{"id":424480,"date":"2017-09-10T20:02:24","date_gmt":"2017-09-11T02:02:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=424480"},"modified":"2017-09-11T15:27:11","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T21:27:11","slug":"democrats-say-citizens-united-should-die-heres-why-that-wont-happen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2017\/09\/democrats-say-citizens-united-should-die-heres-why-that-wont-happen\/","title":{"rendered":"Democrats say &#8216;Citizens United&#8217; should die. Here&#8217;s why that won&#8217;t happen."},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"attachment_54908\"  class=\"wp-caption module image alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 771px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/pictures-of-money\/17123251389\/in\/photolist-s6895e-chEwR9-bH1iX8-bt4mNt-42PQoC-a2YSa6-62QVKf-bta55K-dB7F8e-dK2oa7-aFDjPB-aYWk56-aFATbM-aFAaK6-aFAQEv-snzAJp-QxcaH-s4fksR-cMnty-bZvUDS-bta3kH-brd1K2-62LFqP-dTUAhR-5p8w8o-7jm7SP-8F5t1j-dSZe91-dUSc9a-a5SwX-dSK3tm-biaRHp-68vjKV-68zxeQ-9C9vCS-aFAPtx-9ZA9J6-cXNz15-9kJxyv-b6MUJK-68zxij-aFDkRt-aFDet2-bDwJ11-5DfGXv-bmm93i-55FLSR-aFDcrg-bf3Nge-nQZguc\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-54908 size-large\" src=\"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Money-771x495.jpg\" alt=\"Money\" width=\"771\" height=\"495\" srcset=\"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Money-771x495.jpg 771w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Money-336x216.jpg 336w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Money-768x494.jpg 768w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Money-1170x752.jpg 1170w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Money-780x500.jpg 780w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Money.jpg 1500w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 771px) 100vw, 771px\" \/><\/a><p class=\"wp-media-credit\">Pictures of Money \/ Creative Commons<\/p><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Democrats\u2019 battle against big and secretive political cash has lots of pomp, but underwhelming circumstances. (<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/4.0\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">photo cc info<\/a>)<\/p><\/div>\n<p>Catastrophe seemed imminent.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn a certain real way, the republic is at stake,\u201d said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe\u2019re really stress-testing our democracy in a way we never have before,\u201d said attorney Lawrence M. Noble.<\/p>\n<p>The menace under the microscope? \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/01\/20\/19156\/what-political-dark-money-and-it-bad\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Dark money<\/a>\u201d in politics.<\/p>\n<p>But the doomsday scenarios played out one by one in a subterranean Capitol Hill hearing room that was far from packed, and Republicans were notably absent from the July event.<\/p>\n<p>The event is a metaphor for Democrats\u2019 larger battle against big and secretive political cash: lots of pomp, underwhelming circumstances.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"module align-left half type-aside\">\n<h3>About this article<\/h3>\n<p>This story comes from the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2017\/08\/31\/21144\/democrats-say-citizens-united-should-die-here-s-why-won-t-happen\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Center for Public Integrity<\/a>, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative media organization in Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<p>Seizing on the specter of Russian election influence, they\u2019ve ramped up their quixotic effort \u2014 with minimal effect \u2014 to blunt\u00a0<em>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission<\/em>, the controversial 2010\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/03\/14\/19420\/analysis-how-might-citizens-united-decision-be-undone\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Supreme Court decision<\/a>\u00a0that unleashed a torrent of special interest spending on U.S. elections.<\/p>\n<p>In doing so, they\u2019ve introduced two dozen bills related to money in politics. Some are aimed at increasing donor transparency, others are targeting massive contributions from special interests. A couple are intent on reforming the Federal Election Commission, the government agency charged with enforcing election laws.<\/p>\n<p>None, a\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/politics\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Center for Public Integrity<\/a>\u00a0analysis indicates, have had a single formal hearing, much less an up-or-down vote in either the U.S. House or Senate.<\/p>\n<p>Election reform-minded Democrats are also hobbled by their party\u2019s recent history. When they had opportunities during President Barack Obama\u2019s first two years in office to significantly alter the American campaign finance structure through legislation, they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p>And in a twist that\u2019s infuriated acolytes of Sen. Bernie Sanders, among others, Democrats are following Republicans\u2019 lead by raising millions of dollars in so-called \u201cdark money\u201d\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/outsidespending\/summ.php?cycle=2016&amp;chrt=V&amp;disp=O&amp;type=U\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">contributions<\/a>, the origins of which are largely untraceable.<\/p>\n<p>All the while, Republicans, who now control every branch of government, have expressed little interest in stanching the ever-increasing flow of big money into federal elections.