The tendency of so-called campaign finance “reformers” to provide less-than-accurate information in support of more and more restrictions on money in politics is nothing new. Michael McCabe of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, for example, managed to wish away two important court decisions in his letter to Governor Doyle advising him on the constitutionality of that state’s newest venture into taxpayer subsidies for politicians.
And there is little doubt that the campaign finance “reform” community is feeling under attack these days, being forced to watch courts around the country almost ritualistically dismembering their cherished regime of political speech control.
But even I’m surprised by the brazen distortion of a letter intended to be sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that is being circulated on Capitol Hill right now. The letter is an effort to gin up support for taxpayer financed Congressional campaigns, a la the “Fair Elections Now Act” (FENA) in the wake of what is expected to be a loss for the “reform” side in Citizens United.
The text of the letter being circulated by Congresswoman Chellie Pingree to co-sponsors of FENA reads in part:
As current cosponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act (HR 1826), a bill to create a voluntary public financing system for congressional elections that incentivizes small donations, we encourage you to include this bill in any legislation considered as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
As you know, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United could overturn nearly 100 years of campaign finance law and potentially allow corporations to contribute endless amounts of money to candidates…
The fact is that the ruling to be delivered by the Supreme Court is NOT, by anyone’s assessment, going to permit contributions by corporations to candidates, and certainly not “endless amounts” as Congresswoman Pingree asserts. The issue under consideration is whether incorporated entities can spend money from their corporate treasuries on independent expenditures.
The ban on corporate contributions, and the limit on contribution amounts to federal candidates, aren’t going to be affected at all by Citizens United. In fact, those issues were not argued or briefed in front of the court, and it is stunning to see a Member of Congress state that the court is even considering such a ruling.
