Read on Twitter
Today is the 11th anniversary of Citizens United, the case where SCOTUS ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited corporate funds influencing elections.
Here's how #HR1 rebalances the undue influence of $-in-politics to address some of the fallout.
Here's how #HR1 rebalances the undue influence of $-in-politics to address some of the fallout.
First, let's clear up what #SCOTUS said.
—It did NOT say that corporations have a constitutional right to give directly to candidates;
—It DID say corps have a constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts on elections, so long as the spending is "independent" of a campaign.
—It did NOT say that corporations have a constitutional right to give directly to candidates;
—It DID say corps have a constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts on elections, so long as the spending is "independent" of a campaign.
By SCOTUS logic, $10M in commercials from an oil company saying "vote for [X] Member of Congress" cannot lead to corruption (or even the appearance of corruption) because the spending on the ad buy is "independent" of the campaign.
(Bear with me.)
(Bear with me.)
And even if it DOES look like the spending is buying the oil company influence & access, that's fine.
Per Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, "the appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."
Per Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, "the appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."
And in any event, per the Court, at least the money would be disclosed.
So, voters (and shareholders) should just follow-the-money & hold officials (and companies) accountable. Notably, 8-out-of-9 justices signed on to the part of the opinion upholding disclosure requirements.
So, voters (and shareholders) should just follow-the-money & hold officials (and companies) accountable. Notably, 8-out-of-9 justices signed on to the part of the opinion upholding disclosure requirements.
"Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests," said the Court in Citizens United.
Plus, "a campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today."
Actually, it did NOT exist then and it still doesn't exist. See, for example, @OpenSecretsDC analysis of data: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/disclosure.php
Actually, it did NOT exist then and it still doesn't exist. See, for example, @OpenSecretsDC analysis of data: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/disclosure.php
Corporations have plenty of options to hide their campaign spending out of their general treasury funds—they can funnel it to outside dark money groups, trade associations, and other LLCs to hide the spending or make it very difficult to trace.
All of this barely scratches the surface.
Bottom line: our campaign finance system empowers the wealthy—both in setting the field of who can run for office, and in who gets to set the agenda afterwards.
Frankly, a lot of good people get stuck in a really bad system.
Bottom line: our campaign finance system empowers the wealthy—both in setting the field of who can run for office, and in who gets to set the agenda afterwards.
Frankly, a lot of good people get stuck in a really bad system.
So where does #HR1 come in?
In addition to setting baseline national standards for voting—automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail for all who want it, voter-verified paper ballots, no more voter purges—it rebalances our campaign finance laws to put everyday people first.
In addition to setting baseline national standards for voting—automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail for all who want it, voter-verified paper ballots, no more voter purges—it rebalances our campaign finance laws to put everyday people first.
#HR1 includes the DISCLOSE Act. It's directly responsive to Citizens United by setting up a disclosure system. Voters have a RIGHT TO KNOW who is influencing their votes and views. It passed the House 11 years ago after Citizens United, but Senate Republicans filibustered it.
It creates a new voluntary system for candidates to power their campaigns on small-donor contributions, breaking a dependence on big money donors. Modeled off of programs that @CommonCause and allies have worked on in Connecticut, Maine, New York City, and lots of municipalities.
For decades, the donor class has been white, wealthy, and male.
@ActBlue and other platforms are lowering barriers to participation, but the campaign finance system is still DOMINATED by a highly unrepresentative segment of America.
@ActBlue and other platforms are lowering barriers to participation, but the campaign finance system is still DOMINATED by a highly unrepresentative segment of America.
With #HR1's multiple-match system, a $25 contribution to a Congressional candidate becomes worth $175--and that adds up. It's worked where it's been implemented.
Check out @CommonCause's research on how this system has played out in Connecticut. https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CT_SmallDonorDollar_Report_WEB.pdf
Check out @CommonCause's research on how this system has played out in Connecticut. https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CT_SmallDonorDollar_Report_WEB.pdf
And how it advances race & equity in this primer by @BrennanCenter https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/small-donor-public-financing-could-advance-race-and-gender-equity
Or this piece by @Demos_Org https://www.demos.org/research/stacked-deck-how-racial-bias-our-big-money-political-system-undermines-our-democracy-and
Also, remember that the spending Citizens United unleashed is supposed to be "independent" of candidates. The truth is that the rules that govern "independence" are like swiss cheese.
. Candidates routinely raise money for "independent" Super PACs or have their own Super PACs.
. Candidates routinely raise money for "independent" Super PACs or have their own Super PACs.
#HR1 shuts this down by including the aptly-named "Stopping Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Act." 
(Now to be clear, I like swiss cheese, particularly with grilled bread. But not for our coordination rules.)
(Now to be clear, I like swiss cheese, particularly with grilled bread. But not for our coordination rules.)
#HR1 updates and modernizes how political ads appear on social media platforms, too. Recall that the Russian disinformation effort included online political advertisements. #HR1 includes @amyklobuchar and @RepDerekKilmer's Honest Ads Act to UPDATE these rules for 21st century.
In so doing, #HR1 incorporates the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's recommendations: to "examine legislative approaches to ensuring Americans know the sources of online political advertisements," and that "the same requirements should apply online."
#HR1 includes other provisions to shore-up our campaign finance laws to guard against foreign interference. It includes elements from the #SHIELDAct last year. For example, it creates a DUTY TO REPORT to the FBI and FEC if a foreign government tries to interfere in a campaign.
But these campaign finance improvements are only as good as they are enforced.
The FEC has a lousy record due to the ideological opposition GOP commissioners to enforcement. Deadlocked votes have skyrocketed.
See @AnnMRavel's report making the case: https://shpr.legislature.ca.gov/sites/shpr.legislature.ca.gov/files/Ravel%20-%20FEC%20Dysfunction.pdf
The FEC has a lousy record due to the ideological opposition GOP commissioners to enforcement. Deadlocked votes have skyrocketed.
See @AnnMRavel's report making the case: https://shpr.legislature.ca.gov/sites/shpr.legislature.ca.gov/files/Ravel%20-%20FEC%20Dysfunction.pdf
#HR1 restores the ability of the agency to do its job. It lets career FEC staff do their work, with checks & balances in place so that violators aren't off the hook (and so that political opponents can't abuse the enforcement process either).
There is so much more to @RepSarbanes transformative, sweeping bill.
Our friends at @BrennanCenter have a terrific annotated guide to the full package here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-hr-1-people-act-2019.
Our friends at @BrennanCenter have a terrific annotated guide to the full package here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-hr-1-people-act-2019.
Turns out @Twitter has a cap on thread length. To sum up: #HR1 is transformative. House passed #HR1 in 2019. McConnell killed it. It's a new day and a new way. Things are looking up. It'll be #S1 in the Senate (a big deal). Learn more & TAKE ACTION here: https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/for-the-people-act/
There is a LOT more:
- Repealing the bad #darkmoney riders that the Republicans put in omnibus spending bills (SEC/Treasury disclosure, contractor disclosure);
- Calling for a constitutional amendment;
- @RepRaskin's shareholder assessment provisions.
The list goes on...
- Repealing the bad #darkmoney riders that the Republicans put in omnibus spending bills (SEC/Treasury disclosure, contractor disclosure);
- Calling for a constitutional amendment;
- @RepRaskin's shareholder assessment provisions.
The list goes on...
