This presentation is designed to focus our attention on New York s broken campaign finance system and discuss what can be done to fix it All the issues you are concerned with on a day to day basis have a connection to government and government is run by elected officials. Are they addressing your concerns? Everyday New Yorkers believe that it is easier than ever for corporations and individuals with money to use their wealth to influence federal and state elections.. 1
Campaigns are driven by communication, and communication costs money. To be elected, candidates must get money for that communication from somewhere, and the source of that money is at the core of what we will be talking about today. The source of that money also drives the government and its agenda and therein lies the problem. It is reasonable to conclude that a person whose campaign is paid for by a particular person, industry or special interest will be sensitive to the needs of that person or special interest This brings a corrupting influence of money into politics even without the actual quid pro quo corruption that gets politicians thrown into jail. 2
Use this slide as an agenda to guide the rest of the presentation: Prior to giving the presentation, give the audience a run down of what the presentation will cover. Feel free to refer back to this agenda verbally throughout the presentation. It will keep people engaged with a big picture sense of the material and direction of the presentation. There are subdivisions throughout the PowerPoint that follow the bolded categories on this slide. It is helpful to think of dividing this presentation into three parts in delivery. 3
Improving New York s weak campaign finance laws and a Fair Elections system of public financing together can blunt the impact of money in campaigns. Empowering ordinary citizens will engage them and result in a legislature more responsive to their needs We need to reform the system so large contributions will not overwhelm the voice of the ordinary citizen in government. reform the New York system to limit the amount of money flowing directly to candidates and parties and disclose political spending outside of candidates and parties and have effective enforcement of these limits match small donor contributions to get more people running for office and re engage citizens 4
When most of the money in politics comes from a small number of people who can afford to contribute large amounts, the result is unequal political power. Last year, one third of the money given to New York candidates and political parties came from just 127 large donors, for a total of nearly $17 million dollars. If our elected officials have to spend inordinate amounts of time raising money, that time is time stolen from the work of government. Most politicians spend more thanhalftheir half their time raising money. If an elected official is not responsive to everyday citizens, we lose the very core of democracy. 5
Even if politicians start out with good intentions, the influence of large donors inevitably makes them beholden to these donors over the interests of the general public. The system has to change When people have the impression that big money is controlling an election, it is very easy for them to disengage from the political process. Why should I contribute my $5 when corporations can use unlimited amounts of money to promote their message? Why should I vote when the elections are dominated by wealthy people, corporations and special interest groups? Why should I vote when incumbents keep getting re elected? The need to access money, either from a personal fortune or through contributions feeds these problems. We lose good potential candidates because of the money barrier. 6
We should address both sides of the equation. Lowering campaign contribution limits and increasing disclosure so we know where the money came from and where it has been spent, and effective enforcement of these laws will create more trust in politics from citizens Multiplying small donations will enable more people to run for office and will minimize the effects of big money in elections. 7
After years of apathy in Albany to campaign finance reform and public funding of campaigns, passage of these reforms is on the front burner. The Governor and many in the state are trying to raise the awareness of the citizens of New York to the importance of campaign finance reform, if the people do not want the change, the legislature will not be moved to make the change. Public awareness about the influx of money into the presidential campaigns is at a high point. Names of billionaires funding Super PACs have become easily recognizable. News reports contain daily reports about the amount of money being raised and spent to elect our President. This awareness should motivate people to change our state laws to minimize the effect of money in our campaigns. 8
9
We have, in this country been concerned about the financing of campaigns for a very long time, however the modern history of campaign finance laws started in 1906 when, after being accused of fundraising improprieties, President Theodore Roosevelt calls for a ban on all corporate contributions "for any political purpose. 10
Instead of our current system, we should look for a system that achieves the goals of right side of this chart 11
The rights of free speech and association are cherished rights in our country. The Supreme Court has held that eminent position of those rights means that the government must have a particularly good reason to place restrictions on the power of people and corporations to use their money to back the candidate of their choice. 12
