FEC Increases Spending Limits

This happens in off years to adjust for inflation.

However the significant change this year is... I'll let the Wall Street Journal tell you. "In April 2014, the Supreme Court threw out the $123,200 cap on what individuals could give to federal candidates and political committees over a two-year election cycle, saying the limits infringed on First Amendment free-speech rights. Within two weeks, the three national GOP party committees formed a joint fundraising committee allowing them to host events where they could request checks three times the size of what they could accept on their own. Previously, they were not barred from creating a joint committee, but the aggregate limit would usually block individuals from giving the joint effort more than each committee’s cap.Under the new limits, the joint committee—called Republican Victory Fund—can accept as much as $100,200 from an individual person or political entity."

Good. Because I was feeling super bad for rich people's inability to completely buy elections. Read all about it here.

I've Been Meaning to Talk to You About That

My Quick and Dirty Thoughts on What's Been Happening in Election and Advocacy News

Oh my God you guys, I miss you so much! I seriously think about blogging the way you think about cupcakes when you're on a diet: I can't have it and I want it all the more!!! The good news is operation no-blogging-until-I-finish-finals is working. I have one paper (on the definition of women's political participation as a human right) left, plus a whole bunch of editing. However, the list of things I want to blog about has been stock piling out of control and before they become irrelevant and/or consume me, I wanted to share them with you. Below are some articles and issues I've been collecting along with one or two of my witty and incisive comments each. Hopefully this will tide us all over for the next couple of days. Here we go!

Obama-rama:
Marshal Ganz from the "too good to accept Nancy" Harvard Kennedy school talking about values vs. issues for FOCS the New Organizing Institute. I'm not always a fan of the hippie-dippier aspects of the Obama campaign, but I love this because it highlights the impact and importance of empowering volunteers to take agency not just in the context of the campaign but in their own lives.
DNC Director of technology, Bryan Whitaker, on the role of technology in President Obama's election. I love this article because it gives credence to contributions and advances made from 2004 to 2008 that made the historic use of technology on the 2012 Obama campaign possible.
Jim Messina on what's next. My favorite part of this interview is that he distinguishes between what is an isn't transferable from OFA 2012.
Speaking of technology...my friend posted the Dole Kemp website on his facebook wall recently. I'm sure the Clinton '96 site was equally visually appealing. I believe the term the kids use is LMFAO.

Today in Voter Suppression:
Voter ID bill passes North Carolina house. Booooo!
Nebraska decreases in-person early voting by five days.
Conservative Colorado Group Photoshops Out Minorities In Mailer Opposing Pro-Voting Legislation Wow. Tell me that part again about voter ID laws not being racist?
Trevor Potter of Stephen Colbert/John McCain fame makes the case for electronic voter registration. Yes!
Oregon Secretary of State pushes for automatic voter registration. A thousand times yes!
Florida bill lowers the mandated number of early voting days and hours, expands the number of early voting sights Oh, Florida...
Special interests and conservative Democrats are going after fusion voting and the New York State Working Families party, again. Fusion voting is such a good idea. You know you're doing it right when the real estate lobby hates you. For more info on why I love Fusion Voting and the Working Families Party and what those things are, click here.
And....This.

Women:
People keep asking me what I think of those new Dove commercials. Here is what I think.
Women and organizers are both socialized to say "yes" when someone asks us for something, even at the expense of our own professional priorities. Great piece by friend Cole on the right way to say "no" when someone asks you for a favor.
Lindy West's response to men asking for 'the rules' after President Obama called Kamala Harris a hottie. Is it possible to get naked and roll around in a blog post? Because that's how much I loved this. For the record, I don't think what President Obama did was that bad, but I do understand where the people who do are coming from. It's all about privilege, a topic I've thought a lot about in grad school and intend to explore on this blog going forward. Seriously, read this piece. Lindy West NAILS IT.

