Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 today ran up the white flag on getting the DISCLOSE Act passed in time to affect the 2010 elections. In a post chastising Maine’s two Republican Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, for not standing with the so-called campaign finance “reform” community in ramming through the DISCLOSE Act, Wertheimer notes the following:
Prior to the vote last week, Senators Snowe and Collins raised a major concern about enacting a new campaign finance law that would take effect so close to the 2010 congressional races. That concern is no longer an obstacle to reaching an agreement on the DISCLOSE Act because as a practical matter it is not possible for the DISCLOSE Act to take effect for the 2010 elections, even if it is passed by the Senate in September.
Despite the fact that disrupting the 2010 elections with the DISCLOSE Act is no longer an option, Wertheimer is still insistent that Congress pass something as soon as possible.
Supporters of the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate have said the legislation will be brought up again in September and have made clear that they are open to negotiating changes in the bill with Senators Snowe and Collins to address the concerns they may have…
“Democracy 21 very much hopes that Senators Snowe and Collins will exercise the same kind of important leadership and independence they have exercised in the past on campaign finance reform legislation, and will work with Senate supporters of the DISCLOSE Act to reach an agreement on legislation that can be enacted in September,” Wertheimer said.
But why the rush?
In this New York University School of Law working paper by Professor Richard H. Pildes, examines the increase in partisan polarization and its effect on political parties. According to the author, we have not seen the intensity of political conflict and the radical separation between the two major political parties that characterizes our age since […]
Filed Under: Political Parties, Research, Barack Obama, campaign finance, George W. Bush, New York University School of Law, Polarization, Political Parties, Richard Pildes, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Political Parties
In this research brief, CCP Academic Advisor David M. Primo, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Business Administration at the University of Rochester, answers five questions related to taxpayer-funded campaigns. Proponents of taxpayer financed campaigns often argue, among other things, that these programs enable greater political speech, promote public sentiment about government, boost voter participation and electoral competitiveness, and diminish both corruption and “special interest” influence. Primo succinctly takes each one of these charges and provides an overview of existing research on the topic to assess the validity of the “reformers'” claims. Predictably, in regards to each of the five claims, the research is either inconclusive on the subject or the opposite of what tax financing proponents claim is true.