Category Archives: Money in Politics

Public Financing in 2016??

In the “good old day” (pre-2004),  the norm was that the major party candidates accepted public financing.   That changed in 2004, when several candidates in the Democratic Primary decided that they could raise enough on their own without accepting the partial matching funds (and the attached per state limits on spending).  (The per state limits are probably the most arbitrary and dysfunctional part of the current rules on matching funds.)  In 2012, both major party nominees opted against taking public financing for the general election.

This year, Donald Trump just might be taking a very long and hard look at accepting public financing.  There are several reasons why public financing might look very good to the Donald.  First, he has proven completely unable to raise funds on his own.  In slightly over twelve months, he raised a total of $17 million (tossing in $45 million of his own money for the primary).  Given that the public funding for the general election is $96 million, it’s in his personal financial interest to let you and I pay for his campaign.  Second, the only way that he has any shot at raising that type of money on his own is to beg for money from lobbyists — which would contradict the image that he is trying to present.  Third, in the Citizens United era. it is easy to farm out the campaign tasks.  Given Trump’s distaste for polling, data analysis and field operations, it is very conceivable that the official campaign will just dump those responsibilities on the Republican National Committee (which would be exempt form the spending limit) and just use the campaign for ads and appearances (and a skeleton staff.)   Even if later in the race, the campaign decides that it needs to spend more on ads, it can just farm that out to a Super PAC.   Finally, there is Trump’s perception that, with his celebrity status. he doesn’t really need to do much in terms of campaigning — a “run and they will vote for you” type of delusion.

Now, I haven’t heard on the internet or the news suggesting that Trump is planning to take public financing for the general election.  I am just saying that — with public funding available immediately after the convention and the Clinton campaign getting a free-ride on ads in swing states due to Trump’s campaign being broke — you would think somebody in that campaign is running the numbers.

Also posted in Donald Trump | Tagged | 2 Comments

Supreme Court: First Amendment and Politics

The Supreme Court ended the argument portion of its term this week.  After taking its last two week recess, the remainder of this term will be about attempting to issue opinions in the argued cases.  The question remains how many of these cases will end up in 4-4 split or be rescheduled for reargument in 2017.   Both this week’s one opinion and the last argument of the term had a strong First Amendment component.

Also posted in Civil Rights, Elections, Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court: First Amendment and Politics

Supreme Court — Front and Center

Elections matter.  In 2012, President Obama won the right to nominate judges and justices to fill vacancies on the bench — both in the lower federal courts and on the Supreme Court.  In 2010 and 2014, the Republicans won the right to vote down any unacceptable nominees.

Earlier this morning, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.  In 1986, President Reagan nominated Justice Scalia to fill the Associate Justice spot that had belonged to Justice Rehnquist when President Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to be the new Chief Justice.  For most of his career, Justice Scalia was the intellectual leader of the ultra-conservative wing of the Supreme Court.    This vacancy — if filled during this Administration — would be the first time since 1970 that a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court will be Democratic appointees.  This vacancy will have both short term and long term impacts on politics.

The immediate short term is that — except for a handful of issues — Justice Scalia is generally a solid vote for the “conservative” side of legal issues.  Those cases that would have been a 5-4 split in favor of the conservative side will now be a 4-4 split.  On a 4-4 split, there is no decision and the lower court opinion stands (unless the Supreme Court opts to reschedule the case for the following term).  Additionally, as it takes a favorable vote from four justices before the Supreme Court grants full briefing and argument on a case, the tradition when there is a vacancy is to hold cases that have three votes for full review.   In particular, the continued extension of “free speech” rights to make it easier for conservatives to raise money and harder for liberals to raise moneys is temporarily on hold.   The current opt-out provisions for the contraceptive mandate will probably also survive.  Any decision on the immigration policy will either favor the White House or leave it back to the lower courts to decide on the merits (the current issue before the Supreme Court only concerns a temporary injunction pending a full trial). Continue Reading...

