Common Cause Interns

Photo

Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:50:52 -0400

Mr. Money Bags might be a good monopoly piece, but he’s not the only player on the board. Big money shouldn’t be a requirement for political viability

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:31:00 -0400

http://www.commonblog.com/2012/08/02/should-big-money-be-required-for-political-viability/

Common Cause's Bob Edgar Honored by NonProfit Times

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:30:24 -0400

When you think of the faces of power and influence, who comes to mind, besides famous billionaires? Although the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made unquestionable contributions to society, this week the nonprofit world chose to honor Bob Edgar, the CEO of Common Cause, who has set a high bar by improving society with limited funds.

When Bob Edgar was pursuing his master of divinity degree from the Theological School of Drew University, he did not know that his ambition to improve his community would someday be honored nationally.

Bob Edgar was named to the 15^th Annual NonProfit Times Power & Influence Top 50 for a number of reasons, including his “call to progressive people of faith to take back the moral high ground from the extremists and make America a better and less divided country.” His message of peace and compromise, which is echoed in the mission of Common Cause, was detailed in the book he authored, entitled “Middle Church.”

At a time when there are changing answers to solve the country’s pressing humanitarian issues, folks who have ascended to the top of the nonprofit sector share some common characteristics. “Everyone in the Top 50 is at the top of their fields in innovation, flexibility, and accountability,” said Paul Clolery, editor in chief of The NonProfit Times.

Innovation was necessary for a Washington outsider with no political experience to establish non-partisan offices across his Pennsylvania district. After 82 years of Republican dominance, then-Representative Bob Edgar proved renewed determination to respond to their needs; leading to reelection.

Bob demonstrates his flexibility with his ability to befriended leaders from across ideological, political and religious lines to rally coalitions of support for clean elections and campaign finance reform.

Bob’sviews on term limits, evidenced by his stepping down from Congress after 12 years to continue giving back, demonstrate accountability as one of his core values. After retiring from Congress, Edgar became president of California’s Claremont School during the 90’s, saving it from the brink of collapse and returning it to institutional health. He knows how to balance a budget; even if the government may not.

In today’s world, it seems that politicians drift whichever way the winds of big money blow, but Bob Edgar of Common Cause has weathered the storm by reminding us that there is another option; and that hard work to make this a reality will be noticed.

Should Big Money Be Required for Political Viability?

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:48:06 -0400

Written by Taylor Henley

How can you win an election without receiving huge contributions from high-dollar donors? Quite frankly, you can’t. Just ask Buddy Roemer, former governor of Louisiana who ran in the Republican presidential primaries this past spring.

Mr. Roemer testified at a recent Senate Judiciary hearing (“Taking Back Our Democracy: Responding to Citizens United and the Rise of Super PACs”) about his campaign pledge to refuse any donations larger than $100.

Not surprisingly, he failed to raise enough money to make him a major contender in the race.Without sufficient funds, he could not effectively get his message out to voters.

Because of his lack of media coverage and public support, he was not invited to any of the debates, which denied his campaign a national platform to gain more support. This vicious cycle ultimately destroyed his candidacy.

As a political science major who followed the Republican primaries fairly closely, I considered myself at least familiar with the names of most of the candidates who ran—and yet I had no idea that Buddy Roemer ran for president until I heard him testify at the hearing last week.

Listening to his story drove home the unfortunate reality that countless well-qualified candidates at every level of government are consistently being shut out for lack of funds. Is this what our democracy is all about? Do we really want a system that forces candidates to cater to the interests of high-dollar donors instead of the interests of all Americans?

Proponents of the system argue that campaign funding and donors have little “demonstrable” effect on the roll call votes of politicians. However, according to Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute and participant in Wednesday’s Bipartisan Policy Center-sponsored discussion (“The Capital Behind Capitol Hill: Developments in Campaign Finance in the 2012 Election Cycle”), money has a significant agenda-setting effect.

Put simply, politicians won’t bring topics to the floor that could offend their donors. Furthermore, forcing legislators to spend much of their time in office raising money negatively impacts political action, adding to the steady erosion of public opinion of our government.

If we continue along this path, according to former campaign manager John Trippi, “It is much more likely that all the candidates in both parties will be meeting with billionaires than figuring out how to mobilize millions of people.”

Fortunately, there are steps that we can take to rectify this broken system. Common Cause supports public financing of campaigns, full disclosure of campaign contributions, and limits on campaign financing through the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, the DISCLOSE Act, and the Amend2012 campaign to overturn Citizens United (the Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited campaign spending).

Though the barriers to reform are undoubtedly steep, public pressure for change has found success in the past. In Montana, for example, a population fed up with “copper baron” William Clark bribing his way into a Senate seat led the drive for the 17^th amendment, which allowed for direct election of Senators for the first time in American history.

“Washington, DC appears to be broken,” declared Roemer at the July 24 Senate Judiciary Hearing. “But it’s bought first,” and those who profit from the status quo have little incentive to repair it. The only way the necessary changes will come to fruition is if the public keeps pushing for reform.