Independent political expenditures, not coordinated with a candidate, cannot be limited by state and federal laws. Although Citizens United has become the buzzword for the unlimited infusion of money into political campaigns, that case was only one of several Supreme Court cases which addressed the power of federal and state governments to regulate campaign finances. Citizens United did not address direct contributions to candidates or spending by candidates, but other Supreme Court cases have addressed these issues, and have generally approved reasonable limits on contributions to candidates, However the court has struck down limits on spending (except in the context of voluntary public financing), and attempts to level the playing field by equalizing the amounts of money available to a candidate. The Supreme Court has also held that it campaign finance law cannot prevent a person from expending his or her entire personal fortune, no matter how large that fortune might be, on getting elected. 13
What can campaign finance laws do? Place reasonable limits on the amounts of contributions that can be made by individuals, corporations and other entities directly to candidates Provide for broad disclosure of who is giving money to whom, personal information about the contributors, such as employer, occupation, address as well as name, Provide for disclosure of independent expenditures Provide for attribution of ads Establish effective enforcement with meaningful penalties for failure to comply with campaign finance laws. Provide for public financing of elections, including matching grants that multiply small donations 14
New York campaign finance law applies to campaigns for governor and other statewide offices state senator state assemblyman The laws which regulate Presidential elections, and elections for US senate and US Congressman are federal laws. New York campaign finance law addresses some of the issues which campaign finance laws should cover, but it does so poorly. Contribution limits are sky high and loopholes negate their effectiveness remember the amazing fact we discussed earlier that last year, one third of the money given to New York candidates and political parties came from just 127 large donors, individuals, corporations and unions, for a total of nearly $17 million dollars. The limits on contributions by corporations is so filled with holes that corporate entities are able to funnel many times the purported limit to candidates and political parties. Interpretation of the provision which prohibits personal use of funds has allowed the purchase of cigars to hand out at golf outings, flowers for funerals and payments to baby sitters. 15
In some cases the limits are amazingly higher than Federal limits. For example, an individual can contribute up to $60,800 during the election cycle for a candidate for Governor in this state, but can only contribute $5,000 to a Presidential candidate. Contrast this $60,800 number to the average national election cycle of $8,579 16
The current $16,800 limit applicable to candidates for the election cycle (primary plus general) for New York State senate is four times greater than the national average for comparable office and the New York State Assembly limit is more than twice the national average.. Individuals are allowed to give up to $102,300 to political parties for a calendar year in New York. Individuals also have an aggregate limit of $150,000 on contributions to candidates and political parties for a calendar year. 17
18
Lobbyists and state contractors should be limited in the amount of money they can contribute to a candidate. It is just common sense that those with a particular interest in currying favor with our state legislators should be subject to special rules which place additional limits their ability to fund campaigns. 19
20
NYS law allows unfettered contributions to political parties to pay for things like rent on their headquarters, and other overhead, get out the vote efforts and other generic campaign related programs. These so called housekeeping accounts, similar to what is referred to as Soft money at the federal level, allows individuals, PACs and corporations to exceed New York s already high hard money contribution limits by giving more to the parties. The rules on the use of this money is so vague and lax, that the funds can be used for almost anything. While the law prohibits the use of these donations directly on behalf of candidates, parties use these monies to conduct polls, launch get out the vote drives, to fundraise for more hard money and sometimes to launch attack ads. 21
Industries have flooded the political landscape with huge amounts of money How much money is involved? Well, for just one example, Mayor Bloomberg, who as an individual could only contribute $150,000 in total, to all candidates, gave over $1 million to one political party, which had given him their line in the last election. This fall he gave $1 million to the state Senate Republican conference. 22
Enforcement of NYS campaign finance laws is entrusted to the 4 member Board of Elections, appointed along party lines, which results in deadlocked votes, with no means of tie breaking. The investigative unit is understaffed, underfinanced and does not routinely conduct audits. There is only one investigator in the investigative department. You rarely hear of any significant penalties being enforced. 23
One example from a recent NYPIRG study NYS laws require campaign finance committees to report their activities on a regular basis. Many campaign finance committees fail to do so, although former reports show that they have great amount of money in bank accounts. Any deposit, withdrawal or payment of interest would require a report, but these committees do not file reports. The NYS Board of Elections does not pursue these committees, with the result there are thousands of dollars presently unaccounted for. 24
