Showing posts with label Center for Competitive Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Center for Competitive Politics. Show all posts

Column laments privacy, demands more disclosure -- CCP response to Eliza Newlin Carney's praise of discolsure

Center for Competitive Politics:
" But times have changed, and advocates of disclosure today have moved beyond election-related spending to insist on disclosure of a wide range of spending with only the barest of connections to politics. Today's disclosure demands would instead bring to public light dues paid to professional and trade associations as well as donations to private social welfare organizations that are not intended for campaign spending.

After casually suggesting hypocrisy on the part of opponents of radically expanded disclosure, the article starts to get really bad. Consider:

For corporations, trade associations, and politically active nonprofits, secretive political spending carries significant practical and reputational risks."

Allison Hayward talks campaign finance with state AGs

Since Citizens United, a number of states around the country have enacted statutes to permit corporate political expenditures while also providing for adequate disclosure of that political spending. These laws, as well as other election-related disclosure rules, are the subject of ongoing litigation around the country. This panel will discuss the current status of campaign disclosure law. Panelists can discuss recent judicial decisions (including the Supreme Court opinions in Citizens United and Doe v. Reed) that have endorsed the value of disclosure laws in the electoral context, as well as the First Amendment arguments that have been raised in opposition to such laws.


C-Span has the video
Enhanced by Zemanta

CATO, and Center for Competitive Politics, Will File Amici Curiae Briefs in Arizona Public Funding Case in U.S. Supreme Court

Ballot Access News:
"CATO, a well-known libertarian think-tank, and the Center for Competitive Politics, have both received permission to file amici curiae briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, 10-238. This is the case that challenges extra public funding for certain candidates in the Arizona system of public funding for candidates."

CCP's Sean Parnell: A modern campaign finance reform agenda for the next Congress

Washington Examiner:
"Despite the fact that America’s political system thrived in 2010, predictable calls to return to the old way of regulating political speech persist. Advocates for the antiquated system of speech regulation rely on a worldview where only politicians, the media, and a few favored interests should have a meaningful say in politics and campaigns."

CCP releases post-2010 policy agenda

Center for Competitive Politics:
"The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) released an agenda today, 'After 2010: A Modern Agenda for Campaign Finance Reform,' which outlines steps policymakers can take to increase incentives for citizen participation in politics, encourage electoral competition and simplify the maze of campaign finance regulations.

'After the failure of the DISCLOSE Act, which inflamed partisan tensions, this reform agenda offers a way forward for the next Congress to overhaul campaign finance law while respecting First Amendment rights,' said Bradley A. Smith, the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and a former FEC chairman."

This Year in Campaign Financing -- Interview with Center for Competitive Politics VP Allison Hayward

National Review Online: "
LOPEZ: Should the tea party care about this report?

HAYWARD: Absolutely. It is the ad hoc, grassroots groups that have the most to fear from campaign-finance regulations as we presently practice them. They’re complicated, nonintuitive, and a real pain for compliance. And those who would regulate more are targeting “outside” groups for additional restrictions. I put quotes around “outside” because this is one expression that drives me nuts. What are “outside groups” outside of? Isn’t the political process the way everybody debates and decides what leadership and representation they want?"

You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics - Reason Magazine

You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics - Reason Magazine: "“In 2010 almost everything is incorporated,” notes Allison Hayward, a former George Mason University law professor who recently became vice president of policy at the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors deregulation of political speech. “Anything you want to do as a group with other people—apart from the context where partnerships might work, like practicing law—you’re going to do through a corporate form of some kind.” Civil society, including churches, charitable organizations, and grassroots political groups of every interest and ideology, consists largely of corporations."

Senate Democrats Ask for Tighter Rules on Foreign Money in Campaigns

Roll Call: "But Democrats have been unable to offer evidence to back up the accusation, a point that Allison Hayward, who works at the libertarian Center for Competitive Politics, emphasized in a statement Tuesday.

“Federal law and FEC regulations already mandate ample restrictions, including a prohibition on foreign nationals playing any role in political spending decisions,” she said. “This is a manufactured conspiracy theory unjustified by any showing of a real problem.”"

Senate Democrats Ask for Tighter Rules on Foreign Money in Campaigns

Roll Call: "But Democrats have been unable to offer evidence to back up the accusation, a point that Allison Hayward, who works at the libertarian Center for Competitive Politics, emphasized in a statement Tuesday.

“Federal law and FEC regulations already mandate ample restrictions, including a prohibition on foreign nationals playing any role in political spending decisions,” she said. “This is a manufactured conspiracy theory unjustified by any showing of a real problem.”"

Campaign finance reform: R.I.P.?

Politico: ""It's no secret that the reformers are on the run — they've gotten pounded in the courts and also have not been very successful legislatively," said Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit that opposes many campaign regulations and that has had a hand in several recent important court cases striking down such rules.

Only a decade ago, the campaign finance movement achieved one of its greatest victories: the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which reformers saw as a foundation they would build upon in the years ahead."

Brad Smith: Chambergate, and the unwittingly radical reach of reform

Center for Competitive Politics: "We have noted the absurdity of Chambergate and the liberal groups that are pushing the claim that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is somehow 'stealing' American elections with foreign money. I have also been critical of those who foster such conspiracy views as raising valid questions.

Professor Richard Hasen argues that all these questions would go away - or at least be alleviated - if the FEC merely had the power to conduct random audits of political actors. Now, during my time as FEC Commissioner and Chairman, I publicy favored (and still do) giving the FEC the power to conduct random audits of political committees (others at CCP do not). But Professor Hasen's proposal goes far beyond that.Professor Hasen appears to want the FEC to have the authority to conduct random audits of any political actor or speaker. That is, he makes no distinction between political committees, i.e. the parties and candidate campaigns, and PACs that contribute directly to candidates, and any American citizen or group of citizens that chooses to exercise its Constitutional rights to make independent political expenditures."

News Links 09/24/2010 (a.m.)


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

News Links 05/28/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

The Supreme Court parlor game begins »  Center for Competitive Politics

"Finally, there is Judge Sotomayor, who, while also having a relatively sparse campaign finance judicial record, did cast a significant en banc vote against reconsidering a decision upholding both extremely low contribution, as well as expenditure, limits in Vermont -- a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court 6-3 in Randall v. Sorrell.  In other words, Judge Sotomayor has signaled that she is willing to undo an absolute First Amendment rule, dating back to Buckley, that it is impermissible for the government to limit expenditures.  And, she was willing to do it while upholding ridiculously low contribution limits, too.Based on that vote alone, friends of the First Amendment have a lot to worry about if the nominee is Judge Sotomayor."

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/the-supreme-court-parlor-game-begins