News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Campaign Finance
Zihao Chen/Getty Images
Alaska decides to switch to open primaries and ranked elections
Nov 18 2020
Alaskans have narrowly approved a sweeping revamp of their election rules, delivering one of the year's biggest victories to democracy reformers.
Adoption of the ballot initiative immediately pushes the nation's most expansive and remote state to a central place of honor for "good governance" groups, because the measure embraces two of their main goals: elections that are less monopolized by the major parties and campaign financing that's more transparent.
The victory became clear only Tuesday night, two weeks after the voting ended, thanks to the state's uniquely slow pace for tabulating mailed ballots. Because of the pandemic they accounted for two out of every five votes in Alaska this fall, and counting them reversed what looked like a likely defeat for the package. But with nearly complete results, the proposal has prevailed by 3,700 votes out of 343,000 cast — a margin of 1 percentage point.
<p>As a result, starting in two years Alaska will replace traditional partisan primaries with single contests open to all candidates for governor and other state executive offices, each seat in the Legislature and the three spots in Congress. The top four finishers, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the general election, at which point voters will rank their options to decide the winner. And all legislative and local races will face strict new disclosure requirements about the sources of campaign spending.</p>
<p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>While a handful of states have adopted open top-two primary systems, Alaska will be the first with primaries that advance even more candidates to the November ballot — increasing the likelihood that people who are not Republicans or Democrats will be able to compete in many races.</p>
<p>And Alaska will become only the second state, after Maine, to use <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/ranked-choice-voting" target="_self">ranked-choice voting</a> statewide. Voters in Massachusetts decided this month not to join them.</p>
<p>"This is a victory for all Alaskans regardless of their political leaning. We now have an electoral system that lives up to Alaska's independent streak by saying 'to hell with politics let's do what is right for Alaska,'" said Shea Siegert, who managed the ballot measure campaign.</p>
<p>Proponents included the <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/league-of-women-voters" target="_self">League of Women Voters</a>, <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/open-primaries" target="_self">Open Primaries</a>, the state employees union and the Libertarian Party. They argued that approval would shed light on the secretive flow of money into the state's political and governing system, curb the power of the two big parties and further promote centrist and independent candidates, who already have a better-than-average record of success in the state.</p>
<p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>"The Last Frontier has become a beacon of hope for our nation: a real-time example of how to put voters first and reduce extremism, polarization and corruption in politics," said Josh Silver, CEO and co-founder of <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/representus" target="_self">RepresentUs</a>, another group that promoted the measure.</p>
<p>The main opposition came from a group dubbed Defend Alaska Elections, which was funded primarily by Republican campaign arms and fiscal conservative groups. It said the measure would sow voter confusion and complained the state was being used as a democracy reform laboratory by special-interest groups in the Lower 48.</p>
<p>Republican Lisa Murkowski is up for re-election to a fifth Senate term in two years, and former Gov. Sarah Palin, the party's 2008 vice-presidential candidate, has hinted she's ready to mount a comeback by challenging the senator. Under the new system, both well-known and presumably well-funded candidates would have a solid shot at making the November ballot.</p>
<p>In so-called RCV contests, voters list in order of preference the candidates they like. The race ends if one candidate is the top choice on a majority of ballots. Otherwise, an instant runoff takes place. The candidate with the fewest No. 1 votes is eliminated, the ballots ranking that person on top are assigned to the voters' second choices — the process repeating until one candidate emerges with majority support.</p>
<p>After traditional and unchanged presidential primaries, ranked-choice voting would also be used to award Alaska's three electoral votes under the referendum. Elections for municipal posts would not be altered.</p>
<p>The final element of the measure will require additional disclosure of contributions to <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/independent-expenditures" target="_self">independent expenditure</a> groups and about the sources of contributions to candidate coffers — generally when the amounts topped $2,000. And it will require disclaimers on campaign advertising by organizations funded by mostly out-of-state money.</p>
<p>Under federal election campaign law, candidates for Congress in the state will still benefit from independent expenditures having no reporting obligations.</p>
<p>"Today's win is just the start. We will continue to work with our fellow Alaskans to ensure these reforms are seen for what they are — nonpartisan and practical," Siegert said. "Now the real work begins."</p>
<p>The other states with nonpartisan primaries advance just two candidates to the general election: Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington and California. A ballot measure that would have added Florida to the list failed to attain the 60 percent supermajority required this month.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Alaska case may open door to reversing Citizens United - The Fulcrum ›
- The 10 most important ballot proposals for fixing democracy - The ... ›
- Alaskans to consider open primaries, ranked-choice voting - The ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Adobe Stock Image
New Mexico warning: Modest sunshine still leaves campaign cash in shadow
Nov 18 2020
Since New Mexico enacted a new disclosure law last year, more than $800,000 in political spending has been publicly reported by nonprofit groups that in the past would have remained largely hidden.