"The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive..."

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:18:37 -0400

“The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable and keep them honest. No one else can”

- John Gardner, founder of Common Cause

ALEC Rock Produced by Mark Fiore (http://www.markfiore.com) and...

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:32:42 -0400

ALEC Rock

Produced by Mark Fiore (http://www.markfiore.com) and the Center for Media and Democracy (http://www.prwatch.org), which is the creator of ALECexposed (http://www.alecexposed.org), and co-produced by the Alliance for a Better Utah (http://betterutah.org) to help expose ALEC.

DARE to Make A Difference in Our Elections

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:28:59 -0400

Written by Kristen Caruana

Standing before his colleagues and the crowd in the sweltering August heat, Rep. Dennis Kucinich declared that while it hot outside, if we don’t act on campaign finance reform we were going to find ourselves “somewhere even hotter.”

Kuncinich’s warning of a proverbial Congressional-hell does not seem far off given our currentcampaign arena. Citizens United has opened the floodgates on unlimited spending from secret sources, and the time has come for decisive action to reclaim our democracy.

This past Wednesday, Democratic House members held a press conference on their DARE agenda. In addition to Kucinich, the group included House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn, House Democratic Caucus chair John Larson, DISCLOSE Act sponsor Chris Van Hollen, as well as Representatives John Sarbanes, James McGovern, Adam Schiff, and David Cicilline. In addition to Common Cause, organizations such as Public Campaign Action Fund, Public Citizens, and Americans for Campaign Reform came out to the press conference in support, and Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign spoke in praise of DARE.

DARE outlines four actions the Democrats plan to take: Disclose, to disclose the source of donations to campaigns and expenditures; Amend, to amend the Constitution and reverse the Citizens United decision; Reform, to reform the campaign system in favor of low dollar funding of elections; and Elect, to vote leaders who will do these things into office.

Leading the press conference, Pelosi called on Congress to “honor the vows of our Founders to support a democracy that honors an election, because it is the voice of the people and not the checkbooks of the very, very few.”

We applaud Pelosi as well as the other attendees for their commitment to this cause. We earnestly hope that her efforts for transparency and reform will be as tough on her fellow Democrats as they are on the opposing party. Either way, we cannot let the momentum stop here; we too must take a stand in the fight to reclaim our elections. Contact your representatives today and ask them to support the DARE agenda!

Click here to find out how to contact your representatives today and ask them to support the DARE agenda!

campaignmoney: Congressman Cam Brady (or, Will Ferrell in his...

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:00:46 -0400

campaignmoney:

Congressman Cam Brady (or, Will Ferrell in his new movie, The Candidate) on how fundraising works. We cannot confirm or deny whether this is actually how fundraising works.

"Fair and Balanced" News Shills For Super-PACS

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:58:33 -0400

"Fair and Balanced" News Shills For Super-PACS:

http://www.commonblog.com/2012/07/31/fair-and-balanced-news-shills-for-superpacs/

Foreign Cash in Our Democracy

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:57:34 -0400

Foreign Cash in Our Democracy

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:55:44 -0400

Citizens United and Super-PACS Take Flak on Senate Floor

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:55:29 -0400

This past Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil Rights, and Human Rights, led by Sen. Richard Durbin (IL), took up the issue of corporate money in politics, and the debilitating effect it has on our democracy’s ability to reflect the peoples’ will.

The hearing, entitled “Taking Back Our Democracy: Responding to Citizens United and the Rise of Super PACs”, featured Senators Bernard Sanders (RI), Tom Udall (NM), and Patrick Leahy (VT), as well as former Governor Buddy Roemer (LA), Representative Donna Edwards (MD), and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Lessig.

These expert witnesses spoke out against the Citizens United decision, lending their voices to the nationwide call for a Constitutional amendment that would close the “independent expenditure” loophole once and for all.

Here are some highlights from the 2-hour hearing:

http://youtu.be/4wadxHhnOJc

If you’d like to see more testimony, check it out on PFAW’s Youtube channel.

Full transcripts can also be found here, sorted by witness.

Put a Stop to Senate Gridlock!

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:50:57 -0400

Written by Jack Mumby

Presidential transitions are often a messy process, thanks in no small part to the fact that it can take months or years to fully staff the new administration. During the Bush-Obama transition, for example,key Treasury Department positions were empty for months, slowing the nation’s recovery from the 2008 financial crisis.

This does not happen for lack of qualified and willing candidates, but rather, because executive appointments require confirmation by the Senate. If the opposing party’s Senators want to obstruct the new President’s agenda, or just need of a bargaining chip to get their way, the confirmation process becomes a perfectly exploitable opportunity.

The pressing problems that face our country at home and abroad cannot afford to wait for stonewallers in Congress. Fortunately, Senator Charles Schumer (NY), backed by the Aspen Institute’s Commission to Reform the Federal Appointments Process and other grassroots organizations, has introduced a new bill that would speed up the process.

