Supreme vitriol in high court’s dissents

Great to talk with Bob Elegko for this piece by John Diaz in the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Their affection for one another was certainly not reflected in the past two weeks of opinions. As Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson put it to my colleague Bob Egelko last week: “Justice Roberts is invested in upholding the integrity of the institution, and Justice Scalia is calling his colleagues morons.”

#SCOTUS: Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Redistricting & More

Here is a link to my appearance on NBC's "News Conference" with Conan Nolan. 

Supreme Court upholds another challenge to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)

The 6-3 decision, written by CJ Roberts, is here.

The Court rules that subsidies are available to those who bought their insurance on the federal exchange.

"Thanks to Obama, the New World of Campaign Finance Is Unlimited and Undisclosed"

Great to talk to Michael Bender of Bloomberg News for this one. 

“If you really want to influence a candidate, or a future candidate, you give to an outside group,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law. “Direct contributions and bundling are increasingly becoming a way of the past.”

"Here’s Why Gwyneth Paltrow Doesn’t Belong in Politics"

To meet Obama, to tell him that “it would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass,” all that was needed was a $15,000 dinner ticket. The issue is not whether Paltrow is a working mother or not, but that she has the power to tell the president that, unlike so many American voters. “He’s not out there meeting ordinary people. He’s out there listening to the views of those who can afford to give him lots of money,” Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance researcher at Loyola Law School, told The Guardian last year. “Over time, this is bound to have a distorting [effect] on your views of the world.”

...

In fact, according campaign finance experts, the growth of presidential solicitation shows how fundraising has become a permanent and dangerous fixture of American politics. Since the Reagan administration, the number of fundraising events attended by sitting presidents has been increasing. That trend is dangerous because “the downside of all this time spent away from office is the time the president is not doing his job as chief executive, promoting legislation or working with Congress,” Levinson told The Guardian. “As more money is dropped into the political process it has become a self-perpetuating cycle, requiring politicians to spend ever more time seeking donations rather than governing. It’s an imperfect use of his time.”

More here. 

"Obama approval rating slumping even in bluest of the blue California"

Great to talk to Dan Wood of the Christian Science Monitor for this one. 

Whatever the cause, a slump in popularity in the bluest of the blue states "may mean that President Obama's coattails are increasingly small," says Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. 

"So Cal Political Races, Infomercials & a Bullying Law"

Here is my interview with Madeleine Brand on KCRW's Press Play. We talked about Obamajams, campaign financing, and McCutcheon v. FEC. 

Thanks to Congressional Inaction, Seeking Clarity From the IRS Is No Joke

My op-ed in Roll Call is here.

Here is an excerpt:

A few months ago, the Internal Revenue Service was accused of improperly targeting conservative nonprofit organizations for special scrutiny. Whoops. Now the IRS and the Treasury Department have proposed new rules to curb the political influence of one type of nonprofit organization.

This is a significant step towards increasing transparency in politics. So-called “dark money” flows freely throughout our political system. Outside groups with innocuous sounding names raise and spend unlimited sums, much of it undisclosed, to influence voters.

This system of secrecy significantly hinders voters’ ability to evaluate the credibility of speech aimed at influencing their ballot box decisions. Knowing the source of the spending is arguably the most important piece of information that a voter can receive. A group called “America Now” does not convey anything useful. However, the knowledge that America Now is funded by Monsanto, General Electric, Sheldon Adelson or George Soros would provide voters with helpful information. 

Obama Administration proposes new rule to rein in nonprofit political groups

Enjoyed discussing today on AirTalk.

New IRS rules re political activities by tax-exempt organizations?

Enjoyed being on KBCS to discuss this topic.

Looking forward to being on AirTalk on KPCC to discuss further on Fri 11/29 at 11:20 PST.

More from the following news outlets: CNN, WSJ, WaPo, NPR, AP, & the NYT.

Despite Low Ratings, Obama Remains A Democratic Money Magnet

Interviewed for this one on NPR. 

Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance expert at Loyola Law School, says money talks, or screams rather, in our current political system. She says this is the game, and everyone is playing to win — politicians and donors alike.

"I think the only point in the near future where the money will stop making a difference is if it simply turns off voters, and we're not exactly there yet," Levinson says.

Revealed: Obama's record-breaking effort to tap wealthy donors for cash

Quoted in this article in the Guardian. 

Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance researcher at Loyola Law School who has studied the growing influence of wealthy donors, says recent efforts in the supreme court to remove campaign finance limits for individuals are likely to exacerbate the trend.

"The downside of all this time spent away from office is the time the president is not doing his job as chief executive, promoting legislation or working with Congress," she said.

"As more money is dropped into the political process it has become a self-perpetuating cycle, requiring politicians to spend ever more time seeking donations rather than governing. It's an imperfect use of his time."

...

"Sadly, this will get worse before it gets better," said Jessica Levinson. "In the end, it is only public outrage that may stop this never-ending need to keep raising money."

Ms. Ravel and Mr. Goodman Go to Washington?

My latest piece on the Huffington Post is here.

Here is an excerpt:

President Obama recently announced the nomination of Democrat Ann Ravel and a Republican Lee Goodman to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Ravel is currently the Chairwoman of the California's watchdog agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). She previously served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice and was the County Counsel for Santa Clara County, in California.

Goodman is an attorney at the LeClair Ryan law firm who served as an adviser for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign and who has argued for the overturning of campaign finance laws.