<\/p>\n<p>For his part, President Donald Trump, an early critic of big-moneyed interests, continues to pledge to \u201cdrain the swamp.\u201d Swamp draining, however, doesn\u2019t appear to involve political money matters, as Trump rarely addresses the issue these days. (Trump\u2019s press office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhether you like it or not, whether you believe in bipartisanship or not, if you don\u2019t have a strategy to attract Republican votes, you\u2019re just not going to win,\u201d said Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs and strategy for Issue One, a nonpartisan government accountability nonprofit.<\/p>\n<p>As for the package of bills the Democrats have proposed, McGehee said: \u201cIt has zero chance in hell of going anywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><em>Citizens United<\/em>: a love-hate relationship<\/h3>\n<p>Federal-level campaign finance reform used to be something both Republicans and Democrats got behind.<\/p>\n<p>Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which mandated reporting requirements of contributions and expenditures. And in 2002, Sens. John McCain, a Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat, teamed up to champion the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which restricted soft money contributions to parties.<\/p>\n<p>Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of reformist nonprofit Democracy 21, points out that legislation to close disclosure loopholes passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2000. Republican senators favored it 48-6.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>A decade later, disclosure loopholes were again back before Congress following the\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0decision. But this time, every Republican senator voted against the bill. The DISCLOSE Act lost 59-39,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.democracy21.org\/archives\/whats-new\/disclose-act-falls-one-vote-short-of-reaching-senate-floor-for-consideration-statement-of-democracy-21-president-fred-wertheimer\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">one vote shy<\/a>\u00a0of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster led by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader at the time.<\/p>\n<p><em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0changed the political calculus. Along with\u00a0<em>SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission<\/em>, it notably paved the way for the creation of so-called super PACs \u2014 turbo-charged political action committees that can raise unlimited amounts of campaign cash from wealthy donors, corporations and nonprofits.<\/p>\n<p>Several reform advocates said they believe Republicans want to preserve the post-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2015\/01\/21\/16626\/12-ways-citizens-united-has-changed-politics\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0system<\/a>\u00a0because they\u2019ve benefited the most from it.<\/p>\n<p>They also wonder whether Democrats would actually push through reforms were they to control Congress again \u2014 particularly because many Democrats have\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2014\/02\/01\/14195\/democrats-easily-outpace-republicans-super-pac-fundraising-race\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">taken<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2012\/09\/05\/10804\/super-pac-appeal-give-until-it-feels-good\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">full<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/10\/28\/20393\/hillary-s-big-money-machine-steams-toward-election-day\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">advantage<\/a>\u00a0of the fundraising freedoms\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0has granted them.<\/p>\n<p>Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, for example, railed against\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>. But she, too, benefited from a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/04\/07\/19528\/inside-hillary-clintons-big-money-cavalry\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">small army<\/a>\u00a0of super PACs\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/04\/07\/19521\/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">and millions of dollars<\/a>\u00a0in secret political money.<\/p>\n<p>This summer, Democrats are asking supporters to\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984282-sherrodbrown.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">fight<\/a>\u00a0against\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>. Their messages, however, amount to little more than opportunities for Democrats to\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984288-dga1.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">collect<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984285-Screen-Shot-2017-08-31-at-12-09-36-AM.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">supporters<\/a>\u2019\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984286-Screen-Shot-2017-08-31-at-12-10-11-AM.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">demographic<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984287-Screen-Shot-2017-08-31-at-12-10-28-AM.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">information<\/a>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984279-Screen-Shot-2017-08-30-at-11-54-49-PM.