It's a change that Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver calls "a huge victory." But Austin Graham of the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for tighter regulation of money in politics, is more reserved: "What's on the books in New Mexico is not the most cutting edge, but it's undoubtedly a big improvement from the last decade."
The New Mexico experience illustrates that improving the transparency of how campaigns are financed can be done, but making progress often requires incremental steps that take a lot of time. What has happened in New Mexico is an example of what states across the country must grapple with when they seek to slow the influence of money over their own politics, at a time when federal regulation of presidential and congressional elections has shriveled.
<p>
An ocean of money still floats through the state's elections while remaining out of public view — it's spent on mailers and advertising that blanket television, radio and social media as elections near — because the new law didn't strengthen donor disclosure requirements for <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/political-action-committees" target="_self">political action committees</a>.
</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>
More than $4.8 million in spending on campaigns across the state this year came from PACs whose donations are very difficult if not impossible to trace to their original source, according to an analysis by New Mexico In Depth and The Fulcrum. That's because their donors often are nonprofit groups or other PACs, so the only way to learn where the money originally came from is to find out the contributors to those other groups.
</p><p>
Finding out who gives to nonprofit organizations — so-called "<a href="http://thefulcrum.us/dark-money" target="_self">dark money</a> groups" — can be next to impossible, because for the most part they aren't required to identify their own donors.
</p><p>
But identifying who is giving to groups registered as political action committees in Santa Fe is difficult, too, it turns out. Sifting and sorting through multiple layers of public reports that PACs must file might lead to original sources of their money, but more often it comes to a dead end.
</p><p>
Welcome to the world of "<a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/secret-spending-states" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">gray money</a>" — when PACs give to other PACs.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image image-crop-custom" style="text-align: center;">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://thefulcrum.us/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDc4NTMyNS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjg2NzAzMX0.KE8DsXCTP4_QBj35z41NNKI9fPGK2XDQr91p2k1wuQU/image.png?width=450&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=450" id="daa4f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="679ce7ea175ceb42bf648512e70ea205" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p style="text-align: left;">One salient example in New Mexico this year was the almost $1 million spent by two groups to promote a ballot measure, passed with 56 percent support, that will make the state's Public Regulation Commission an appointed rather than elected body. The Committee to Protect New Mexico Consumers reported spending $269,000 but didn't disclose its donors. Vote Yes to Reform the New Mexico PRC spent $689,600 and reported that its donors were five other groups — one based in New Mexico and the others in Washington, D.C., or New York.<br></p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>
Creating a system with far greater transparency about who's seeking to influence elections may be daunting, but other states have done it and offer models for drawing back the curtain on political giving. Several campaign finance experts point to California in particular. For nearly five decades, its robust campaign finance system has been successful in promoting transparency in one of the largest political spending markets in the country.
</p><h3>Awash in gray as well as dark money</h3><p>
Since the Supreme Court decision in<a href="https://thefulcrum.us/citizens-united" target="_self"> Citizens United v. FEC</a> lifted restraints a decade ago on political money spent independently of candidates, secretive spending has only become more entrenched in American elections. The <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/brennan-center-for-justice" target="_self">Brennan Center for Justice</a>, a liberal public policy institute at New York University Law School, found that just four years after the decision, only 29 percent of outside spending in state races across the country was transparent — plummeting from 76 percent four years before the ruling.
</p><p>
In a 2016 report, the center described dark and gray money as especially harmful in state elections because special interests can spend far less than they would at the federal level and still have a substantial influence on the outcome.
</p><p>
"For candidates used to modest budgets and low-key campaigning, dark money can prove an unfair and expensive obstacle, possibly discouraging potential candidates from deciding to compete," it concluded.
