Our speaker will be Jeff Clements, a
co-founder of the organization Free Speech for People. Jeff was the person who alerted the
LWVCC to the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision just before the decision
was reported. The Forum will be held at the Trinitarian Congregational Church, 54 Walden
Street, Concord. The snow date will be Friday, January 15th, same time and place.
Consensus meetings on Money in Politics for LWVCC members will be held in the
morning on Tuesday, January 19th, from 9:00am-1:00pm at the Fowler Branch Library,
or in the evening on Thursday, January 21st from 7:00-10:00pm at 1360 Monument
Street. -- Look for the LWV sign at the driveway. The snow date for the morning meeting is
Friday, January 22, 9:00am-1:00pm,at the Fowler Branch Library, and the snow date for
the evening meeting is Friday, January 22, 7:00-10:00pm, at 1360 Monument Street.
1
Limits on Campaign Contributions and Spending 1976-2015
1976 – Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Federal Elections Campaign Act
were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment.



Retained limits on contributions for federal campaigns in order to prevent corruption or the
appearance of corruption.
Removed limits on campaign expenditures and independent expenditures by individuals,
campaigns, and political committees in order to protect First Amendment right of free speech.
Independent expenditures must not be coordinated with the candidate or the candidate’s
campaign and must be reported to the Federal Election Committee.
Impact: This decision has come to stand for the idea that “money is speech”.
2001 -- Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. (McCain Finegold Act) passed by Congress


Banned “soft money”
Banned corporations and unions from using corporate funds to send electioneering
communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
2010 – Citizens United.
 Overturned previous limits on campaign spending by corporations (including non-profit
organizations, trade associations, multi-national corporations and labor unions)

Since corporations are associations of individuals, they have the
same First Amendment right to free speech as individuals.
The ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates remains.


Narrowed the definition of corruption.
Corruption does not occur with an independent expenditure because
there is no gift to the candidate; corruption only occurs in the case of a
quid pro quo exchange (essentially a bribe).
Regulation of political speech is limited to required disclosure.
2010 – Speech Now. This case opened the gates to SuperPACs. It was decided by the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and relies on the Citizens United case. It was not
taken up by the Supreme Court.


Struck down the limits on contributions to political committees that make only independent
expenditures and do not contribute to candidates or political parties
Independent expenditures are inherently not corruptive and
therefore cannot be limited.
Disclosure and reporting requirements continue on SuperPACs because they “impose no ceiling
on campaign-related activities” and “do not prevent anyone from speaking”.
2
However, 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations can make independent
expenditures and do not have to disclose their donors .
The rules for SuperPACs allow financial reporting to take place long after an election is
over.
2014 – McCutcheon. The Supreme Court struck down limits on an individual’s aggregate contributions.


