Economic-Elite Domination

In case you have a shred of idealism left, you should check out one study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page published in 2014 that illustrates the influence income and wealth have in determining policy outcomes. Their work is based upon Princeton Professor Martin Gilens earlier work titled Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012).

Gilens and Page conducted an empirical study measuring influence of varying groups on 1,779 policy issues over a 20 year period. Testing the extent to which four independent classes of political actors (average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups, and business-oriented interest groups) affect policy, the scholars predicted that the average citizen (median voter) has a "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy" (575).  Economic elites (those in the top decile of income and wealth in the U.S.), on the other hand, have much greater power. While Gilens and Page may not have pinned down which economic elites wield influence (the ninth percentile versus the first percentile), there is no doubt that those at the top of the economic ladder "generally get their way" (573).

If you feel like you missed out in your high-school government class, or you want a concise refresher to your intro-to-Gov course from college, this study offers a nice overview of four theoretical traditions that attempt to explain U.S. politics in action: Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, Majoritarian Pluralism, and Biased Pluralism.

Below is a link to the study published on a Princeton site. Below that are two videos: one by Represent US, which visually breaks down Gilens and Page's conclusion, and another by The Daily Show, which shows an interview with the two authors.

Gilens and Page: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Represent US's Video

Jon Stewart's Daily Show

Political Money III

In lieu of class on Thursday, see this (not-entirely-sympathetic) documentary on the Koch brothers.

Also see this brief and lively discussion of the Kochs.

Research: http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/JPitney/interest.html 

Public companies: SEC EDGAR  (What is a public company?)

Writing:

• Follow Chicago/Turabian style of citation, with author's first name first.
• Use shortened form for subsequent notes.
• Do not put more than one note reference in a single location. If you want to cite multiple sources for a sentence, group them in one note, and separate them with semicolons.
• Follow US rules for quotation marks.
• Introduce quotations.
• Avoid the passive.
• Re-read Strunk and White and my style sheet.

The Iron Law of Emulation

• Progressive Infrastructure Map
• GOP Conglomerates
• American Crossroads 
• Crossroads GPS (see fundraising letter)
• Super PACs in 2012

The current campaign and the 158

Landrieu Lobbying

Megan R. Wilson reports at The Hill:

The partnership behind a shuttered “clean coal” power plant has enlisted former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to push for a revival of the federally-backed project.

Newly filed disclosure forms show that Landrieu will be working for the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, a group of coal companies.

It's her first lobbying client since joining law and lobby firm Van Ness Feldman in May.
The coalition was formed to research and develop “near-zero emissions coal technology” that stores carbon dioxide underground. That project, called FutureGen 2.0, would refit a coal-fired power plant in western Illinois to inject emissions into a subterranean pipeline.

The project dates back to the Bush administration, when it was abandoned because of costs. Although the Obama Administration authorized $1.1 billion for the effort as part of the stimulus package in 2009, the Department of Energy (DOE) withdrew its support earlier this year. The government has only spent roughly $200 million of the pledged amount.

“In order to best protect taxpayer interests, the Department of Energy has initiated a structured closeout of federal support for the project that will help maximize the value of investments to date while minimizing ongoing risks and further costs,” DOE spokesman Bill Gibbons said in a statement in February.

The alliance did not immediately return a request for comment, nor did Landrieu.
According to Senate ethics rules, Landrieu, who lost her seat in a highly contentious election last year, is banned from lobbying offices in the House and Senate for two years.

She can, however, lobby the administration.

Here is what the filing looks like. 

Here is the lobby disclosure page.

Among former Louisiana members now lobbying are former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-Metairie; former Sens. J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., and John Breaux, D-La., and former Reps. Billy Tauzin, R-Chackbay, Jimmy Hayes, R-Lafayette, Chris John D-Lafayette, and Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman.

