sances.info

Political scientists have tried to measure the effectiveness of campaign spending using a variety of methodologies. There is no consensus in the field. One large group of studies finds that spending by incumbents makes no difference whatsoever, but spending by challengers helps them get established. Another group finds that neither incumbent nor challenger spending makes a difference. Another group finds that both kinds of spending have some impact.

Nonetheless, corporations had ample ability to influence the political process -- and, if they wanted, to do so secretly -- even before Citizens United, and most of the activity about which Democrats are complaining involves such previously legal conduct. A 2007 Supreme Court ruling, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, was more damaging than Citizens United. In that case, the court invalidated a provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and allowed groups, including corporations, to run "issue advocacy" commercials naming particular candidates up through Election Day. As Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt explains in a new paper for the Yale Law

In perhaps the best-known recent example, the chief executive of Massey Coal Co. spent $3 million to help elect a West Virginia high-court judge, who then participated in a case overturning a $50 million verdict against the company. The case led to a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which found that excessive campaign contributions can create an unconstitutional threat to a fair trial.

Obama started Wednesday at the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison, N.J., where he attended a roundtable with small-business owners. He ended the day mingling with some of New York's wealthiest at the Greenwich Village townhouse of Vogue editor Anna Wintour. Price of admission: $30,000.

The Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating eight lawmakers who held fundraisers within 48 hours of a major House vote on a Wall Street reform bill or received substantial donations from business people with a financial stake in the bill, according to congressional sources and letters.

Change will not happen until we stop corporations and unions from giving money to senators and congressmen for their million-dollar election campaigns. We all have seen congressmen pick up lush jobs when they leave Congress.

ON THE SUBJECT of campaign finance regulation, the Supreme Court is out of control.

If the court pushes on with its chainsaw, cutting down programs that trigger matching funds, it would threaten systems in Connecticut and Maine, and judicial-race financing systems in Wisconsin, North Carolina and elsewhere. It might even shake New York City’s system, which provides higher matching funds when a well-financed opponent does not participate in the system. Candidates with no prospect of matching funds would be reluctant to join a system that limits their spending. Unless the court veers from its determined path, there will be no limit to the power of a big bankbook on politics.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal election officials said Friday that members of Congress helping their parties finance redistricting fights could raise the unlimited corporate and union cash known as soft money that a 2002 law bans them from collecting for their campaigns.

Some advocates of a campaign finance overhaul pushed unsuccessfully for stronger remedies in the Democrats’ plan. One proposal would have required a company to get approval from its shareholders before spending money on political advertisements or campaigns.

For jurisdictional and political reasons, officials said, Democrats decided to leave that issue out of the legislation being drafted.