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">and<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984280-Screen-Shot-2017-08-30-at-11-55-27-PM.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">raise<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3984281-Screen-Shot-2017-08-30-at-11-56-02-PM.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">money<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>In the 2016 election cycle, special interests spent at least\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/outsidespending\/summ.php?cycle=2016&amp;chrt=V&amp;disp=O&amp;type=U\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">$183.5 million<\/a>\u00a0in \u201cdark money,\u201d up from\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/outsidespending\/summ.php?cycle=2006&amp;chrt=V&amp;disp=O&amp;type=U\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">$5.2 million<\/a>\u00a0in 2006, according to the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Center for Responsive Politics<\/a>, a nonprofit that tracks political spending. Of that, \u201cliberal\u201d special interests spent at least $41.3 million, or 22.5 percent; \u201cconservatives\u201d spent most of the rest.<\/p>\n<p>In all likelihood, \u201cdark money\u201d expenditures were higher because political nonprofits only have to report money spent within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.<\/p>\n<p>Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., is the only Republican who has signed on to cosponsor a campaign finance reform bill this session that\u2019s widely supported by Democrats. Jones said he has\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/01\/21\/19154\/meet-gop-congressman-who-wants-overturn-citizens-united\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">pushed for campaign finance reform<\/a>\u00a0for nearly three decades \u2014 and continues to do so despite his party\u2019s general lack of interest.<\/p>\n<p>Why? Because he believes money has too much influence in elections. Jones predicts it will take a major scandal, perhaps on the scale of Watergate, to prompt either party to reform the system.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019m not sure anyone in Washington wants to change it,\u201d Jones said. \u201cThey talk about it but they don\u2019t do much about it. Both parties benefit from the current system.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the nonprofit Public Citizen, said he believes Democrats are more serious about reform now than they were in the past.<\/p>\n<p>But there\u2019s a caveat.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAny time a party is in control of the federal government, they tend to be not as enthusiastic about changing the rules of elections, because they\u2019re winning,\u201d Holman said.<\/p>\n<p>Obama was \u201ca big disappointment\u201d to advocates of campaign finance reform, he said.<\/p>\n<p>Obama knew how to work within the post-<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0framework, and he didn\u2019t push for the reforms he championed on the campaign trail, said Holman and Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the nonprofit Common Cause.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cA lot of Democratic Party politicians believe in the legislation, but when push comes to shove and they seek the advice of their lawyers, they often back away or their support weakens,\u201d Ryan said.<\/p>\n<p>Obama\u2019s office did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n<p>Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., said Democrats were busy juggling health care reform and climate change legislation when Obama first took office and Democrats had the majority in Congress, leaving little time for campaign finance reform.<\/p>\n<p>Plus, some Americans\u2019 anger toward and resentment of special interests hadn\u2019t reached the fever pitch of today, Sarbanes said.<\/p>\n<p>Nearly half of the people who responded to a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2017\/08\/31\/21143\/ipsos-campaign-finance-poll\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Center for Public Integrity-Ipsos poll<\/a>\u00a0conducted last week said they opposed\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>, compared to 30 percent who said they support it. And 57 percent of respondents said they favor limiting the amount of money super PACs can raise and spend.<\/p>\n<p>Raising money, or \u201cdialing for dollars,\u201d is quite time-intensive for members of Congress.\u00a0Yet\u00a0the public doesn\u2019t seem to realize it.<\/p>\n<p>According to the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2017\/08\/31\/21143\/ipsos-campaign-finance-poll\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Center for Public Integrity-Ipsos poll<\/a>\u00a0conducted last week,\u00a058 percent of respondents believe congressional members spend 10 hours or less a week fundraising. But members, on average, spend 20-to-30 hours per week fundraising, according to research by Issue One.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cCampaign finance reform appears to be one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, with a majority in both parties coming out in support for limits on super PACs and increased transparency on nonprofit donors,\u201d said Chris Jackson, vice president of public affairs at Ipsos.<\/p>\n<p>Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., said there\u2019s overwhelming support for money-in-politics reforms on his side of the aisle. And there\u2019s no question Democrats will reform the system if given another opportunity, he insisted.