Candidates:
Super PAC, Ready for Hillary started galvanizing support and heavily hinting at a Clinton 2016 run. People ask me if I think she'll run all the time and I always say I hope so, but after the way the media treated her in 2008, we sure as s**t don't deserve her.
In a case of art imitating life, the Onion agrees. I thought they were supposed to do satire...
Anthony Weiner is considering a run for mayor. He acted like an idiot, but I still don't think he should have resigned. I also don't think he should run for mayor.
Roll Call reports that the Hawaii Senate race is split along Clinton/Obama lines. It's called a primary, you assholes, it happened in 2008. Find something else real and not baselessly damaging to the Democratic party to report on.
Speaking of Fusion Voting and Working Families Party, did I mention I'm going down to South Carolina to volunteer for Colbert-Busch? I am.
Because her opponent does crazy things like debate cardboard cutouts of Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, and posts the phone numbers of voters who call his office. I'm not gonna say I've never fantasized about doing this, but that's what a GFY list is for.

Advocate from Where You Stand:
Ignore the tone of this article by John Hawkins who once asked me if I was going to "accuse him of patriarchy" after he pointed out that I was the only woman a panel we both sat on. (Well, now I am...) Kid wears shirt with pro-gun slogan on it to school. Kid gets in trouble. Hundreds of classmates wear shirts with pro-gun slogans on them the next day. Good for them. If anything we should be encouraging kids to engage in the process. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Momsdemandaction.org came up with these moving and provocative ads in response to the absolutely insane failure of the gun control last week. Well, damn.
Everyday Sexism Project launches in the USA. The project gives women a space and a voice to identify the myriad ways that male privilege impacts our lives on a daily basis. I'm already blowing up their twitter feed.

Republican Operatives:
Gingrich campaign worker charged with blackmailing women, dressing up as an elephant. Argh! You're making us look bad!
Former Pawlenty aid supports equal marriage. My friend who tweeted this article editorialized, "If I had a dollar for every Republican staffer or former elected who supports gay marriage..." So, true! It's clear the direction we're going on this issue...now can we just get there?
Because speaking of which...The FEC ruled that same-sex couples can't give to campaigns like straight couples. The FEC's hands were tied. They were just interpreting a shitty, discriminatory law.

And that, my friends, is what I have to say about that. As I signed my email to my volunteers the night before the Iowa caucus, see you in victory!

(Hopefully this goes better...)

Campaign Love And Mine,

Nancy

FEC to Host Campaign Finance Seminar March 20th

I think it's kind of messed up that the FEC is charging people to learn how to comply with the law, even if it's just over the web, but whatever. Capitalism! You can find the agenda here. If it was not 2 days before my Spring Break I would totally go and use it as an excuse to get my election nerd on.

FEC Raises Federal Contribution Limit

In case you missed it. Washington Post:

The Federal Election Commission has raised the amount that individuals can give to political candidates from $2,500 per election to $2,600 per election and the amount they can give to party committees from $30,800 per year to $32,400 per year.

Ridiculous Bedfellows

Hat Tip to The New Republic for pointing out this amazing wayward tale of FEC glory in which the Republican members of the FEC side with union bosses and Democratic members side against them. Here's what happened:

"In a little-noticed ruling last week... the three Republican commissioners on the FEC found that it was acceptable for a union in Hawaii to force its members to campaign on behalf of Colleen Hanabusa, a Democratic candidate in the special congressional election in Hawaii in May 2010. Two members of United Public Workers had filed a complaint stating they had lost their jobs when they refused to hold signs and canvass on behalf of Hanabusa. This might seem like just the sort of thing that Republicans would seize on as proof of union bosses wielding undue power over their minions—but no. The Democratic appointees on the FEC found the coercion illegal, but the Republican appointees did not—instead, they cited the 2010 Citizens United ruling as permitting the union’s compulsion.

Because if the union in this instance is allowed to compel its members to campaign on behalf of a favored candidate, that means that a corporation is allowed to do so, too. And just as the lifting of spending restrictions ends up meaning much more for corporations than for unions—since corporations have a lot more money to spend—any lifting of restrictions on compelled political activity would mean more for corporations as well, since there are a lot more people working at big companies than in the shrinking ranks of unionized workers."

The commission is deadlocked and the case remains unsettled, but the potential implications are harrowing. No one should be forced to campaign on behalf of a candidate by anyone especially her employer. That seems completely contrary to the whole free and fair elections thing. Could you imagine Walmart deciding to make its employees campaign on behalf of Mitt Romney at peril of losing their jobs? That is some Orwellian noise right there.

