bloizides

Mr. Robert Maguire did not express any opinions about what the future of campaign finance should be; he just presented the findings of his research. Likewise, Mr. O’Mara made it clear that his comments only reflect his personal opinion and not that of Congressman Sarbanes.

With the McCutcheon decision fresh in everyone’s minds, the panelists on our Campaign Finance panel had a lot to talk about. The discussion opened with Robert Maguire of the Center for Responsive Politics giving an overview of the effect of dark money. He explained that the amount of dark money that has been spent so far during this midterm election is four times higher than the amount that was spent up to this point during the 2012 cycle. To that put that in perspective: at the end of the 2012 cycle, a staggering $311 million had been spent in dark money. (If you are interested in Mr. Maguire’s entire presentation, you can view it here.) Lee Aitken, a former Shorenstein Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, also expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in today’s system of campaign financing. In particular, she drew attention to “shell companies” that enable campaign consultants to engage in “profiteering” and “self-dealing.” In essence, argued Ms. Aitken, anyone can set up an LLC in Delaware without having to disclose an owner/beneficiary and then use that company to funnel money.

Raymond O’Mara, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Sarbanes, turned the discussion to the implications of the McCutcheon decision and “the pernicious effect of money.” He noted that the Chief Justice’s notions of “gratitude” and “access” in the opinion did not properly capture the “dependence of Congress” on money. He explained that any “good staffer” ends up looking at both the (1) merits and (2) money associated with any proposal. Moreover, legislators are forced to spend hours fundraising on K Street and in party “call centers.” Mr. O’Mara also gave some insight into the Hill’s reaction to the McCutcheon decision – as soon as the decision came down, a task force within the House Democratic Caucus was conveyed. Those Members breathed a “sigh of collective disbelief” at the Court’s decision.

[Read more…] about Elections in America: Campaign Finance Reform

This afternoon, the Harvard Law and Policy Review was privileged to host a panel on voting rights. The panelists (James Blacksher, Heather Smith, Rachel Schneider, and Ronnie Cho) discussed the implications of recent Supreme Court decisions and restrictive voting laws on voter registration and the franchise. Although the panelists discussed the significant setbacks that voting rights have faced in recent years (with one panelist joking that American elections would soon need to be monitored by international rights groups), they also proposed potential ways to counteract the steady rolling back of voting rights in America.

Existing voting regulations are outdated. Registration is paper-based in a digital world, and we still vote on Tuesdays in November, an arrangement designed to minimize disrupting farmers’ schedules. Some positive reforms could increase voting and facilitate voters’ engagement with the political process, like online registration, longer voting times (including reinstatement of early and Sunday voting in areas that have cut it back), and increasing the government’s responsibility to actively encourage citizens to vote instead of placing the onus on the citizen to shoulder the burdens of registration and voting. A more pressing concern, however, is fighting back against laws that increase limitations on voting rights. Attempts to stop people from registering to vote or make it more difficult to vote at all have proliferated across the country, while the movement to facilitate participation in the voting process by modernizing these regulations has been stilted.

[Read more…] about Elections in America: Voting Rights

HLPR’s Spring 2014 Symposium on Elections in America, held on Saturday, April 5, began with a panel on electoral districting.  Districting is one of the most consequential aspects of elections—often deciding outcomes, ensuring perennial incumbency, and strengthening or weakening the political influence of particular communities—yet it is also one of the least transparent processes in our democracy.  In most states, legislators are free to draw boundaries to preserve their own job security, with little public scrutiny.  Our panel featured four speakers, Shira Center, Myrna Pérez, Micah Altman, and Angelo Ancheta, each of whom is an expert on districting in his or her own right, while also bringing a unique perspective on the topic.

Shira Center, Politics Editor for DC’s Roll Call and Resident Fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, is an expert on congressional races and spearheaded Roll Call’s redistricting coverage.  After nearly a decade covering politics and campaigns across the country, she has developed comprehensive knowledge of the geography and demographics of congressional districts.  Ms. Center described the political consequences of redistricting, demonstrating its practical impact on Capitol Hill.  She shared her reporting about the “Five Ugliest Districts”—bizarre-looking, convoluted districts drawn carefully to include and exclude particular people.  Sometimes, Ms. Center noted, legislators’ districting requests could be as specific as ensuring that their aunt is in their district, or even a particularly symbolic flagpole.

[Read more…] about Elections in America: Expert Panel Discusses Need to Separate the Districting Process from Self-Interested Legislators

This year’s keynote speaker was Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD). Congressman Sarbanes is the author of the Government by the People Act (H.R. 20), which would create a new public campaign financing system to give candidates a way to wage campaigns without taking donations from special interests.

The congressman spoke about how, because his district is close to DC, he enjoys being “one of the few members who can come back home every night” to hear from his constituents, many of whom are very distrustful of Congress. Those conversations worry him because, “I don’t think you can sustain a democracy when the democratic institutions on which it’s based are held in such low esteem by the public.” He attributes that negative impression in part to a sense among ordinary people that their opinions don’t matter to their representatives in a world in which special interests fund campaigns.

[Read more…] about Elections in America Symposium Keynote Address: Congressman Sarbanes

The HLPR Elections in America Symposium, held on April 5, 2014, opened with welcoming remarks by Dean Martha Minow of Harvard Law School. Dean Minow noted the particular timeliness and relevance of the symposium, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. Reflecting on the problems that plague the American electoral system, she asserted that the continuing viability of elections lies in the hands of this generation. Dean Minow made a call to action, declaring that fixing the problems associated with the electoral system is crucial for establishing accountability in our political process.