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe\u2019re seeing the consequences of a democracy that is driven by the checkbooks of a few rather than the voices of the many,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<h3>Laying groundwork in the age of Trump<\/h3>\n<p>Spending by so-called \u201coutside\u201d groups \u2014 super PACs, nonprofits, unions and political organizations \u2014 soared to more than\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/outsidespending\/summ.php?cycle=2016&amp;chrt=V&amp;disp=O&amp;type=A\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">$1.6 billion<\/a>\u00a0in 2016 from\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/outsidespending\/summ.php?cycle=2006&amp;chrt=V&amp;disp=O&amp;type=A\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">$286 million<\/a>\u00a0in 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.<\/p>\n<p>The portion of that considered \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/01\/20\/19156\/what-political-dark-money-and-it-bad\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">dark money<\/a>\u201d grew to 11.2 percent last year \u2014 up from 1.8 percent in 2006.<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s no way to comprehensively track how much \u201cdark money\u201d is coming from foreign interests, because it is largely untraceable. Still, the potential for foreign influence has attracted attention on Capitol Hill.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe same dark money channels that are protected by the big special interests who use them to such effect are also fully available to Vladimir Putin,\u201d Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said during an informal hearing he called earlier this summer. \u201cIf the channel is dark enough to hide the hand of Charles and David Koch, it is dark enough to hide the hand of Vladimir Putin.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>If Democrats keep their word and push for reforms, the legislative agenda they\u2019ve introduced is a preview for the changes they\u2019ll seek if they regain a majority.<\/p>\n<p>This year, Democrats have proffered 24 bills that relate to money in politics, compared to six filed by Republicans, according to an analysis by Issue One. Only a handful of those proposals have more than one sponsor from the other side of the aisle.<\/p>\n<p>Cicilline proposed a bill earlier this year, the DISCLOSE 2017 Act, that would require the disclosure of certain campaign donations and funders behind political ads.\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/1134\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 1134<\/a>\u00a0has 128 co-sponsors \u2014 all Democrats.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s designed to bring greater transparency at the very least until we can prevent corporations from spending money in our elections,\u201d Cicilline said in an interview. \u201cLet\u2019s make sure people know, where did the money come from? Who is behind the ad? Who paid for it?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Cicilline said Republicans have been unwilling to move forward on his bill \u2014 it\u2019s been referred to committees but hasn\u2019t had a hearing.<\/p>\n<p>But he said it would be a mistake to wait to introduce it until Democrats had control of Congress again. Even though it\u2019s unlikely to pass, he hopes it can be used as a tool to hold other lawmakers accountable.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cMembers of the public need to know, does my member of Congress or does a candidate running for Congress support reforming our political system and fixing our democracy,\u201d Cicilline said.<\/p>\n<p>Sarbanes has proposed another sweeping change to campaign finance laws, but he too acknowledged the struggle he\u2019s facing.<\/p>\n<p>Sarbanes\u2019 Government By the People Act of 2017 (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/20\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 20<\/a>) has 156 co-sponsors, and all but one \u2014 Jones \u2014 is a Democrat. The bill aims to create a system that increases the number of small-dollar donors to political campaigns. It does this, in part, through tax credits and a new pilot program that gives voters campaign contribution vouchers that they may distribute to candidates they support.<\/p>\n<p>The bill was introduced in January and referred to three committees for consideration. And it\u2019s sat, untouched, ever since.<\/p>\n<p>In touting the By the People Project in July, Sarbanes said Americans harbor deep-seated anger and frustration because they feel their voices have been drowned out by special interests and big donors.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe president said \u2026 he was going to drain the swamp, that he was going to bring accountability to Washington,\u201d Sarbanes said. \u201cHe\u2019s basically said to the big money and the special interests, \u2018If you pay for the red carpet, I\u2019ll roll it right into the White House and give you influence.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Respondents to the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2017\/08\/31\/21143\/ipsos-campaign-finance-poll\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Center for Public Integrity-Ipsos<\/a>\u00a0poll offered a wide range of answers when asked what \u201cdrain the swamp\u201d means to them. Responses included reining in special interest groups, reducing the influence of money in politics, wiping out government debt and getting rid of career politicians. Some said they simply don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n<p>The small-dollar matching system and public campaign financing Sarbanes has proposed would dilute the voices of the wealthy few who today contribute the most money to political campaigns, Sarbanes said.