Political Money II

Reviewing hard money:

• Hard money contribution limitsPACs and SSFs
• The Cost of Winning a Seat
• Campaign Funding Sources

Outside money

• Super PACs
• Single-candidate super PACs
• Dark Money
• FAQ about 501(c)(4) groups
• The Dark Money Churn
• Conglomerates
•  American Crossroads 
• Crossroads GPS (see fundraising letter)

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

Second Assignment, Fall 2015

Pick one of the items below.

• Analyze a proposed reform of federal campaign finance law.  One may find a discussion and partial list of such proposals here.  For background and legislative updates (as well as more recent proposals), see https://www.govtrack.us.  Should Congress pass it?  Will Congress pass it?  In your answer, lay out the best arguments for and against the proposal, using statistical data wherever possible.
• Vogel wrote Big Money before the 2014 election. Assume that he has hired you to write a brief afterword, updating his analysis through that election.  Did 2014 confirm his argument, or did the campaign finance picture change in ways that he did not anticipate?
• Write on another topic of your choice, subject to my approval.

Instructions:

• Document your claims. Do not write from the top of your head. 
• Essays should be typed (12-point), double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page. 
• Cite your sources with endnotes in Chicago/Turabian style. Endnote pages do not count against the page limit. 
• Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you. 
• Turn in essays to the class Sakai dropbox by 11:59 PM, Friday, October 23. Late essays will drop a gradepoint for one day’s lateness, a full letter grade after that. I will grant no extensions except for illness or emergency.

Political Money I

Aerospace Industries Asssocation (and its PAC)

