Bopp Deconstructs
Campaign Finance Law
Gary Gerard,
dumbhoosier.com
If you think there is too much special interest money and
corporate
influence in politics, you are no friend of James Bopp.
Bopp, a “country lawyer” from Terre Haute, has made a career
out of
deconstructing campaign finance law. He’s the one who
brought the
Citizens United v. FEC case to the Supreme Court and wound
up tearing
down the wall between corporate money and politics. You
know, the
“corporations are people” ruling that opened the floodgates
for
campaign contributions by corporations.
The last election cycle was the richest in history and 2012
will easily
eclipse it.
In 2008, the most recent general election, $5.8 billion was
spent on
campaigns. For 2010, the final tab will reach $4 billion.
Totally
unprecedented for a midterm election.
President Obama will most surely raise $1 billion for his
re-election
campaign alone and the total tab for 2012 will almost
certainly break
the 2008 record.
This can – more or less – largely be attributed to the
country lawyer
from Terre Haute.
National Public Radio recently interviewed Bopp. His take on
it is
pretty simple: The First Amendment says political speech
shouldn’t be
regulated; the Supreme Court says political money is speech;
the
complexity of campaign finance law stifles free speech.
It has been a highly successful legal model.
NPR compiled some of Bopp’s cases. The rulings in these
cases have
reshaped campaign finance law. The notion of public
financing has
nearly become a cliché.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson, 2011 –
Bopp argues
that Minnesota cannot ban corporate political contributions
or require
disclosure of independent expenditures. Being argued in
lower courts;
would let candidates raise corporate money, allow
undisclosed political
spending by corporations.
Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 – Supreme Court overturned
century-old
understanding that corporations and unions could not
directly promote
or attack candidates. First major loophole in the ban on
corporate
money in partisan politics.
Leake v. North Carolina Right To Life, 2008 – Appeals court
struck down
contribution limits for advocacy groups that spend
independently on
political activity but don’t give money to candidates or
party
committees. With another appeals court case, laid foundation
for
superPACs, which raise unregulated money from corporations,
unions and
wealthy donors.
Randall v. Sorrell, 2006 – Supreme Court ruled that Vermont
cannot set
contribution limits so low that candidates are unable to
finance viable
campaigns. Ended a short-lived trend by good-government
advocates to
lower ceiling on contributions.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 2006-2007 – Supreme Court
gutted key
provision of McCain-Feingold law, which barred corporate
funding for
campaign season ads that promote or attack candidates.
Provision was
one of two central elements of McCain-Feingold.
McConnell v. FEC, 2003 – Supreme Court upheld
McCain-Feingold law,
which bars federal candidates and party committees from
soliciting or
using “soft money” from corporations, unions and the
wealthy, and which
limited corporate and union funding for ads identifying
candidates.
Decision was the high-water mark for campaign finance laws.
Dimick v. Republican Party of Minnesota; Republican Party of
Minnesota
v. White, 2006, 2002 – Supreme Court overturned typical
state
restrictions on judicial elections, rules that candidates
can solicit
contributions, run using party labels, opine on upcoming
court cases.
Instrumental in changing state judicial elections from staid
affairs
into costly, partisan contests.
It’s a classic divide-and- conquer strategy.
He gets challenges in play around the country. Trial and
appellate
judges start making conflicting rulings. The Supreme Court
has to act.
Things that nobody dreamed would be legal just a couple of
years ago,
are now the law of the land.
And he’s at it again.
Bopp now believes he’s found a legal way for a candidate to
call up a
CEO and ask for money. Legal because the candidate wouldn’t
be asking
for a contribution for his own campaign committee. The
candidate would
be asking on behalf of a “superPAC,” an “independent”
organization that
could spend the money to support the candidate.
Bopp told NPR:
“The candidate is soliciting – saying this is a good bunch
of people,
they do independent expenditures, so I have no involvement
in how they
spend the money,” Bopp says. “But they are willing to spend
the money
to help me if you’ll make the contribution and earmark the
contribution.”
Bopp already has created a superPAC. I suppose at some
point, this
innovative new practice will get the blessing of the Supreme
Court, too.
Apparently Bopp sees himself simply as an enabler. Since
Congress
regulates business, business people want to influence
Congress.
“They’re not going to just put their money in their pocket
and go
home,” he told NPR.
See, I think all of this is just awful. Buying influence is
what’s
wrong with the system. We are just a few Supreme Court
rulings away
from a point where titans of industry will literally be able
to buy
themselves a Congressman.
Heck, we’re almost there now.
A recent report from the Center for Public Integrity found
that
President Barack Obama granted jobs and appointments to
almost 200
people who raised fat cash for his campaign. In addition,
big
“bundlers” have won millions of dollars in federal
contracts.
Donald H. Gips, a telecom exec, bundled a half million
dollars in
contributions to President Obama. Gips was the head of
hiring for the
White House and then got an ambassadorship to South Africa.
His company
got $13.8 million in stimulus money for broadband contracts.
The report says 80 percent of Obama bundlers who raised
$500K got key
administration posts.
Republicans are no better. President George W. Bush’s
administration
was the same way.
Not cool.
And the saddest thing about all of this?
Until there’s a shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court,
this is the
law of the land.
Archives
|