A corporation is limited to a $5,000 contribution to all political candidates. That sounds like a good limit. But each subsidiary or related company is considered as a separate entity so, in point of fact, this figure is multiplied by as many affiliates as a corporation might have. Then you have the LLC s (limited liability corporations). This is a form of corporation which is often used by professionals, but other businesses as well. LLCs are treated as natural people, and so are subject to a total campaign cycle limit of $150,000 for each LLC. 25
The number of affiliates of large business is hard to ascertain, but two examples are MetLife and Koch Industries. Each corporate affiliate can contribute $5000 a year. Each LLC is treated as an individual, with consequently huge contribution limits.. Potential contributions almost beyond ordinary math skills. 26
27
28
29
We should lower our limits and close loopholes Additional reduction of contributions by lobbyists and members of lobbyists households: We should either limit or ban contributions to housekeeping accounts and enforce the way the money can be used We should have independent, effective enforcement We should have better disclosure and transparency Increased and more timely reporting of contributions and expenditures, as well reporting of contributor s occupation and employer ; Immediate internet disclosure of alleged violations of campaign finance laws and disposition We need an independent and nonpartisan enforcement body which is adequately financed; Power to conduct independent audits; Penalties should be increased to further deter noncompliance; 30
NYC is looked to as a model for many reasons. First of all, because it is familiar to about 40% of state residents, who are also city residents, the transition should be relatively easy. Secondly, it seems to be working very well. Studies have shown that more voters have been contributing to elections, which creates more varied participation. Studies have also shown that the candidates have changed their focus from courting large contributors to seeking out small contributors. The BrennanCenterrecently recently completed a study comparing the donating patternsin NYC (Fair Elections) and state elections. It found that NYC s small donor matching program increased the number of campaign donors and the diversity of campaign donors. Almost everyone in the city lived within a city block of someone who contribute to a city council campaign. Not so for state assembly candidates, who actually have the lowest donor participation in the country Since small donations are the key to a candidate receiving public funds to run his or her election, the small donation becomes powerful. 31
There are many variations in the laws which create public funding of campaigns. Variables include: What seats are covered Are expenditures limited Where the money to pay for this comes from Are participants limited as to how much of personal funds they can use 32
More than 20 states and localities have some type of public financing system for a variety of offices http://www.acrreform.org/category/research/ Three states, Arizona, Maine and Connecticut have well utilized state wide systems. These systems are Clean Election systems that provide a block grant once a threshold of private donations is received. 33
Public financing allows the little person to run for election, to get his or her message heard by the voter so the voter has a real choice. Research has shown that the person with the most money does not necessarily win. So long as the person with the less access to big money has enough money to get his or her word out, the election can be competitive and, many times, the person with less access to money wins the election Maine and Arizona have seen an increase voter turnout has continued to rise above the national rate in each successive election. Women and minorities are more likely than other candidates to run with public financing More than double the number of minority candidates and 18% more women candidates ran for state office in Arizona and Maine, respectively, after implementation of Clean Elections New York City s experience: Significant increase in women and people of color elected to office In 2009, City Council became, for the first time, a majority minority a majority of members hailing from communities of color 34
In the New York State 2010 elections (Governor and state legislature), only 6% of the funds raised by candidates came from individual donors who gave them aggregate amounts of $250 or less. (Non Party refers to donors who are not individuals or a political party corporations, unions, etc.) 35
If the state adopted a New-York-City-style six-for-one match for the first $175 contributed by an individual donor to a candidate, it is estimated that the role of small individual donors would more than quadruple. HOWEVER, this chart assumes unrealistically- that no new donors come in the system. Assuming new small donors come into the state system at closer to the same percentage as the city system, small donors could be responsible for as much as half of candidates funds. It is not clear what the cost would be because it depends on the details of the system and whether the total is capped. Cost estimates have ranged from $35 million a year at the low end to more than twice that on the high end. This compared to a total New York State budget of over $130 billion a year This would still be less than $5 per person at the high end 36
37
38