Excerpts from Ballotpedia Timeline

• 1883: The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act forbids government officials to solicit contributions from any civil service workers, or award these positions on anything but merit. 
• 1907: The Tillman Act was passed, making contributions to federal candidates by corporations and national banks illegal. 
• 1910: The Federal Corrupt Practices Act requires House candidates to disclose their finances. One year later, Senate and primary candidates also were required to disclose their finances, and expenditure limits were set for all congressional candidates.
• 1921: In Newberry v. United States, the Supreme Court rules that the Federal Corrupt Practices Act is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to regulate political parties or federal primary elections. As a result, spending limits were not longer required in Congressional elections.
• 1925: Congress amends the Federal Corrupt Practices Act to include a ban on any corporation contribution to a federal campaign, candidates must disclose the source of contribution greater than $50, patronage is prohibited, and Senate candidates can spend $0.03 for each voter based on the previous election up to $25,000. House candidates are limited to $5,000.
• 1939: The Hatch Act bans most federal employees from contributing to candidates in national elections and from participating in political activities or campaigns.
• 1943: The Smith-Connally Act is passed, which prohibited unions from contributing to federal candidates. Prior to this law, unions had been using dues as political donations. The first political action committee (PAC) is established by the Congress of Industrial Organization, and union members voluntarily contribute to the PAC independent of the union.
• 1947: The Taft-Hartley Act is passed, which banned corporations and unions from even making independent expenditures in federal political campaigns. As long as candidates promised not to use their primary money during the general election campaign or collect private donations, they could campaign with publicly funded dollars.
• 1967: Congress officially begins to collect campaign finance reports, despite it being law for nearly 50 years.
• 1971 Election laws: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and the 1971 Revenue Act were passed, initiating fundamental changes in campaign finance laws. FECA required full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and also limited spending on media advertisements. In addition, FECA provided the legislative framework for PACs established by unions and corporations, which allowed unions and corporations to use treasury funds to establish, operate and solicit voluntary contributions for federal PACs.
• The Revenue Act allowed citizens to check a box on their tax forms authorizing the federal government to use one of their tax dollars to finance Presidential campaigns in the general election. From the time this was first implemented in 1973, enough money had been collected to fund the 1976 election.
• 1974 Amendments: Following the documentation of campaign abuses in the 1972 elections, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was established and given jurisdiction in civil enforcement, authority to write regulations and responsibility for monitoring compliance with FECA. The President, Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate were each allowed to appoint two voting members of the commission, and the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House were designated as nonvoting Commissioners.
• The 1974 amendments also provided for partial Federal funding, in the form of matching funds, for Presidential primary candidates. Public funding was also extended to political parties to finance their Presidential nominating conventions. Congress also enacted strict limits on both contributions and expenditures for all federal candidates and political committees involved in federal elections.
• Buckley v. Valeo: Portions of the 1974 amendments were challenged as unconstitutional, and a lawsuit was filed by Senator James L. Buckley against the Secretary of the Senate, Francis R. Valeo. The Court upheld contribution limits, but overturned expenditure limits, saying that limiting expenditures would limit the quantity of campaign speech, which in turn violated First Amendment rights. In addition, provisions of the law regarding public funding, disclosure and record keeping were upheld. The Court also found that the method of appointing members to the FEC violated the principle of separation of powers.  ALSO NOTE THE "MAGIC WORDS" FOOTNOTE
• 1976 Amendments: In response to the Court's ruling, Congress repealed expenditure limits and revised the method of appointing Commissioners. Beginning in 1976, the President appointed six Commissioners, to be confirmed by the Senate. These amendments also included provisions to limit the scope of PAC fundraising by corporations and labor organizations by specifying who could be solicited for contributions, and how those solicitations could be conducted. In addition, a single contribution limit was adopted for all PACs established by the same union or corporation.
• 1979 Amendments: Following the 1976 and 1978 elections, Congress further amended the law to include provisions to simplify reporting requirements, encourage party activity at state and local levels and increased public funding grants for Presidential nominating conventions.
• 2002: The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed, which sought to limit the use of "soft money." Soft money is money raised by national parties and political action committees for "get out the vote" campaign efforts and other organization-building activities. This money wasn't regulated by the federal government, and parties were raising unlimited funds for these activities but using them for purposes aside from voter registration. Notably, 501(c) and 527 organizations were exempted from the soft money ban, though they were banned from running ads prior to primaries and elections, and from providing direct advocacy for a candidate.
• 2003: The BCRA was sent to the Supreme Court via suits filed by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell (R), the California Democratic Party and National Rifle Association, under the complaint that the law was too broad and limited their First Amendment rights. The Court upheld the law in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission.
• 2007: The Supreme Court reversed their on issue ads in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, saying that limits on electioneering spending by nonprofits were unconstitutional.
• 2008: Senator Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate from a major party not to take public financing for the general election, citing a broken system for his actions.
• 2010: In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions were protected by the First Amendment, which struck down BCRA provisions that banned these types of expenditures. A few months later, the decision from Citizens United was applied to Speechnow.org v. FEC in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges decided arguments that unlimited independent expenditures would lead to corruption were invalid after the Citizens United decision.
• 2012: For the first time, both presidential candidates decline public financing. Also, the Supreme Court decided that Citizens United applied to Montana's 1912 legislation banning direct corporate political spending in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock.
• 2014: The recent Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC ruled that aggregate contribution limits infringed on First Amendment rights. This decision removes a cap on the amount of money any single donor, including PACs, can give to candidates or party committees. Previously, the limit had been a total of $48,600 every two years for all federal candidates and an aggregate of $74,600 to political parties and committees. There is no limit to the number of PACs that can exist, so donors could theoretically increase their contributions to certain candidates considerably if they had enough PACs supporting them. The base limits for campaign contributions of $2,600 for individual candidates and $5,000 for PACs remain in effect.

Hard money contribution limitsPACs and SSFs
The Cost of Winning a Seat
Campaign Funding Sources

Law and Litigation as an Interest Group Arena

A Lot More Litigation








Citizen Suits

• Clean Water Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Clean Air Act 1970
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund)
• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
• Endangered Species Act of 1973
• Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act of 1986- SARA Title III

 POLICY CAUSES POLITICS

• The Environmental Bar
• The targets of regulation hire lawyers, too

Legal Groups

• Networking
• Analysis
• Litigation

Litigation

• The Cost of Litigation & the Contingent Fee System
• Test Cases