Removed restrictions on an individual’s aggregate donations to candidates, party committees
and PACs.
Retained restrictions on an individual’s donations to a single candidate or party committee
($5,200/year)
Impact: Keeping within contribution limits to individual candidates, parties and political
committees, an individual can now give millions to an unlimited number of candidates, parties
and PACs.
______________________________________________________________________________
PACs (Political Action Committees) - separate political committees organized to raise and spend money to elect or
defeat a candidate running for office or to promote support for one side of a ballot issue in an election.
Independent expenditures - a type of spending that explicitly advocates the election or defeat of a specific
candidate and is aimed at the general voting public but is neither made in “cooperation or consultation or
coordinated with a candidate or political party committee and is not coordinated with any candidate or political
party committee”.
Soft money - unregulated, unlimited contributions that did not refer directly to candidates by name – often used
for ‘party building’ activities like get-out-the-vote drives.
Electioneering communications - broadcast advertisements that mention a federal candidate but stop short of
calling for the candidate’s election or defeat, commonly known as “issue ads”. Under the McCain-Finegold Act, if
made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election they were required be reported to the
FEC. This requirement was overturned by a 2007 Supreme Court decision.
Super PACs – special committees created after Citizens United which are exempt from limits on fundraising and
spending that regular PACs must abide by. They can accept unlimited money from corporations, nonprofits, unions
and individuals but they are not supposed to coordinate their spending with candidate’s campaigns.
501(c)(4) - Social Welfare Organizations - organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare
do not have to disclose their donors. As long as these groups do not engage in political activity as their primary
goal (usually interpreted by the IRS as no more than 49.9% of its activity), these groups may make independent
political expenditures. These organizations’ contributions to SuperPACs are what is called “dark money”.
3
Rules for Individuals, Corporations and Unions
Contributions (Federal)
Individual
$5.2K per candidate/election ($2,700/primary, $2,700/general election)
$32.4K per national party / per year
$5K per PAC / year
No aggregate limit
Corporations / Unions
May not make direct contributions or expenditures
May form / contribute to PACs
Rules for SuperPACs
Raising Funds
Independent
Expenditures
Restrictions
Disclosure Requirements
unlimited donations
from individuals,
corporations, unions
unlimited
independent
spending
cannot
coordinate
with election
campaign
over $200 per donor
501(c)(4) organizations contributing to SuperPACs
do not need to disclose their donors
4
Corruption - A Changing Definition
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) - The Supreme Court ruled that corruption or the appearance of
corruption is a justification for limits on free speech rights in connection with political
contributions. Two further decisions in 1986 and 1990 ruled that distortion of the political
process can occur through undue influence by large donors on candidates and officeholders.
Citizens United v. the FEC (2010) – The court narrowed the definition of corruption in the
context of campaign finance regulation to a quid pro quo exchange. Quid pro quo is a Latin
phrase that literally means "this for that" – namely, bribery - an explicit agreement by a
candidate or elected official to perform a specific act in exchange for something of value. In
the current context of political campaign finance, it refers to the only kind of corruption that
justifies limits on First Amendment rights.
Narrowing the definition of corruption fails to recognize distortion of the political process
when large donors can spend unlimited money which can drown out the speech of ordinary
people. Distortion can occur when the actions of elected officials who are responsible for
representing the interests of their constituents conflict with the subtle influence of favored
access that may be granted to large donors and their lobbyists by elected officials and their
staffs. Another effect of large campaign contributions can be to cause citizens to feel that
the political process does not represent them and can discourage them from participating in
the political process.
Hence the Court rejects the notion of big money corrupting the election process or
diminishing political equality, in favor of allowing citizens, not government, to decide what
speech they will hear.
5
Free Speech And Money In Politics
Some Difficult Questions
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or 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.
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
The First Amendment guarantees citizens’ right to express and to be exposed to a wide
range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas, whether
spoken or written, even if the ideas are unpopular. It covers all kinds of expression
(including social media as well as non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins and
demonstrations). The media, including print, television, radio and Internet, is free to
distribute a wide range of news, facts, opinions and pictures. The individual’s right to read,
hear, see and obtain different points of view is a First Amendment right as well.
In our current media-saturated society, it is clearly necessary to spend money to get one's
views to the public for consideration. Thus government regulation of what a citizen running
for political office can spend implicates the First Amendment in a fundamental way.
In addition to free speech, the First Amendment protects freedom of the press. This is
important in the money and politics context because the media spend large sums of money
in candidate elections, and sometimes play a decisive role through news coverage, editorial
endorsements, and other communications directly to the public. This raises the question: If
restrictions are needed to control campaign expenditures by individuals and corporations,
should the money expended by the media also be restricted?
Another controversial issue is the question of corporate versus individual rights. Obviously,
First Amendment freedoms belong to individuals; but what are the limits of First
Amendment rights when it comes to associations of individuals? After all, the First
Amendment protects the right to associate as well as speech and press. Associations take
many forms in American society: political parties, religious organizations, for-profit and
non-profit corporations, newspapers, media outlets, and local and national charitable
organizations. Should all of these associations have the same or different rights under the
First Amendment, and how should they be differentiated in law?
While some may say that the exclusive focus on the right of individuals and associations to
spend unlimited money on speech is a "pure" approach, others question whether an
individual or a special interest group should be able to spend unlimited money to buy a
megaphone that will drown out the speech of others.
These are some of the issues to be determined as you answer the following consensus
questions.
6
MONEY IN POLITICS CONSENSUS QUESTIONS
This update on Money In Politics builds on the League’s current position on campaign finance. The
consensus questions in Part I address the goals of campaign finance regulation in terms of democratic
values. The questions in Part II relate to the extent to which First Amendment protections like free
speech and freedom of the press should apply to various speakers and activities in the campaign finance
context. Part III asks about methods of campaign finance regulation. You are asked to respond to the
questions without regard for the Supreme Court’s current views on the First Amendment. In
responding to each question, please interpret the words in their most general sense. Keep in mind that the
LWV intentionally words positions that are derived from member study in the broadest possible way so
