Emerging Issues
In 2010, we are facing several critical issues for the future of Maine Clean Elections.
On the state level we have a lawsuit by the National Organization for Marriage that threatens to undermine the very foundation of the Maine Clean Election Act, and on the federal level, the Supreme Court just overturned decades of precedent to completely open the floodgates for special corporate and wealthy interests to participate in political campaigns.
Key Points on the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Lawsuit
The NOM lawsuit seeks to overturn many provisions of Maine's campaign finance laws. This is an expansion of the original lawsuit in swhich NOM sought to shield the identity of its donors. Now NOM seeks to make expenditures in the 2010 election cycle to let voters know how legislators voted on the same-sex marriage bill when it was before the Legislature, and once again it objects to Maine's disclosure laws.Independent expentures like the ones NOM intends to make are reported under Maine law, and these reports are a critical part of the Clean Elections system.
One of the provisions under attack is the reporting requirement for independent expenditures which are made in Clean Election races. These reports are critical to the Clean Election system. Without them, the playing filed would be tipped to moneyed interest groups who are able to spend without limit. The Clean Election Act's matching funds system ensures that candidates have the resources they need to keep pace with expenditures that are made against them or in favor of their opponent. Without them, negative attacks woud go unchallenged. Under maine law, no one is prevented from participating in candidate campaigns.
Maine law does not ban or limit independent political spending. Instead it takes a "more speech" approach, requiring disclosure in order to provide matching funds to candidates who have chosen to run under very strict spending limits.
The State of Maine has a compelling interest in maintaining the expenditure disclosure requirements so that the Clean Election system remains viable and attractive to strong candidates. This goes beyond the normal interest in disclosure -- enhancing the public right to know and ensuring that voters are informed about who is responsible for political speech.
Key Points on the US Supreme Court rulingon the Citizens United Case :
Constitutional scholars across the country are still pouring over the recent decision in the Citizens United case, to tease out the full impact this will have on elections in this country. In a nutshell, the Roberts Court overturned a six decade-long prohibition against spending corporate and union treasury money to directly campaign for or against federal candidates.Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending money from their general funds on express advocacy at the federal level since 1947, when Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act.
Prohibiting corporations and unions from using treasury money to influence elections was previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990), and most recently in McConnell v. FEC (2003) after the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). In McConnell, the Court noted that, “Congress’ power to prohibit corporations and unions from using funds in their treasuries to finance advertisements expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates in federal elections has been firmly embedded in our law.”
By striking down the ban on express political advocacy by corporations and unions, the Court has greatly increased the spending by such groups to influence federal campaigns. It has also opened the door to the corrupting influence that flows from such expenditures, as corporations and unions use their spending, or the threat or promise of such spending, as a means to influence decision-making by Congress.
More to come on this issue....
