The Bangor Daily News isn’t real impressed with the performance of that state’s Clean Elections regime:
In recent weeks the Maine Ethics Commission and its staff have handily addressed numerous campaign charges. Consider the following: Independent gubernatorial Clean Elections candidate Barbara Merrill was fined $10,000 by the commission for improperly reimbursing campaign workers; Republican candidate Chandler Woodcock and Ms. Merrill were accused and cleared of misusing the $5 contribution system to gain Clean Elections money; the Ethics Commission staff concluded that gubernatorial candidate John Michael improperly listed qualifying contributions for Clean Elections funding; and the Democratic Party was fined $5,000 for failing to list mailing expenses for Clean Elections legislators.
(snip)
This isn’t what Maine expected. Apparently, the corrupting influence of public funding is hurting Maine candidates, placing into office politicians tainted by a system that creates suspicion, accusation and occasional wrongdoing. The unfortunate citizens of Maine are then left with a political class of compromised leaders.
Anytime public money subsidized politics, there will be auditing type issues that get into the details of campaigning, and infringe on the decisions candidates may make, transforms technical errors into big violations, and burdens the system.
Ah, Pluto. The People of Earth, acting through the International Astronomical Union, have reportedly disenfranchised the People of Pluto from interplanetary democracy. At least I think that’s what all the fuss is about.
I’ve been unable to confirm reports that Diebold machines were used by the IAU’s election administrators, or that planeloads of guys in suits from Florida and Ohio were seen in Immigration at the Prague airport. Then there’s this, from the NYT coverage of the decision:
The final voting came from about 400 to 500 of the 2,400 astronomers who were registered at the meeting of the International Astronomical in Prague. Many of the astronomers, Dr. Pasachoff explained, had already left, thinking there would be nothing but dry resolutions to decide in the union’s final assembly.
Whoever masterminded this coup learned that trick from College Republican conventions.
in Washington.
Of course it isn’t general election funding until after the primary. Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t count as self-funding for that election, eventually. You just need to see what’s left. The General Counsel’s draft in 2006-21, a Cantwell AO request on this burning topic, is here.
No doubt, someone later will raise the issue that some spending “for ” the general was done during the primary. That same issue is raised frequently in the presidential campaign audit process, where for different reasons maintaining a distinction between primary and general elections spending is very important.
And so, likely enough, even more campaigns will get the rare joy of experiencing an invesitgation into just this very question.
Hey, we’re busy. So we’ve been remiss in keeping up with the slow-August newscoverage of G-Sting: The Scandal that Keeps On . . . Doing Whatever It Is Scandals Do.
In the first round, Commissioners Herrera and Kincaid-Chauncey have been sentenced, by gum! Here are more details about the sentencing. This suggests that Lance Malone could be in for a rough time when his trial begins in September.
CFO.com has this piece on efforts to require corporations to report their political activity, and the role of the Center for Political Accountability. The article says:
The center . . . files resolutions at companies to force management to disclose and account for “soft money” spending. Companies have been banned from making “hard money” donations — that is, money given directly to a particular candidate — since the Watergate era. Soft money, by contrast, consists of contributions to political parties or other political organizations.
You, alert reader, can already see the confusion. “Hard money” denotes contributions that are federally regulated - contributions to federal candidates, national political parties, the federal accounts of state parties, political committees, etc. “Soft” money once was money raised outside the limits by these individuals and groups. “Soft” money might also mean funds that are given to state candidates, state committees, and the state accounts of political parties. Typically “soft” is meant to be derogatory - so state activity in states where the limits are as (or more) rigorous thn the feds are rarely invoked when discussing “soft” money. In this article, “soft” money really just means corporate treasury funds.
In any case, money contributions by corporations have been prohibited since 1907, in-kind contributions were outlawed in the 1920s and “expenditures” have been prohibited since the 1940s. All dates - we should stipulate - well before the Watergate scandal.
But you know all this.
I am advised by Green Bag World Headquarters that, in fact, the Justice Kennedy Bobbleheads are not yet available. You can check their webpage to monitor progress in this matter, or sign up for their email alerts.
It’s not just the first week of classes at many of our finest institutions - including of course GMUSL.
Happy Clean Elections Week! Fell free to populate the comments with details about your special plans for this week. Holding a Clean Elections barbecue? Martini party? Sleep-over? No? Well, get into the spirit of the season!
The Arizona Republican has this article about Senator McCain’s absence from the legislative sponsors of the “fix-it” bill for the presidential public funding system.
When I pulled up the article, ironically, I saw a banner ad for “clean elections” at the top of the page that takes you to . . . the webpage of the Arizona Clean Elections Commission! (It read: “Life is Dirty. Politics Doesn’t Have to Be. Support Clean Elections.”)
The second click through, however, I got an ad for Best Western, so the placement was, apparently, coincidental.
Brad Smith doesn’t agree with the Conventional Wisdom that public financing of presidential elections has been a success.