Happy Labor Day Everybody! (No but seriously, in general you should thank a union member today if you like weekends and safe working conditions.) But still, wow.

Gingrich to FEC: "GFY"

Gingrich is all about fiscal responsibility, unless of course it's his own. The FEC has sent a second letter to the Gingrich campaign requesting "information essential to full public disclosure of your federal election campaign finances." The first letter, sent Oct 29th warned that failure to expand on the broad categories in the campaign's initial filing, including $88,000 in travel reimbursements to the candidate, "could result in an audit or enforcement action."

Bloomberg:

"You can gauge the level of terror this threat instilled by... [Campaign Treasurer Lisa] Lisker's casual, contemptuous, two-paragraph reply: Nov. 29. Lisker replied that the Gingrich campaign had concluded that "no further itemization is required" for the expenses and so none was forthcoming. Having informed the commission that she could not care less about its preoccupation with campaign finance details, Lisker concluded, "Thank you for bringing these items to our attention.""

You think he'd be able to afford his own travel expenses, what with all the money he saved on cancer bills and alimony that he neglected to pay. Newt Gingrich is to classiness as Jeremy Lin is to being bad at basketball.

Citizens United Amendment?

I realized I haven't posted about a very important Constitutional amendment being proposed by Tom Udall (NM), Michael Bennett (CO), Tom Harkin (IA), Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Jeff Merkely (OR), (all of whom were elected with the help of at least one of my amazing organizer friends, by the way) which would effectively overturn Citizens United.

The amendment as filed resolves that both Congress and individual states shall have the power to regulate both the amount of contributions made directly to candidates for elected office and “the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”

Bernie Sanders was on the Colbert Report talking about the same thing.

Could it be? Meaningful campaign finance reform? Be still my little organizing heart.

FEC does something non-controversial

Allowing Gabrielle Giffords to use campaign funds for increased personal security.

As you may remember the Congresswoman and her staff were attacked at a Congress on your Corner event back in January. Six people died and Rep.Giffords suffered extensive injuries.

“We all hope that the alarm is never triggered,” said FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub... “This was perhaps the easiest request that we have gotten in the last three years.”

Did Obama Violate Campaign Finance Laws?

by filming this video in the White House?
Republicans wish. Interesting to think about though.
Here's an article about it.

Supreme Court Rules States Can't Offer Extra Public Funds to Encourage Spending Limit

The Supreme Court, sharply divided along ideological lines, struck down part of an Arizona campaign funding law, ruling that states and cities may not seek to "level the playing field" by giving extra public funds to candidates who agree to abide by spending limits.

Quite frankly, I'm too flu-y to comment right now, but I wanted to make sure I shared this since I think it brings up some interesting points. More later.

-Nance

What has a funny last name and strikes fear into the hearts of the FEC?

This guy.

Do you know who James Bopp is? I didn't either, but he's a BFD in the world of campaign finance law. To wit:

"Bopp brought the Citizens United v. FEC case and breached the wall between corporate money and partisan politics; he unraveled major provisions of the McCain-Feingold law; he has helped to make state judicial elections more expensive; he's fighting to undo mandatory disclosure of donors; and now, he says he's found a way for federal candidates to ask corporations for cash."

One day, dear readers, we will talk about my views on campaign finance law. And on that day, you will probably hate me.

Until then, Bopp.

Republicans want to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission

Because "it's a waste of money."

Which it is, if you consider making voting more accessible and secure a waste of money. The EAC (click for website) is essentially a government agency dedicated to providing and gathering information on how we vote. Among other services, they give grants for new voting technologies, test new voting systems and provide voters with information on elections and election laws in their area. I have no doubt that aspects of the agency are mismanaged, but that doesn't detract from its mission.

So to summarize, the elected officials who support H.R. 672 want to make it harder for us to go to the polls and elect them. Yes, the FEC can take over some of these duties, but I'm gonna go ahead and put a fine point on it. These politicians don't want to make it easier to vote because they are afraid that the groups that benefit most from the EAC, like the disabled or indigent, won't vote for them. This is the same kind of stuff we have been seeing all month in state legislatures. Unsurprisingly, the same people who don't mind denying the young, old, poor or disabled health care have no qualms about disenfranchising them either.