Many of you may be asking what the FEC does. Great question. I have a short answer for you: virtually nothing. The FEC is an independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing federal campaign finance laws. Small problem, the FEC doesn't do that.

In the 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandals that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, Congress enacted the nation's first comprehensive campaign finance framework, the Federal Election Campaign Act. Congress created the FEC to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act. Essentially the FEC should, among other things, work on issues related to campaign disclosure, restrictions on campaign contributions, and public financing of Presidential elections. These issues are vitally important to the integrity of our electoral and political processes.

One of the problems with the FEC is that it is set up to allow for partisan deadlock. The FEC is comprised of six members, there can be no more than three members of the same political party, and four votes are required for the agency to take any action.

Another problem is that the five current members of the FEC are all serving expired terms. These "holdovers" include three Republicans and two Democrats.

Pres. Obama taps FPPC Chair, Ann Ravel, for the FEC

President Obama just announced that he nominated Ann Ravel, the Chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, to the Federal Elections Commission. I have every confidence that Ann would be a terrific commissioner. She has fought hard for increased disclosure and transparency during her tenure at the FPPC. She continues to wage battles against so-called "dark money" and to push for greater civic engagement. She is smart and practical and I believe she'd make an enormously important contribution as a commissioner on the FEC.

Does Bad Behavior Turn Off Voters?

Last week two debates between federal candidates made national news. The first was, of course, the Vice Presidential debate between incumbent Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan. As I watched both the debate and my twitter feed a few things became clear. First, this was a much livelier debate than the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney. Second, we were going to spend a good deal of time talking about Biden's smiles, chuckles, tone, and other mannerisms.

This is another way of saying that we judge candidates on their appearances and affections all of the time. Many of us spent a good deal of time talking about the fact that in the first debate it looked like President Obama might want to be somewhere else. Substance matters, but appearance and style matter as well. But what happens when two candidates agree on most of the substance but have markedly different styles?

Well, that brings us to the second debate to capture national media coverage: the matchup between incumbent Congressmen Howard Berman and Brad Sherman. This has been a nasty race from the beginning. The two Democrats from the San Fernando Valley were drawn into the same district, thanks at least in part to the fact that an independent redistricting commission drew legislative lines for the first time in the state's history. In addition, because of the new top-two electoral system, two candidates of the same party can faceoff in the general election as long as they received the greatest number of votes. The two also share many of the same political positions.

The public has become all too accustomed to politicians behaving badly. By which I mean they call each other names, stretch the truth, and figuratively sling mud at each other. But a funny thing happened at the debate between Berman and Sherman last week, that figurative slinging of mud almost turned literal. At one point Sherman put his arm around Berman and aggressively questioned, "You want to get into this?"

Berman and the public should say "no." We most definitely do not want to get into "this" if "this" means physical altercations between political candidates. Our system of government is set up to allow for a robust, and at time contentious debate about the issues. Physical altercations are, to be charitable, counterproductive and feed into the dislike and distrust of politicians. Schoolyard squabbles have no place in political campaigns.

Find this post on KCET.org. 

Another Obamajam? The President Heads to the Valley

Last night, I had the following conversation with my friend:

"Can you leave work early tomorrow?"

"I'm not sure," replied my best friend, who, for her own privacy, we'll name Jane.

"Did you tell your parents?" I asked.

"Yes, I told them not to leave the house tomorrow night."

Jane and I decided that we might be suffering from a minor case of post-traumatic stress syndrome since President Barack Obama is coming back to town tonight. Jane's 2.5 hour car ride home (for what is typically a 15-minute commute) during one of his past fundraising visits is still seared into our memory. As is my family member's unplanned two-hour ride home for a trip that normally takes around 10 - 20 minutes.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

You Can Thank the Supreme Court for 'Obamajams'

The state of California may be low on funds, but many of our residents are not. Yesterday President Obama flew into Los Angeles for one of his seemingly frequent fundraising trips. These trips typically follow a similar pattern: President Obama lands, President Obama creates traffic, President Obama collects money, President Obama creates more traffic, President Obama leaves.

Some have complained that his focus on the Golden State seems to be fundraising, not governing. It is no doubt that the President has made repeated fundraising trips through Los Angeles and other parts of California. But the reality is that candidates needs to raise money in order to keep their jobs, jobs which allow them to govern. As we all know, campaigns depend on money, and presidential campaigns depend on lots and lots of money.

President Obama isn't to blame for our current campaign finance system, although he hasn't done an enormous amount to try to fix it. For those of you (perhaps those of us) who can get frustrated by the delays and hassles that come with President Obama's fundraising trips, I believe your anger is best directed to the majority of the Supreme Court who, in 1976, essentially found that money is speech. Because of that decision, the number of restrictions by the government on how much people (and corporations) can raise and spend in elections is severely limited. Put another way, money flows relatively freely throughout the political marketplace.


Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

"Obamajam: Is Fundraising During a Los Angeles Rush Hour Essential?"

Here is a piece written during President Obama's most recent visit to Los Angeles (during rush hour).

"Traveling in a secured environment and raising money are necessities for any President. However, query as to whether fundraising in rush hour in Los Angeles is also a must."

"Bachmann rivals Obama in success among small donors"

Surprised?

Click here for more.

"Factbox: Guide to enigmatic world of campaign financing"

Reuters has more. 


"President Barack Obama has begun wooing select crowds of influential campaign donors for his 2012 re-election, while Republican candidates are holding events in halls across the nation to pull in their first millions."