What does Leland Yee tell us about the political culture of Sacramento?

You can read my latest op-ed in the Sacramento Bee here.

Los Angeles "Ethics panel wants more public funding available to candidates"

Quoted in this one in the Los Angeles Times. 

Los Angeles' Ethics Commission is calling for an increase in public funding available to candidates seeking city office.

The city currently provides $2 for each dollar a candidate raises in primary elections, and $4 for each dollar contributed in two-way runoffs in general elections.

On Thursday, the panel recommended the city match be increased to $6 in both primary and general elections.

"You want to allow people to talk to constituents, not just donors, and I think that increasing the match will reduce the amount of time you have to spend fundraising," said Jessica Levinson, vice president of the commission and a professor at Loyola Law School.

She said that publicly financed programs are designed to reduce corruption, and as more office-seekers agree to abide by campaign spending limits to receive the money it should decrease the degree to which "money controls the game." 

The city paid approximately $10 million in matching funds to candidates in the 2013 elections.

The commission also announced it would no longer enforce aggregate contribution limits on individuals giving to city and school board candidates as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The high court found limits on total giving to multiple candidates by contributors unconstitutionally infringes on their free speech rights. 

City caps on what donors can give to individual candidates will remain in effect. Those range from $700 to $1,300 per election, depending on the office. Because of that and other city regulations, the effect of the Supreme Court decision may no be as significant in Los Angeles as some other jurisdictions, Levinson said.  

The proposal to boost public funding of city campaigns, which must be approved by the City Council, would bring L.A. in line with New York City, which matches contributions at a six-to-one ratio. 

 

California "State Sen. Leland Yee drops out of secretary of state race a day after his arrest"

Quoted in this one in the Mercury News. 

"No amount of public financing or contribution limits would remedy a situation like Leland Yee's," said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson, an expert in campaign finance law. "He transgressed even the most basic rules."

Yee is charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms, and six counts of scheming to defraud citizens of "honest services." Each corruption count is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking count is punishable by up to five years and $250,000.

Will the SEC save us from Citizens United?

I wrote an op-ed in the Sac Bee, which you can find here.

Here is a portion of the first paragraph:

An unlikely government agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, may help to stem the tide of undisclosed money pumping through our political system in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The SEC is not the first government agency that comes to mind when thinking of campaign finance regulations.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/04/5394092/will-the-sec-save-us-from-citizens.html#storylink=cpy

"New Public Financing Program Implemented in District 15 Race"

Another piece on KCET, this one about public campaign financing in Los Angeles. You can find the piece here.

Here is an excerpt:

"Los Angeles' public campaign financing law has trigger funds provisions similar to those recently struck down by the Supreme Court. However, Los Angeles has found at least a temporary fix to that problem for the November 8 special election. Previously in Los Angeles qualified candidates could receive a 1-to-1 of public funds based on private contributions of up to $250 (e.g., based on a contribution of $100, a qualified candidate could receive $100 in public funds). Under Los Angeles' trigger funds provision, publicly financed candidates could become eligible to (among other things) receive a 3-to-1 match if a privately financed opponent and/or independent expenditure group spent over a threshold amount. However, in the wake of the Arizona Free Enterprise decision, Los Angeles will now provide all candidates with a 3-to-1 match of public to private funds on contributions of up to $250."

"Justices Strike Down 'Rescue Funds' Provision in Public Campaign Financing Laws"

Jessica Levinson's article about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett (aka McComish v. Bennett) is here.

(The article first appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, and was reposted on Loyola Law School's Blog, Summary Judgments).

"Arizona Free Enterprise V. Bennett Explained"

Jessica Levinson's latest post on the Huffington Post is here.

Here is an excerpt:

This is a sadly ironic ruling. Far from chilling an open and robust debate, the ability of publicly financed candidates to obtain additional public funds to respond to privately financed opponents and independent expenditure groups actually promotes speech.

"Supreme Court’s Arizona Free Enterprise / McComish decision chips away at states’ rights but leaves foundation of public financing for campaigns intact"

Jessica Levinson is quoted in this release by California Common Cause about the Supreme Court's decision today re public campaign financing.

“Prior to today public financed jurisdictions had more discretion to determine when and how to provide public funds to candidates. The Court has now excluded one of the most efficient mechanisms through which jurisdictions provided candidates with taxpayer funds. However, there are still many legal avenues open to jurisdictions to design powerful public financing programs.” Stated Jessica Levinson, Visiting Associate Clinical Professor at Loyola Law School and consultant to Common Cause.

Summary of the SCOTUS decision re Arizona Public Campaign Financing

Jessica Levinson's summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett on Common Cause's blog is here.

"Are the State's Watchdog Agencies and Public Campaign Financing all Doomed?"

The Hartford Advocate has more.

"A campaign-finance bill that doesn’t pass muster"

An unsurprising piece by George Will in WaPo. Will rails against public campaign financing programs, meant to reduce actual or apparent corruption in politics.

"Arizona To Vote On Public Funding For Elections"

"On Monday, the state Senate approved a measure to let voters decide whether the state constitution should be amended to prevent the use of public funds for candidates, and the wording of the measure could be key to its prospects of passage or failure."

The National Journal has more. 

"Death of public financing exaggerated"

"From the deep-thinking depths of Washington's think tanks to the pedestals of its media pundits, campaign public financing has been duly and dutifully declared dead."

Click here for more. 

Will Alec Baldwin, Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. John Larson get special interest money out of politics?

"The Fair Elections Now Act would create a voluntary system that gives congressional candidates the option to stop relying on huge sums of money from corporations and special interests lobbyists, giving them an incentive to raise small donations from their constituents and spend more time working on the people's business. Candidates who participate in the Fair Elections process would agree to limit their campaign fundraising to the amounts raised from small dollar donors plus matching contributions from the Fair Elections Fund."

The Chicago Sun-Times has more.

Will North Carolina's judicial public campaign financing program survive?

" In 2008, 11 of North Carolina's statewide judicial candidates relied on public campaign funding. So did most of the eligible candidates for offices such as state insurance commissioner.
But now advocates of public campaign funding are trying to fend off what they see as growing threats to a system designed to limit the influence of big money and special interests in politics.
Two bills introduced by Republicans would end the system. Another would take money from the fund to help pay the cost of a proposed voter ID."

The Charlotte Observer has more.

Will the Supreme Court find, once again, that money talks?

Jeffrey Toobin has this piece in the New Yorker.

Jessica Levinson blogged on this question here.

Do candidates who take public campaign funds pay the funds back?

Chris Glorioso of NBC New York says no.

"Why Trump Should Forgo Public Campaign Finance"

"If Donald Trump runs for President, he should forgo public finance and federal matching funds not just because, as a mega-wealthy billionaire, he can, but because doing so would allow him to spend in the early primary and caucus state’s without federal limitation."


Big Government has more. 

What do this week's oral arguments in the Supreme Court mean for the future of public campaign financing?

There is a debate raging in the comment section of Jessica Levinson's latest Huffington Post piece.

What will the Supreme Court say re public campaign financing?

Check on the great comment debate on Jessica Levinson's latest Huffington Post blog.