And disenfranchising people, well that's downright unAmerican.

The Most Sexist Campaign Ad I've Ever Seen*

*also it's pretty racist.

Yes, this ad is real. Someone thought that was a good idea. It is so unbelievably offensive that I feel that aspect needs no explanation. Also, it looks like it was made by twelve year old boys, possibly to get back at a teacher or some girl who wouldn't make out with them.

Here is an article about it. (FYI: What the article doesn't make clear is that the FEC complaint is unrelated to the content of the ad, but has to do with the PAC's association with Hahn's opponent's campaign.) The article includes the following quote from NOW President Terry O'Neill:

The GOP can't simply shrug its shoulders and claim ignorance about this ad. The party now has a woman running for president and another high-profile woman who may also jump into the race. In the past couple years, conservatives have received a crash course in what it's like to have gender stereotypes and sexist slurs directed at women on their side of the aisle.

Obviously I agree with O'Neill's denunciation of the content of this ad, but I don't think the Republican party is going to stop being sexist simply because Republican women are running for office. Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are anti-choice, anti-sex education, anti-equal pay for women and anti-rape victim support. Having a cello doesn't make you a cellist, and having a vagina doesn't make you a feminist.

On the other hand, according to her website:

Janice strongly supports advancing the rights of women. She believes in providing women a quality education, fair pay, and equal employment opportunities. Janice supports a woman’s right to choose and will fight to ensure that women of all ages and backgrounds are provided the tools they need to succeed in today’s society – whether in the job market or at home raising children and caring for their family.

Can you imagine being the candidate and her staff seeing this ad for the first time? Ironically, but not surprisingly, the ad is actually galvanizing support for Hahn. Maybe you would like to donate to an actual feminist candidate?

Okay, I do need to say it, just in case. This ad's portrayal of women in politics is completely unacceptable.

Questionable candidate for a precedent ...

...about a questionable candidate for President.

Suppose you have a boyfriend. He's a jerk, but you can't see it. Sure, you've heard rumors, but you don't believe them. Your friends don't like him. They prefer that black guy who was interested in you. You know, the one who you didn't think was liberal enough? The relationship is making you miserable. Your boyfriend (let's call him John) takes all your money and makes you follow him to godforsaken towns to be with him. You are tired and stressed out all the time, but you don't want to admit you are unhappy because you are sooooo in love.

Then, once you have given all you have to give, he breaks up with you! You are devastated, but you pick up the pieces and move on with aforementioned black guy who turns out not to be as awful as you thought he was. Then all of a sudden, you are minding your own business and BOOM your friends start gchatting you "Did you know that John cheated on you? John is a coke dealer now! Remember when you LIKED him? I heard he is going to jail. Did you know about this? " You haven't thought about the relationship for weeks and all of a sudden you are barraged with emails reminding you just what dbag you were dating and what an idiot you were for wasting your time with him.

Welcome to the life of a former Edwards campaign staffer.

For reasons that should be obvious at this point, I generally try to eschew any Edwards related news, but when JRE's indictment popped up on my google news feed this morning, I couldn't resist.

According to Outside the Beltway "Individuals familiar with the probe have said that investigators are focusing on whether money paid to Hunter and former Edwards campaign aide Andrew Young constituted campaign donations, since the funds helped Edwards’s presidential campaign by keeping the affair secret."

According to CNN.com "The government is believed to be building its case that Edwards violated campaign finance law based on an 11-year-old advisory opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission, which asserted that a gift to a candidate for federal office would be considered a campaign contribution."

Those are two slightly different things, right?

It seems, and I could be wrong, that if the money went right from the donors to Hunter, it was not technically a gift to Edwards, but did obviously impact the campaign. Like I said, I haven't been keeping up, but that seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

Does this mean I can go out, do something that impacts your campaign, and then get you brought up on FEC charges? Where is the line drawn?

If indeed Edwards knew about the funds and potentially even approved them (he says he didn't but, I bet he did), then that is much more clear cut. Even if he didn't (he did), John Edwards deserves what's coming to him. Unfortunately the courts can't mandate 24-hr call time.

PS. Just when you thought it couldn't get more eye-rolly, as I am about to post this, the $400 haircut rears its impeccably groomed head.