</p><p>
Six years ago, two-thirds of contributions to political committees nationally came from other PACs. And such gray money has only become more pervasive in state and local elections since, said Chisun Lee, one of the authors of the Brennan report.
</p><p>
"Gray money is a convenient and too often legal way to conceal the identity of the true giver of the money for political spending," she said. "Why wouldn't political donors take that route if they're able?"
</p><p>
<br>
</p><div class="rm-embed embed-media"><iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/4307121/embed" style="width:100%;height:400px;" title="Interactive or visual content">
</iframe><div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;">
<a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/4307121/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/4307121" style="text-decoration:none!important" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a>
</div></div><p>
New Mexico In Depth analyzed every contribution made to a political action committee in the state during the 2018 and 2020 campaigns, focusing on transactions of $500 or more. Based on these contributions, we identified 11 funded mostly with dark money from nonprofits and 25 that received most contributions with gray money from other PACs. All together, these PACs spent almost $13 million over the last two elections, roughly a third of all PAC expenditures in the state.<br>
</p><p>
The biggest of them, the Verde Voters Fund of Conservation Voters New Mexico, paid more than $2.5 million primarily to communications and political consulting firms. But the source of the cash that came from its largest donor, the League of Conservation Voters, is permitted to remain a mystery.
</p><p>
Perhaps most clearly emblematic of gray money, though, is a PAC called Better Future for New Mexico, which funneled $1.6 million to other PACs operating in the state. It reported raising $2.7 million, almost entirely from three nonprofits: State Victory Action, Grove Action Fund and Civic Participation Action Fund. Two of them don't have to report their donors, and they didn't.
</p><div class="rm-embed embed-media"><iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/3965086/embed" style="width:100%;height:800px;" title="Interactive or visual content">
</iframe><div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;">
<a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/3965086/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/3965086" style="text-decoration:none!important" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a>
</div></div><h3>California goes deep on disclosure<br>
</h3><p>
Had those contributions been given to groups in California for political activity, those groups would have likely had to file their own reports with that state. California is seen as a model for how other states could implement disclosure laws geared toward identifying the original source of campaign finance dollars.
</p><p>
Even though campaigning and lobbying in the nation's most populous state is a billion-dollar industry, Sacramento has kept dark and gray money spending at bay.
</p><p>
California requires groups to disclose the source of the money they use to influence elections, and goes a step further by requiring donors themselves to file reports if they give generously enough.
</p><p>
Groups involved in elections must report donors who give $100 or more for political purposes. But when such money doesn't account for a group's entire spending in an election, it must start identifying donors whose gifts weren't earmarked for political activity — starting with the most recent, until the total donated matches the total spent.
</p><p>
But what combats gray money secrecy in California the most is its <a href="http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/Manual_5/Final_Manual_5.pdf" target="_blank">major donor</a> rule.
</p><p>
PACs taking a gift above $5,000 must notify those donors they might be required to file their own report with the state — which they have to do once their cumulative campaign donations top $10,000. And if those major donors, in turn, have raised money to fuel their political giving, they must register as a political committee under California law and send similar disclosure notices to their own generous donors. This process continues until all the original donors are identified.
</p><p>
Hiding behind a corporate identity is not allowed; the $10,000 threshold combines money from individuals and businesses or groups they control. And failure to disclose the "true source" of a campaign's money can be prosecuted by the state as money laundering.
</p><p>
Beyond the reporting requirements, California puts donor information in front of the public when they're confronted with a political ad — in print, on social media, or on TV or radio. In some cases, the "paid for by" messages must list the sponsor's three most generous donors at $50,000 or more.
</p><p>
Then there is the state's Fair Political Practices Commission. Established 46 years ago in response to the Watergate scandal, the bipartisan watchdog agency is independent from the state government.
</p><p>
Last year the panel responded to more than 14,200 phone and email inquiries, hosted 44 workshops about state campaign finance law and resolved almost 1,500 enforcement cases, including 343 settlements that produced almost $800,000 in fines. It also has the power to set new money-in-politics rules, including one that took effect in August requiring some businesses to name the person primarily responsible for approving political activity.
</p><p>
"While the amount of dollars spent is an issue for some people, our main concern is that the public gets to see where the money is coming from," said Jay Wierenga, a commission spokesperson.