that our positions have relevance for many years. Future national Boards will determine when and how to
apply our positions.
An optional comment section is included at the end of each of the three parts. Please note that while
comments will be read and considered, only responses to questions can be tabulated.
PART I QUESTIONS: Democratic Values and Interests with Respect to
Financing Political Campaigns
1. What should be the goals and purposes of campaign finance regulation?
(Please respond to each item in Question 1.)
a. Seek political equality for all citizens.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
b. Protect representative democracy from being distorted by big spending in election campaigns.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
c. Enable candidates to compete equitably for public office.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
d. Ensure that candidates have sufficient funds to communicate their messages to the public.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
e. Ensure that economic and corporate interests are part of election dialogue.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
7
f. Provide voters sufficient information about candidates and campaign issues to make informed
choices.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
g. Ensure the public’s right to know who is using money to influence elections.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
h. Combat corruption and undue influence in government.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
2. Evaluate whether the following activities are types of political corruption:
(Please respond to each item in Question 2.)
a. A candidate or officeholder agrees to vote or work in favor of a donor’s interests in exchange for
a campaign contribution.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
b. An officeholder or her/his staff gives greater access to donors.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
c. An officeholder votes or works to support policies that reflect the preferences of individuals or
organizations in order to attract contributions from them.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
d. An office holder seeks political contributions implying that there will be retribution unless a
donation is given.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
e. The results of the political process consistently favor the interests of significant campaign
contributors.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
OPTIONAL COMMENTS (250 word limit):
8
PART II QUESTIONS: First Amendment Protections for Speakers and
Activities in Political Campaigns
This set of questions is designed to determine the extent to which the First Amendment protections
of free speech and freedom of the press should apply to different speakers or activities in the
regulation of campaign finance. Free speech and free press provide essentially the same protections
to speakers, writers, publishers and advertising, whether or not they are part of the institutional
press, and largely regardless of the medium. Essentially, these protections extend to any conduct
that is expressive. Many of the options below would be found unconstitutional by the current
Supreme Court, but we are seeking your League’s views, not those of the Court. These are broad,
overarching questions about spending to influence an election, including independent spending,
contributions to candidates, broadcast news and other communication expenditures.
1. Many different individuals and organizations use a variety of methods to communicate
their views to voters in candidate elections. Should spending to influence an election by any
of the following be limited?
(Please respond to each item in Question 1.)
a. Individual citizens, including wealthy individuals like George Soros and the Koch
Brothers.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
b. Political Action Committees, sponsored by an organization, such as the League of
Conservation Voters, Chevron, the American Bankers Association, and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), whose campaign spending comes from contributions
by individuals associated with the sponsoring organization, such as employees, stockholders,
members and volunteers.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
c. For-profit organizations, like Exxon, Ben and Jerry’s, General Motors, and Starbucks, from
their corporate treasury funds.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
d. Trade associations, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Wind Energy
Association, and the American Petroleum Institute, from the association’s general treasury funds.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
e. Labor unions, like the United Autoworkers and Service Employees International, from the
union’s general treasury funds.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
f. Non-profit organizations, like the Sierra Club, Wisconsin Right to Life, Coalition to Stop Gun
Violence, American Crossroads, and Priorities USA, from the organization’s general treasury
funds.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
g. Non-partisan voter registration and GOTV (get out the vote) organizations and activities, like
the LWV and Nonprofit Vote.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
h. Political parties, like the Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats.
9
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
i. Candidates for public office spending money the candidate has raised from contributors.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
j. Candidates for public office spending their own money.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
2. The press plays a major role in candidate elections through editorial endorsements, news
coverage, and other communications directly to the public that are often important to the outcome.
Should such spending to influence an election by any of the following be limited?
(Please respond to each item in Question 2.)
a. Newspapers, like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
b. Television and other electronic media, like Fox News, CNN. MSNBC and CBS.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
c. Internet communications, like Huffington Post, Breitbart, Daily Kos, and individual bloggers.
☐ Spending banned ☐ Some spending limits ☐ Unlimited spending ☐ No consensus
OPTIONAL COMMENTS (250 word limit):
10
PART III QUESTIONS: Methods for Regulating Campaign Finance to
Protect the Democratic Process
1. In order to achieve the goals for campaign finance regulation, should the League support?
(Please respond to each item in Question 1 a and b.)
a. Abolishing SuperPACs and spending coordinated or directed by candidates, other than a
candidate’s own single campaign committee.
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
b. Restrictions on direct donations and bundling by lobbyists? (Restrictions may include
monetary limits as well as other regulations.)
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
c. Public funding for candidates? Should the League support:
(You may respond to more than one item in Question 1 c.)
i. Voluntary public financing of elections where candidates who choose to participate
must also abide by reasonable spending limits?
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
ii. Mandatory public financing of elections where candidates must participate and abide
by reasonable spending limits?
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
iii. Public financing without spending limits on candidates?
☐
Agree
☐
Disagree
☐
No consensus
2. How should campaign finance regulations be administered and enforced?
(You may choose more than one response for Question 2.)
☐ a.
By an even-numbered commission with equal representation by the two major political
parties to ensure partisan fairness (current Federal Election Commission [FEC] structure)?
☐ b.
By an odd-numbered commission with at least one independent or nonpartisan
commissioner to ensure decisions can be made in case of partisan deadlock?
11
☐ c. By structural and budget changes to the FEC (e.g., commission appointments, staffing,
security, budget, decision making process) that would allow the agency to function effectively
and meet its legislative and regulatory mandates.
☐ d.
No consensus.
OPTIONAL COMMENTS (250 word limit):
12