<\/p>\n<p>In an interview, Sarbanes said his bill probably won\u2019t be passed by the current Congress, but it\u2019s important to put it out there now to give Americans a choice in the midterm elections, he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe\u2019ve got to put positive, constructive solutions in front of the public and say, \u2018Here is what we would do if we had the gavel,\u2019 \u201d Sarbanes said. \u201cPeople here on the Hill move on issues when they feel pressure coming from constituents.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Only two of the Democrats\u2019 24 money-in-politics bills have more than one Republican cosponsor.<\/p>\n<p>One is Rep. Derek Kilmer\u2019s Restoring Integrity to America\u2019s Elections Act (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/2034\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 2034<\/a>), which has five Democratic and six Republican cosponsors. Kilmer is a Democrat from Washington.<\/p>\n<p>The bill would shore up the Federal Election Commission, which is charged with enforcing and administering campaign finance laws, and attempt to eliminate the ideological gridlock that\u2019s plagued the watchdog agency for years. Kilmer wants to accomplish this, in part, by reducing the number of commission members from six to five, which would eradicate deadlocked votes.<\/p>\n<p>It was referred to the House Committee on House Administration in April, but it hasn\u2019t had a hearing yet.<\/p>\n<p>Other money-in-politics bills that have been filed by Democrats this year \u2014 and appear to have little chance of passing \u2014 include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act of 2017, filed by Rep. Ben Ray Luj\u00e1n, D-N.M., which would direct the Federal Communications Commission to require the inclusion of the names of major donors in political ads. (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/1439\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 1439<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., introduced the Campaign Spending Integrity Act (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/838\/text\">H.R. 838<\/a>), which would prohibit a candidate from spending campaign cash on vendors owned or controlled by the candidate or by an immediate family member.<\/li>\n<li>The Get Foreign Money Out of U.S. Elections Act (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/1615\/text\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 1615<\/a>), sponsored by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., which would apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to \u201cforeign-controlled, foreign-influenced, and foreign-owned domestic corporations.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., proposed the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/senate-bill\/298\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">S. 298<\/a>), which would require Senate reports and statements to be filed electronically. Seven of the bill\u2019s 43 co-sponsors are Republicans.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Democrats are also attempting to reverse\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0by proposing constitutional amendments.<\/p>\n<p>One such proposal, sponsored by Rep. Theodore Deutch, D-Fla., (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-joint-resolution\/31\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.J.Res. 31<\/a>), would give Congress and the states the ability to set \u201creasonable limits\u201d on the raising and spending of money to influence elections.<\/p>\n<p>The amendment also would give Congress and the states the power to prohibit corporations or other entities from making political expenditures, a controversial component of\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>. A similar constitutional amendment proposal,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/senate-joint-resolution\/8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">S.J.Res. 8<\/a>, has been filed in the Senate by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.<\/p>\n<p>Another proposed constitutional amendment would specify that rights guaranteed under the Constitution are for people only \u2014 not corporations and other entities (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-joint-resolution\/48\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.J.Res. 48,\u00a0<\/a>by Rep. Richard Nolan, D-Minn.).<\/p>\n<p>But constitutional amendments are exceedingly rare. An amendment requires two-thirds of each congressional chamber to vote for it. Then, three-fourths of all U.S. states must ratify the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>The most recent, the 27th Amendment, which deals with congressional salaries, didn\u2019t get ratified until 1992. Congress submitted what would become the 27th Amendment to the states for ratification more than 200 years earlier, in 1789.<\/p>\n<p>Since 1993, Congress has considered\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.senate.gov\/pagelayout\/reference\/three_column_table\/measures_proposed_to_amend_constitution.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">more than 1,000<\/a>\u00a0constitutional amendment proposals. All of them have failed.