</p><h3>Making change in New Mexico</h3><p>
Toulouse Oliver, New Mexico's chief elections official as secretary of state, said she supports further bolstering of the state's campaign finance disclosures because it's important information for the public is making voting decisions. "It's something that I absolutely will be talking to our legislators about as we prepare for the next legislative session," she said.
</p><p>
The 2021 session of the Democratic-majority Legislature convenes in January for its regular annual session. But Toulouse Oliver expressed trepidation, saying she didn't want to see New Mexico's laws voided by the courts again, after a decade during which the state's Campaign Reporting Act was unenforceable. And she said a push for new rules would likely be an uphill effort.
</p><p>
"It's something that I anticipate having a lot of pushback on from every entity or organization that does this kind of political activity, because it will mean that they have to dedicate more resources to keeping their books straight in terms of where the money is coming from," she said.
</p><p>
Both the Brennan Center report and New Mexico reform advocates point to evidence the public wants greater disclosure. In a <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/political-corruption-poll" target="_self">poll</a> last year by the Campaign Legal Center, 85 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans supported changing the rules to require public disclosure of contributions to all organizations that spend money on elections — effectively ending the world of dark money. And a <a href="https://www.commoncause.org/new-mexico/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2019/01/Final-CC_PUBOP_Tracked.pdf" target="_blank">poll</a> last year by Common Cause New Mexico found 94 percent support statewide for enhancing campaign finance disclosures.
</p><p>
But the Brennan Center report also warns that states should set reasonable parameters and not make disclosure laws unduly burdensome on the free speech rights of political groups or their benefactors.
</p><p style="text-align: left;">
"The idea is not to force transparency against everyone and their neighbor who is participating, but rather common-sense disclosure laws so voters can be informed about substantial donors and who is influencing public discourse," said Lee of the Brennan Center.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image image-crop-custom" style="text-align: center;">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://thefulcrum.us/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDc4NTMzOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2Mjc4ODA1MX0.FPwT-6ZXWbxnuH_WU-8Wnl4Uvp1onETxuWiJ940zOGM/image.png?width=400&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=600" id="f3e2f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="db3668b553fd2574c144e6bfd86ce6fd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p style="text-align: left;">One possible reason that reforming New Mexico campaign finance law has taken so long is that citizen-initiated ballot measures are not allowed — so changing the rules is up to legislators, for whom ease in raising campaign money is top of mind.<br></p><p>
Dede Feldman, who retired after 16 years as a Democratic state senator, during which she championed a <a href="https://nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=S&legType=B&legNo=116&year=09" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">law imposing</a> campaign contribution limits, said the possibility of changing such rules presents legislators with a tough choice: Protect themselves and their odds of getting re-elected or do what's best for the public?
</p><p>
"When you come to power with one system, you are reluctant to give that up," she said.
</p><p>
<em>Metzger is a reporting fellow at </em><a href="https://us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=1d2ab093d81b992e50978b363&id=9294743d38" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>New Mexico In Depth</em></a><em>. This story was written and edited in collaboration with that nonprofit news site.</em>
</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Dark money plays outsized role in state judicial elections - The ... ›
- Bipartisan support for dark money bill Ohio - The Fulcrum ›
- Montana dark money disclosure law upheld by federal appeals court ›
- A reminder of how democracy dies in dark money - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
President-elect Joe Biden, who with Jill Biden marked Veterans Day on Wednesday, has come under criticism for not making democracy reform a priority.
Anxious democracy reformers pressing Biden to make more of their causes
Nov 12 2020
Joe Biden has plenty of campaign promises to keep, beyond the obvious and enormous top priorities of corralling the coronavirus and stabilizing the economy. And that's made democracy reform groups, which have never counted him as an impassioned ally, newly skeptical their priorities will get addressed in his new administration.
Their anxiety has come to the surface this week. A coalition of 170 progressive good governance and voting rights organizations asked the president-elect to elevate a collection of fix-the-system proposals into his first 100 days' agenda. Separately, one of the most influential such groups, RepresentUs, lambasted the Biden transition for "an omission of epic proportions" by giving short shrift to the issues it cares about.
Their impatience, just days after Biden's victory became clear, underscores the precarious position the cause of fixing democracy's dysfunction has in the public policy agenda.
