A limit on people, but not PACs?

Those who favor limiting First Amendment rights often denounce PACs, which they call tools of special interests. If the aggregate limit is so important, why does it only apply to people and not to PACs? PACs can give to as many candidates as they want, and they can give a lot more to each candidate, […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

Give the maximum to 18 candidates, but not 19?

Federal law limits citizens to contributing no more than $2,600 to any one candidate’s campaign. With the aggregate $48,600 limit on candidate contributions, that means individual contributors would only be able to support 18 candidates to the legal maximum. Once contributors reach the limit on candidate contributions, the law bans them from giving a penny […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

Even if some mechanism is needed to prevent corruption, the aggregate ban is not “narrowly tailored” as required by the Constitution.

Under long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence, the state must demonstrate an important interest before infringing on First Amendment rights. Even after demonstrating such an interest, it must then address it with a “narrowly tailored” solution that goes no further than necessary. Here, neither requirement is met. The real reason for the aggregate limit is probably pretty […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

McCutcheon’s case does not challenge the solicitation ban on such large contributions. It is not clear if the ban would fall.

If McCutcheon wins his case, it is not clear that a president, leader in Congress, or any candidate can solicit the million dollar donations that opponents claim. McCutcheon’s lawsuit challenges the law’s ban on his ability to give the money and the Republican National Committee’s right to receive it, but there is no challenge to […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

37 states have no aggregate limit of any kind. This is not an issue in those states.

States are the laboratories of our democracy, and they are doing just fine without aggregate limits. If the fear that top officials would use joint fundraising committees to foster corruption were justified, such a pattern of contributions surely would have been manifested in one of these jurisdictions at some time over the past half century […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

Boehner and Pelosi can already ask for $4.3 million, but they don’t

The biennial limit only applies to individuals, not PACs. So Boehner or Pelosi could already set up a joint fundraising committee to raise millions from PACs today. The committee could raise funds of up to $10,000 each for up to 435 House candidates, plus up to $15,000 for their party’s House campaign committee, or a […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

ICYMI: 5 Facts The Center For Political Accountability Does Not Want You To Know

As the Center for Political Accountability releases another flawed and partisan grading scheme on companies disclosure practices, it is important to recognize the FACTS from investors, boards and management, and the shoddy practices behind tabulating the index and proxy results.  Here’s a look at the latest on ProxyFacts.org, a site examining and debunking common myths spread […]

Filed Under: Blog, Corporate Governance, Corporate Governance Press Release/In the News/Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure Press Release/In the News/Blog

Committee for Economic Development Touts Junk Survey of “Executives”

The Committee for Economic Development is holding a big event (free lunch with registration!) at the National Press Club today to unveil the results of a four-day, opt-in, non-sampled, online poll of 302 people about campaign finance. All 302 people work for companies with greater than five employees, and all of them hold titles ranging […]

Filed Under: Blog, Corporate Governance, Corporate Governance Press Release/In the News/Blog, Committee for Economic Development

IRS Political Probes Draw Heat – Dumb Quote of the Day

In the wake of the scandal involving the IRS’s partisan political criteria for scrutinizing non-profit organizations, David Vance of the Campaign Legal Center wins the prize for the day’s dumbest quote: “the goal of this political storm is to scuttle the IRS cracking down on the larger abuses.” The reformers have been warning, ever since Citizens United and SpeechNow, […]

Filed Under: Blog, IRS and the Tea Party, Campaign Legal Center, david vance, IRS and the Tea Party

The Changing Rhetoric of Campaign Finance — Illinois Democrats Offer Innovative Campaign Freedom Measure

Illinois Democrats have an interesting proposal to “level the playing field” with independent expenditure committees.  A Federal Court recently applied the SpeechNow.org logic to allow independent expenditure committees to speak out in Illinois statewide and legislative campaigns.  This has caused a reaction in the Illinois General Assembly. From the Chicago Tribune: House Majority Leader Barbara […]

Filed Under: Blog, Featured Content, Super PACs, campaign finance reform, Chicago, Contribution limits, Illinois

The Center for Competitive Politics is now the Institute for Free Speech.