<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s also the issue of supporting a constitutional amendment that would, in practice, tamper with 1st\u00a0Amendment rights. It\u2019s a concern shared by advocates\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.publicintegrity.org\/2016\/03\/24\/19478\/sanders-clinton-want-campaign-finance-overhaul-face-huge-obstacles\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">across<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/other\/aclu-and-citizens-united\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">the political<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.heritage.org\/report\/citizens-united-and-the-restoration-the-first-amendment\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">spectrum<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Democrats rightly are trying to tap into populist outrage over wealthy campaign donors, said Daniel I. Weiner, senior counsel for the Brennan Center\u2019s Democracy Program at New York University\u2019s School of Law.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s also a political reality that the Democrats right now aren\u2019t going to get anything passed, so they\u2019re messaging,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>And \u201cmessaging,\u201d at least in part, means raising money off their fight against political money.<\/p>\n<h3>The other side<\/h3>\n<p>Republicans control Congress, so it stands to reason their bills have a better chance of passing. They\u2019ve introduced six bills that relate to money in politics.<\/p>\n<p>Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., filed the Free Speech Fairness Act (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/781\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 781)<\/a>,\u00a0cosponsored by 57 Republicans. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit tax-exempt organizations to make statements related to a political campaign without losing their tax-exempt status.<\/p>\n<p>The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. An identical bill on the Senate side (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/senate-bill\/264\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">S. 264<\/a>), sponsored by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., has been referred to the Committee on Finance.<\/p>\n<p>Other Republican-sponsored bills include one that would end a largely defunct system for taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/133\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 133<\/a>) and one that would expand the ability of trade associations to seek contributions from employees of their member corporations (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/2101\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 2101<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>None of the Republican bills would crimp campaign spending or expand disclosure requirements.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Republicans are making a political calculation that\u2019s aligned with their ideology that the majority of the outside money that\u2019s going to come in, particularly between now and 2018, is going to benefit Republicans,\u201d said McGehee of Issue One. \u201cThat\u2019s the bet that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell has made from the get-go.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Only one of the Republicans\u2019 bills appears to have bipartisan support.<\/p>\n<p>Rep. Paul Gosar\u2019s Stop Foreign Donations Affecting Our Elections Act has 37 co-sponsors \u2014 11 of whom are Democrats. Gosar is a Republican from Arizona.<\/p>\n<p>His\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/115th-congress\/house-bill\/1341\/text\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">H.R. 1341<\/a>\u00a0would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit campaign donations made with credit cards with foreign billing addresses. U.S. citizens living abroad who want to contribute with credit cards would have to provide the mailing address that they use as a registered voter.<\/p>\n<p>Gosar introduced the bill in March, and it\u2019s languished in committee since then.<\/p>\n<p>Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered up\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cruz.senate.gov\/?p=press_release&amp;id=2898\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">a measure<\/a>\u00a0last year that would have eliminated contribution limits for federal candidates. The bill, which also called for instant disclosure of political contributions, would almost certainly render super PACs obsolete, as people could contribute as much money as they wanted directly to politicians\u2019 own campaign committees.<\/p>\n<p>Cruz\u2019s office said he was unavailable for an interview because he was coordinating response to Hurricane Harvey. But Cruz in November\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cruz.senate.gov\/?p=press_release&amp;id=2898\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">lamented<\/a>\u00a0the nation\u2019s campaign money system, declaring it \u201cabsurd\u201d \u2014 serving the interests of neither free political speech nor transparency.<\/p>\n<p>Bradley A. Smith, a former Republican chairman of the FEC, said campaign finance deregulation, in general, makes sense.<\/p>\n<p>Smith, founder and chairman of pro-deregulation nonprofit Center for Competitive Politics, sees many of the Democratic proposals on the table now as efforts to rig the system in their favor.<\/p>\n<p>The FEC, for example, isn\u2019t as divided as some people make it out to be; the vast majority of money raised and spent in U.S. elections is already disclosed; and government probably shouldn\u2019t be in the business of financing campaigns, he said.