<p>At the same time, however, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signaled she may revive the sweeping election process, government ethics and money-in politics legislation known as HR 1, and have the House pass it again in January even before Biden's inauguration. </p><p>Doing so "right off the bat," she told reporters before her Democratic majority was trimmed by about a dozen seats on Election Day, would "reduce the role of big, dark, special-interest money that prevents us from having policies that the American people need." </p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>That could only happen, though, if the Democrats win both runoffs in Georgia in January and take the narrowest possible control of the Senate. Otherwise, HR 1 and <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/biden-political-reform" target="_self">all the other legislation</a> on the good governance wish list — including a restoration of the <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/voting-rights-act" target="_self">Voting Rights Act</a> and a package to curb executive power abuses — would continue to get ignored to death by GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.</p><p>Biden has backed taxpayer funding of congressional and presidential campaigns — a Holy Grail for many reform groups — since he was a new Delaware senator in the 1970s. And early in his campaign for the Democratic nomination he unveiled a full slate of proposals for expanding voting rights, curbing money's sway over campaigns, bolstering government ethics and recalibrating the balance of power. </p><p>But, unlike seven of his rivals in the sprawling early field, in the summer of 2019 he <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/candidates-end-citizens-united-pledge" target="_self">declined to sign a pledge</a> to put those issues on top of his legislative agenda if elected. And, after he wrapped up the nomination, it appeared to take a concerted lobbying effort to get a robust section on democracy reform added to the party platform — just in time for a convention <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/joe-biden-agenda" target="_self">when almost all mentions </a>of the topic were about the need to assure easy voting in the pandemic-upended election.</p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>Part of that effort was <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/democracy-reform-groups-to-biden-dont-you-forget-about-us" target="_self">a public appeal to Biden</a> from a new coalition dubbing itself the <a href="https://declarationforamericandemocracy.org/" target="_blank">Declaration for American Democracy</a>.</p><p>It was that group that went public Tuesday with a <a href="https://declarationforamericandemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/9.28-Day-One-is-for-Democracy-1.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">manifesto</a> calling on Biden to both push hard for HR 1, whether Congress stays divided or not, but also make 30 different moves by executive order to promote voting rights and assure his administration is more honest, transparent, responsive and respectful of checks and balances than in the past.</p><p>The most important moves on the coalition's list, it said, would be requiring federal social services agencies to help the people they serve register to vote; tightening the ethics pledge for political appointees; curbing the revolving door between the executive branch and lobbyist and corporate offices; refusing to have anything to do with fundraising by so-called <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/super-pac" target="_self">super PACS</a>; posting White House visitor logs; and making public all the work of the White House office of legal counsel.</p><p>For the organizations in the group, any of these changes would represent a dramatic shift from the past four years. President Trump, who won partly on a vow to "drain the swamp," has done nothing of the kind while upending virtually avery norm of democracy he could get his hands on.</p><p>Most recently, and potentially most consequentially, has been his decision to contest his defeat last week and in the meantime refuse to cooperate in the transition. But along the way he has challenged the precepts of open and ethical government by commingling his business interests with government work, choosing secrecy over transparency at nearly every turn and thwarting all congressional efforts to oversee or investigate his activities. </p><p>But there is no time to wait, said Josh Silver, who runs the influential reform group RepresentUs. And the signals from the Biden transition team that such issues have fallen to the second tier demonstrate "an omission of epic proportions."</p><p>It "follows a pattern of Democratic presidential candidates talking big about these issues on the campaign trail and promptly ignoring them when the chips are down. That's why our nation is in the perilous position we're in now," he said in an exceptionally harsh statement Monday. "It just requires leadership that prioritizes these reforms. Based on President-elect Biden's Day 1 agenda, it's not going to happen, and he is guaranteeing more dysfunction, more authoritarianism and more instability." </p><p>Biden will likely focus first on proposals that could attract bipartisan support — starting with providing economic relief during the resurgent pandemic and then moving on to improving the nation's crumbling infrastructure and using the climate change crisis as the basis for job creation.</p><p>The political dynamic on Capitol Hill means Biden may have to pull back from some policy proposals that are mainly goals of the left and have little or no traction among conservatives. Democracy reform, in the main, falls in that bucket</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Democracy advocates plea with Biden not to downgrade reforms ... ›
- The democracy reform and Black political agendas must align - The ... ›
- Biden backs vote-at-home, says Trump out to undermine election ... ›
- Biden unveils his democracy reform agenda - The Fulcrum ›
- Democratic ticket hasn't pushed the reform agenda - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Ankur Dholakia/Getty Images
Nearly 80 percent of Oregon voters supported a constitutional amendment allowing curbs on campaign contributions and spending.