The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 would help smooth presidential transitions by removing the confirmation requirements from the most time-sensitive executive positions. It further establishes a commission that will find new ways to streamline the process and ensure that our government is working for us as soon as it can.

Opponents of reform claim that Senate oversight is a necessary check on executive power. However, this bill has been carefully tailored to leave the most important policy-making positions, such as Cabinet members, unaffected. The bill only affects about 200 non-political positions, freeing up the Senate’s resources so they can focus on higher-level nominations.

The Act passed the House last night with a bipartisan majority. Since it passed the Senate last year with similar support, all that remains is for President Obama to sign the bill into law. This is a step in the right direction- our government’s ability to serve us been crippled for too long by these partisan games.

If you want to learn more, check out the Commission’s website here!

Politico - Voter ID laws could swing states

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:46:54 -0400

Politico - Voter ID laws could swing states

Photo

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:43:00 -0400

Fixing Our Elections - In Time for 2012

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:28:32 -0400

Written by Vikram Ramesh

As Election Day nears, the stakes have never been higher. This election is expected to be one of the closest in many years, and it might be decided by a very small margin of votes. In light of this, the fact that every election over the past decade has had computerized voting systems failures result in hundreds of votes being mistallied or lost becomes even more relevant.

Given this less than checkered history, it is extremely important to ensure that every state has adequate contingency plans in place and is prepared for the very worst in order to ensure that every vote that is casted gets counted.

With this in mind, Common Cause,the Verified Voting Foundation, the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic surveyed states’ voting equipment and ranked states from worst to best in order of their preparedness. The rankings were based on how states compared to a set of best practices already being used in some precincts. The states were evaluated in five different areas.

The first area examined state preparedness in the event of computer or human errors causing voting machines to miscount. In such a scenario, the report recommended that officials use original ballots to determine correct totals. In addition, paper ballots or records could be used to audit machine counts.

The second area evaluated states’ contingency plans at polling places in the event of a machine failure. The report suggests that machine repair occur quickly and emergency paper ballots be made available immediately.

The third examined efforts by states to protect military and overseas voters by ensuring that marked ballots are not cast online. The report warned that even state of the art online voting technology still lacked adequate cybersecurity . It also describes how ballots cast over the Internet could be easily altered, thereby compromising voters right to a secret ballot.

The fourth evaluated state efforts to institute a post-election audit that determined the accuracy of electronically reported outcomes. The report recommended mandatory comparisons between a random sample of the paper ballots and electronic totals to verify that the reported outcomes were correct.

Finally, the report recommends that states use robust ballot reconciliation and tabulation practices. The report describes this as critical, as it ensures that no ballots are lost or added as the votes are being tallied.

All in all, the five measures listed above not only protect against machine failures but also ensure that elections are fair, equitable and do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

campaignmoney: Great exchange between Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse...

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:08:07 -0400

campaignmoney:

Great exchange between Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Cato’s Ilya Shapiro at yesterday’s Senate hearing on Citizens United.

Photo

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:06:10 -0400

New Ways of Evaluating Campaign Ads

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:02:54 -0400

By Kristen Caruana

Each election season we brace for certain inevitabilities: tensions run high, lawn signs blanket our neighborhoods, and the airwaves teem with political ads. But since Citizens United opened the floodgates on unlimited campaign spending and from secret sources, those familiar annoyances of the have evolved dangerously. Empowered by anonymity, ads run by super-PACS and other third-party groups could become more prevalent, negative, and downright nasty.

The media and pundits narrow in on the ads, asking if this candidate was unfair, if that candidate was too negative, how the public feels about the ad, if the candidate has alienated his or her campaign, and so on. They have yet to focus upon how the public – the very targets –evaluate the ads for ourselves. It’s time to turn to the audience for their opinions, instead of grasping at straws to determine an ad’s effectiveness.

The Brookings Institute’s “New Ways of Evaluating Campaign Ads” event featured John Geer and Doug Rivers and their work on the Vanderbilt/YouGov Ad Rating Project. By asking the people what they think of the ads – as opposed to relying on media coverage and pundit squabbling to do so – and with the aid of technology, the project turns the attention back to we the people. The project poses “controversial” and “game-changing” ads to a sample of 600 Americans – which includes and oversample of “200 pure independents.” After watching the ads, the sample responds online with their reactions, indicating if they found the ad to be “hopeful,” “truthful,” “memorable,” and so on. They also record their emotional responses, ranging from “happy” to “disgusted.”

At the Brookings event, Geer called the project as a way of “moving beyond an elite discussion” of pundits, media, and candidates on the merit and effectiveness of ads, thus to “democratize and systemize” the way we judge ads, as well as to “get some reliable date.”

While the Vanderbilt/YouGov Ad Rating Project is an admirable endeavor, it certainly is not a remedy for the ills of Citizens United. In those terms, the project is the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a stab wound. Nonetheless, it is an incremental and commendable step towards the people’s reclaiming of the electoral process.

Photo

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:13:04 -0400