Why does this annoy me so much? According to Mother Jones, there's been a positive breakthrough in Congress' effort to roll back parts of the Citizens United decision and put light on funders of advertising and direct mail campaigns by outside groups.

House Democrats today reached a deal with the National Rifle Association that would roll back parts of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the widely disdained legal precedent that opened the floodgates to corporate-funded political ads. The Dems' deal would require groups like the US Chamber of Commerce to disclose the top funders of their political ads, but would create loopholes for the NRA and other membership groups.

According to Politico, the deal would exempt any organization with over one million members in existence for more than ten years with members in all 50 states. They'd also have to raise less than 15% of their funds from corporate sources.

Assuming these requirements were met, they would not have to disclose the funding source behind the ad.

I realize that unions fall into the definition, but the NRA has not exactly been a shrinking violet when it comes to astroturfed campaign efforts. Giving them a pass bothers me almost as much as giving the US Chamber of Commerce a pass.

I can also imagine about sixty different ways for the US Chamber to walk around these exemptions. They're already putting a full-court press on small businesses to become part of the organization. Most small businesses are not incorporated. While I'm certain it will take awhile for that 15% funding requirement to be met, I'm not at all certain the US Chamber wouldn't find a way to meet it.

There is a little voice in my head which gets louder with every passing day. It screams this: There really isn't much excuse for any entity who is so passionate about political issues and candidates that they're willing to spend millions to elect/defeat them to actually STAND UP AND SAY SO.

There's an interesting convergence of politics and law going on right now around the Pandora's box that is campaign finance. Round II of the Citizens United case will likely be SpeechNow vs. the FEC. In this round, the issue is the relationship between the law, 527 tax exempt organizations, and independent expenditures (money spent for direct mail, TV, radio and internet advertising).

The Players

SpeechNow.org is a group formed with the purpose to oppose candidates who, in their view, act to squelch free speech. The named principals are David Keating (Club for Growth Executive Director), Edward Crane (Cato Institute founder), Fred Young (Cato Institute board member), Brad Russo and Scott Burkhardt.

Their stated purpose and goal

The stated purpose of SpeechNow.org is as follows (from appellate court opinion here):

...to promote the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom to assemble by expressly advocating for federal candidates whom it views as supporting those rights and against those whom it sees as insufficiently committed to those rights.

To illustrate how they proposed to carry out their purpose, SpeechNow.org supplied ad copy from ads they had planned to run in 2008 against Republican Congressman Dan Burton and Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Examples were carefully chosen to demonstrate their non-partisan bent. Sample copy for one television ad read this way:

[P]oliticians like Dan Burton don’t like free speech. Burton voted for a bill to restrict the speech of many public interest groups. Under this bill you could go to jail for criticizing politicians.

Hey Dan Burton. This is America, not Russia.

But we still have the right to vote. Say no to Burton for Congress. Say no to censorship.

And against Landrieu:

“Our founding fathers made free speech the First Amendment to the Constitution. Mary Landrieu is taking that right away. Don’t let her do it again.”

What's at stake

Non-profit groups organized as 527 organizations have some specific rules to limit the amounts an individual may contribute. Currently the annual maximum contribution from an individual is $5,000. SpeechNow argues that because contributions are being passed through the organization as "independent expenditures" (e.g., funds used to pay for direct mail campaigns, TV, radio and internet advertising) the limits shouldn't apply, just as they do not apply to corporate "persons" in the Citizens United case.

If SpeechNow.org is successful, any group who spends money on direct mail, TV, radio or internet advertising can use a non-profit entity to make unlimited contributions. They further object to the reporting requirements imposed on 527 organizations, and are seeking to have those abolished.

The political stakes

The line SpeechNow.org is walking is extraordinarily fine. They claim to be an issue-focused group (i.e., free speech), but it's clear they intend to target candidates and pour money into those targeted districts to influence the outcome of elections.

It's equally clear (to me, at least) that this particular group will be completely partisan about who they apply their "free speech" standards to, which raises this question for me: What bright-line standard could be applied to ad copy to distinguish one ad as an "issues ad" from another that's a "candidate ad"? The two are inextricably linked. I can't see where any group worth their salt would buy ads to say "Vote Candidate X out of office. That is all."

Ads generally wrap around an issue with the goal of defeating the candidate, while promoting the issue as a second outcome. If SpeechNow.org succeeds, what we will have here is direct advocacy for or against candidates by groups allowed unlimited donations for buying such advertising while eliminating all disclosure as to who the buyers are.

As one who spends a lot of time following campaign money, I see this as a disaster.

This case is also about to become a political football in the pending nomination of Elena Kagan.

SCOTUSblog:

The FEC and the U.S. Solicitor General’s office have not yet decided whether to take to the Supreme Court the FEC’s unanimous loss in the D.C. Circuit Court in the SpeechNow case. While the time to file a challenge before the Justices does not expire until late June, the motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court will put added pressure on government officials to make up their minds on the next step. They must respond to the new motion in 14 days, for example — that is, before the end of this month.

One of the issues surrounding Kagan's confirmation is the question of her recusal in cases where she has acted on behalf of the United States as Solicitor General. Forcing this case to the front seems to be pure politics to me. If she has acted on this case as Solicitor General, she will not be able to hear it as a Supreme Court Justice.

Given the decision of the appellate court and the Supreme Court in the Citizens United matter, it may not matter anyway. It could be that they've won this outright already, in which case we all lose.