Oregonians vote to end their era of free-flowing money in politics
Nov 05 2020
Tuesday's election yielded two wins and one probable loss for those who say that curbing the influence of money in politics is key to a better democracy.
By far the most significant victory for that cause was in Oregon, which voted overwhelmingly to allow the state to limit campaign contributions and spending — and reverse some of the nation's most permissive campaign financing rules. And a couple of symbolic new limits were approved Tuesday in Missouri. But a package including new curbs on gifts to campaigns was facing rejection in Alaska.
<p>The Supreme Court's landmark <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/citizens-united" target="_self">Citizens United</a> ruling a decade ago said corporations, nonprofits and unions have a First Amendment right to spend as much as they want to help elect or defeat candidates for Congress or president. But since then, more than a handful of states have moved to tighten the flow of cash coursing through their own campaigns for statewide, legislative and local offices.</p><p>Here are the details on the three measures on the ballot this week:</p><h3>Oregon</h3><p>There was no organized opposition to the ballot referendum, which secured 79 percent support — ending decades of stalemate on the issue.</p><p>The measure adds language to the state Constitution making plain that restrictions on contributions and spending are permitted at all levels of government — as are rules requiring campaigns to be transparent about who is funding them.</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>Its approval will make campaign finance legislation a high-profile topic in the Legislature next year. Proponents of the ballot measure say that, if strict new rules to curb big money and favor small-dollar donations are not produced fast, they will try to force Salem's hand with another referendum two years from now.</p><p>Oregon is one of just five states that sets no limits on how much money candidates can receive from donors, the result of a state Supreme Court decision in 1997 that political contributions are a form of free speech under the state Constitution. A proposal to change that was rejected by voters in 2006, but the campaign was revived two years ago after a not very competitive race for governor was fueled with more than $40 million in gifts.</p><p>The arguments over the measure were familiar. Advocates talked about the overdue need to combat potential corruption and reduce the power of the wealthy and special interests. The grassroots opponents said the result would stifle political debate.</p><h3>Missouri</h3><p>Two marginal curbs to political money in Jefferson City were appended to a ballot measure <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/redistricting/virginia-redistricting" target="_self">that was mainly focused on</a> changing the rules for redistricting — by reversing the voters' 2018 demand that the lines be drawn to ensure partisan fairness. It was approved with just 51 percent of the vote.</p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>The measure will ban even the token gifts from lobbyists that are now permitted — just $5 to buy legislators a soda or maybe a ticket to a pancake breakfast. It will also lower the limit on donations to candidates for the 34 state Senate seats — but by just $100, to $2,400. And the new curb does not touch the contribution ceiling for the 163 state House races.</p><h3>Alaska</h3><p>The outcome of the broadest democracy reform initiative on the ballot this year remained grim if uncertain Thursday, and will stay that way until next week. With votes cast in person early and on Election Day tallied — almost three-fifths the expected total -- the proposal was being rejected by 65 percent of Alaskans. The 55,000 vote gap could shift and potentially be reversed, however, when 152,000 mailed ballots are opened and counted starting Tuesday.</p><p>In addition to <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/florida-open-primary-2648622934" target="_self">open primaries</a> and <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/ranked-choice-voting-massachusetts-2648622323" target="_self">ranked-choice voting</a>, the initiative would also require advocacy groups that make contributions for or against candidates for state offices to disclose their donors. These types of "<a href="http://thefulcrum.us/dark-money" target="_self">dark money</a>" groups currently don't have to reveal their funding sources. And it would require disclaimers on campaign advertising by organizations funded by mostly out-of-state money.</p><p>Strengthening these disclosure requirements, proponents say, will help bolster transparency around the groups or individuals influencing Alaska's elections.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oregon: campaign finance - The Fulcrum ›
- Voters to decide future of Oregon's campaign finance regulation ... ›
- Supreme Court blocks redistricting effort in Oregon - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less