Also posted in Civil Rights, Elections, Judicial, Senate | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court — Front and Center

Republican Winnowing; Democratic Solidifying

We are coming up on the November debates — the Republicans on Fox Business Channel, the Democrats on CBS.  The sheer size of the Republican field (and the impossibility of being fair to all of the candidates) continues to drive everybody mad.  Arbitrary criteria lead to candidates being shuffled to the “JV” debate or excluded all together; and the shortness of time leads to candidates being upset about not getting a chance to make their points.  On the other hand, with only five candidates originally and three candidates left now, the time issues are not that pressing on the Democratic side.

For the upcoming Republican debates, three candidates have been excluded from the JV debates (Lindsay Graham, George Pataki and Jim Gilmore).  Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum will take part in the JV debate.  The main event will feature Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, and Rand Paul.

The number of Republicans running creates a potential paradox in the normal money primary.  At this point in the campaign, trailing candidates routinely find themselves in a catch-22 — they need more funds to become competitive but they need to become competitive to get more funds.  However, putting aside Carson and Trump (as most of the money folks seem to think that both will collapse), several of the candidates can point to a poll showing them within the margin of error of third place in at least one early state.  However, it is highly unlikely that 15 candidates will make it to Iowa.  I would not be surprised if Senator Graham decides that with Rand Paul not being a serious contender that he no longer is needed to assure that the Republican field takes an aggressive stand on foreign policy.  If Gilmore and Pataki were actually running expensive campaigns, I would not be surprised for them to call it a day soon.  Since they aren’t, they might just stick around.  Santorum, Huckabee, and Jindal are all competing for the same slot — currently occupied by Ben Carson.  At some point, the lack of funds will force one or all of them to drop out.  The November JV debate may be the last chance for one of these three to become the alternative to Carson. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Democratic Debates, GOP, Politics, Republican Debates | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Supreme Court Term 2015-16: Part One

As summer turns to fall, the new Supreme Court term is just two weeks away.  While (with one notable exception), the Supreme Court rarely decides elections, Supreme Court decisions can alter the rules for elections and often become an issue in the campaign.  Before leaving at the end of June, the Supreme Court had already accepted a significant number of cases for this term.  Normally, they accept enough cases to fill the fall (October, November, and December) argument sessions with a handful left over for January.  This time (while they have not yet officially published the December argument list), there are more argument slots available than cases.  This post will focus on the cases already accepted.  These cases will be heard between now and mid-December,  with most of them likely to be decided around the time that the major presidential primaries are taking place.  The next post will look at cases that might be accepted for the spring arguments.

October is looking very much like criminal procedure month (with two days set aside for death penalty cases and a juvenile homicide case).  On other cases, there is an interesting case from  my neck of the woods (Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore) involving the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  Among the provisions of the Act, the Act forbids banks from discriminating based on marital status.  In this case, the bank (as a condition of a loan to a small business) required the owners’ wives to personally guarantee the loans.  When the business could not repay the loan, the bank sued the wives who in turn claim that requiring them to guarantee the loan was discrimination based on marital status.

Another potentially interesting case from October (Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomes) involves class-actions.  In a class-action, one individual seeks to purse claims on behalf of a group of individuals who have similar claims.  Part of the process requires the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether the individual is sufficiently similar to the other members of the group (among other factors) in order to determine whether to allow the case to proceed as a class-action.  In this case, the defendant offered to pay the plaintiff’s claim in full before the hearing.  The primary issue is whether, under those circumstances, the class-action can proceed or does the settlement offer effectively eliminate the plaintiff. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Comments Off on Supreme Court Term 2015-16: Part One

It’s the money, kids

Right now, people are looking at polls, but there is another issue to be considered: the money. We know that there are regular contributions, with legal limits, and dark money, with no limits.

If you want to see how much money is being contributed to campaigns, click this link, and download Greenhouse. Then, on any website, when you see a candidate’s name, you’ll see how much money they are taking in by cycle. It’s AWESOME! You’re welcome.

1 Comment