Here's what concerns me the most. Even if we have publicly financed elections, this kind of activity will not stop. Voters will be barraged with ad after ad after ad for a candidate, against a candidate, via a known organization or via an astroturf group. While public financing will certainly separate candidates one degree or so from the money, the inarguable influence of these independent expenditures will still hold sway with the candidate and with the public and continue to subvert the process.

Really, the only hope we have for free and fair elections is an educated, engaged electorate with the ability to discern the difference between candidates without 30 second sound bites or propaganda films to promote or defeat them.

The RNC has done it again.

The Republican National Committee inadvertently sent a fundraising mail piece earlier this month with a return number that leads to a phone sex line offering to connect callers with "hot horny girls … students, housewives, and working girls from all over the country."

“We love nasty talk as much as you do,” says a woman’s voice on the sex-line’s audio recording.

Doug Heye, the RNC’s communications director, said that the mail piece was produced by Burch Munford Direct, a direct-mail firm frequently used by the RNC.

According to Heye, the firm “will not be used for the foreseeable future.”

Heye said that the mix-up happened when the direct mail firm replaced the RNC’s “202” area code with an “800” area code.

So, instead of directing callers to the RNC’s main line (which is 202-863-8500), the mailer incorrectly identified the RNC’s phone number as 800-863-8500.

Here's a link to their mailer. The RNC is a laugh a minute. I kind of wonder how many Republican donors called the sex line by mistake and then ran up some extra phone charges because they had a good time.

Even Newt Gingrich is mocking the RNC at this point.

The case we've all been waiting for – and dreading – is finally here. Citizens United v. FEC started off as an insignificant case about an anti-Hillary film, but the Roberts Court turned it into a vehicle for radically expanding the influence of corporations.

Here's the bottom line to today's 5-4 ruling: giant corporations can spend as much as they please on elections to advance their agendas. The right-wing Roberts court ruled that Exxon has the same free speech rights as you and me. In other words, Exxon is a person too.

While companies still won't be able to give directly to federal candidates, they'll be able to spend billions on attack ads, robocalls, and direct mail. You know, just like you and I are free to do.

Chief Justice Roberts claimed over and over during his hearing that he would respect precedent, exercise restraint, and issue narrow rulings. Well, we got to see the real John Roberts today. He'll gladly set aside principle and precdent whenever it suits his ideology. He cares about equal rights, you see. It's just that some rights are more equal than others.

So now that the highest court in the land has privileged corporations over people in elections, what can be done? Well, we don't really have a choice. We need to fight the ruling in Congress, fight it in the courts, and fight it in campaigns this fall.

The backlash has already begun. Campaign finance champion Russ Feingold has vowed to "pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible." Alan Grayson will pursue legislation in the House. And a constitutional amendment could even be in the works. Stay tuned.

With Democrats like these...:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) took quite the political heckling in Nebraska the past few weeks. Both he and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) have come under fire for their on-again-off-again opposition to a public health care option as part of the overhaul now in Congress.

Nelson has said he won't filibuster a bill with a public option in it, so his foes have moved on.

Now Landrieu will be getting the Nelson treatment. Change Congress, the group that sniped at Nelson the last few weeks, is now setting its (web) sites on her. She'll be on the receiving end of $10,000 worth of online ads targeting her for taking $1.6 million from big health care and insurance interests.

The ads link to a petition calling on Landrieu to back a public option and break with big insurance companies.

The Howard Dean funded group Democracy for America will also go after Landrieu, sending e-mails to its 20,000 Louisiana members asking them to call her office and press her to back a public option.

If Landrieu doesn't move back in support of a public option, said Adam Green of Change Congress, direct mail will be sent to Louisiana donors calling on them to withhold campaign funds -- call it fund-suppressing. DFA, meanwhile, is working on a TV ad set to attack Landrieu for her opposition to a public plan.

Before opposing the public option, Landrieu signed a letter declaring, in specific terms, her support for it.

It's literally unbelievable to me that when you have polling that shows that the public supports a public option for health care by enormous margins (83-14%) and yet we have Democrats dithering over it. The Change Congress ad hits home to Louisianans pretty effectively:

Continue reading »

From Cheney's heart to Bush's backside and Hillary's cleavage, the DC political anatomy watch reaches a new low.

A new PBS Now segment shows that "vote caging" wasn't just Goodling-speak for a direct mail technique, but was central to GOP voter suppression strategy in key 2004 battleground states. The sum of all fears in 2008? Hackable voting machines.

The right-wing campaign continues against TNR's Baghdad Diarist Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp for his portrayal of U.S. soldiers' cruelty to Iraqis, each other and even dogs. That no doubt cheered rooftop canine waterboarding enthusiast Mitt Romney as he embarked on his latest "average guy" makeover.

A new BBC documentary claims that George W. Bush's grandfather Prescott sought to overthrow FDR in 1933. JM Bell concludes the family's dictatorial tendencies skip a generation. Bush's words and deeds suggest not.

Conventional wisdom says the Hillary-Obama clash over rogue state diplomacy warms cold conservative hearts. But is their battle royale an opening for Al Gore or maybe just a museum?

While some scoff at Oscar the Kitty of Doom, others wonder if the Feline Grim Reaper has an ulterior motive. Meanwhile, Dood Abides reports "Death Cat Begins Gonzales Vigil."

Guest blogging the Round Up this week is Jon Perr from Perrspectives. Send your links, recommendations, comments and angst to mbr AT perrspectives DOT com.