<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s strong reason to believe people such as Sens. Chuck Schumer and Sheldon Whitehouse want reform because \u201cthey think it will stifle speech that opposes their agenda,\u201d Smith said.<\/p>\n<h3>\u2018Existential threat\u2019 vs. the long game<\/h3>\n<p>Sixteen Democratic senators popped in and out of Whitehouse\u2019s July hearing at the Capitol to discuss their ongoing dismay at\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0and the potential added threat of foreign entities\u2019 financial involvement in the 2016 election.<\/p>\n<p>Five panelists took turns painting the picture in increasingly bleak brushstrokes.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe have an existential threat to our democracy right now,\u201d said American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Norman Ornstein.<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of campaign finance reformers, there are those who see the current system through a lens of absolute urgency \u2014 i.e., \u201cthe republic is at stake.\u201d They believe the country is on the verge of plunging into plutocracy.<\/p>\n<p>And there are those who believe plutocracy is nothing new; America has always been ruled by an elite class, but through the decades she has marched, slow and steady, toward inclusiveness.<\/p>\n<p>To them,\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0was a setback, but one they hope is temporary. They\u2019re in it for the long game.<\/p>\n<p>Put Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the nonprofit advocacy organization Public Citizen, in the former camp.<\/p>\n<p>For Holman, time is ticking for American democracy, and\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0is largely to blame.<\/p>\n<p>Campaign finance laws are meant to put a wall between the nation\u2019s equality-based political system and an economic system that\u2019s based on inequality, Holman said. If the inequality of capitalism overwhelms the political sphere, democracy collapses, and those with money take control.<\/p>\n<p>Holman sees the situation as dire, just as Schumer, Ornstein and Noble did on Capitol Hill last month.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf voters don\u2019t react in 2018 to what\u2019s going on, I think we\u2019re well on a course of no return,\u201d Holman said. \u201cIf they don\u2019t react in 2018 congressional elections, we\u2019re going to re-elect Trump in 2020, and it\u2019ll just go on from there. So in other words, I\u2019m saying about a year and a half.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Ryan, of Common Cause, is in the latter camp of reformers.<\/p>\n<p>Ryan believes the Supreme Court erred gravely in its\u00a0<em>Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0decision, but he bristles when he hears fellow campaign finance reformers pine for the old days when monied interests didn\u2019t control politics.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat time never existed,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>While<em>\u00a0Citizens United\u00a0<\/em>was a bad decision, Ryan said, the system that preceded it was far from perfect. The United States is more inclusive now than it was decades ago.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI feel like I\u2019m part of this, not 10- or 15- or 20-year trajectory of campaign finance reformers improving democracy, but this several-hundred-year effort of marginalized and excluded communities fighting for their political rights,\u201d Ryan said.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the action related to campaign finance reform is happening on the local and state levels now, Ryan said.<\/p>\n<p>McGehee of Issue One said campaign finance reform on the federal level won\u2019t happen without bipartisan agreement \u2014 and it\u2019s not something that can accomplished overnight. She points to civil rights and smoking bans.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf I walked in the door of any Republican other than Walter Jones on the House or Senate side and I said, \u2018Hey, I want to talk about public financing,\u2019 they\u2019re going to say, \u2018Don\u2019t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out,\u2019\u201d McGehee said. \u201cIt\u2019s a nonstarter.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But if she approaches politicians to talk about how much time they feel like they have to spend raising money for their campaigns, she gets a far more enthusiastic reaction \u2014 and an opening for conversation.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s like feeding a baby,\u201d McGehee said. \u201cYou don\u2019t give a baby steak.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Democrats\u2019 battle against big and secretive political cash has lots of pomp, but underwhelming circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":54908,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[705,116],"class_list":["post-424480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-and-analysis","tag-money-in-politics","tag-washington"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424480","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=424480"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424480\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/54908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=424480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=424480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=424480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}