Democracys Stock at 535 Shares

The Jerry Springer Campaign of 2012 punched enough negative advertising to turn
hipsters into Vikings. New campaign laws opened the portals for special interest groups to flock
to Washington D.C. in a scene familiar to Wall Street stock investors. Democracy has market
value and it is boom time.
Corporate PACs, or 527s, potentially seduce law makers through loopholes that lift
expenditure limits while structuring disorder within campaign checks and balances.
The Supreme Court implemented Citizens United V. FEC, which allows corporate and
labor organizations to spend limitlessly on independent expenditures and electioneering
communications in January 2010. There is a catch. Corporations, nonprofits and union
organizations are forbidden from direct donations to candidates.
The Federal Elections Committee Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and
Committees, August 2011 edition defines an independent expenditure as:
expenditure for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a
clearly identified candidate and which is not made in coordination with any candidate or his or
her campaign or political party.
These donations are potentially damaging to shareholders who want the company to
focus on business instead of politics, said Ciara C. Torres-Spelliscy, assistant professor at
Stetson University College of Law. And its damaging to the democratic process if public policy
tilts towards private interests over the common good.
Prior to Citizens United laws, House and Senate recipients totaled $1,417,010,344 and
disbursements totaled $1,383,924,750 in 2008. In 2012, the Upper and Lower House recipients
increased 24 percent to $1,862,807,604 and increased disbursements 24.5 percent to
$1,831,089,492, according to fec.gov.
The Citizens United decision has opened the floodgates to allowing unlimited money to
influence elections and poison our democracy, said Congressional Staffer Fran Tagmire on N.J.
Representative Rob Andrews position. We should pursue a constitutional amendment to
repeal Citizens United and enact public financing of elections.
Super political action committees represent a beehive of various organizations buzzing
around PAC middlemen. ActBlue registers with the FEC as a political committee, as required by
Citizens United regulations. This super 527 raises and distributes funds solely as independent
expenditures.
In 2012, top super political action committee ActBlue raised $8,075,375 and spent
$7,633,773. In 2008, this 527 raised two-thirds less at $2,696,765 and spent 60 percent less at
$2,740,802, according to opensecrets.org.
Just because people organize as a corporation or a union does not mean they lose their
First Amendment right to free speech, said Center for Competitive Politics Communications
Director Sarah Lee. In campaigns, that speech is equated with donations. So, the decision in
Citizens United v. FEC is just protecting that right and the Supreme Court recognized that.
According to opensecrets.org, super political action committee Emilys List Non-Federal
categorizes under the Womens Issues industry. The 527 coalesces with numerous
organizations including Occidental Petroleum, Third Point LLC and Sol Goldman Investments.
Akanadi Foundation is the 2012 top contributor to Emilys List Non-Federal with $650,000.
Campaign Legal Center Communications Director David Vance believes this system has
diluted the voters voice.
When you open those flood gates, the money is ridiculous, he said.
Unlike ActBlue, Emilys List Non-Federal shows dwindling numbers over the years.
In 2012, Emilys List Non-Federal raised $9,694,749 and spent $8,332,374. In 2008, the
527 raised $13,659,555 and spent $12,910,515.
They *Supreme Court+ envisioned these would be fully independent entities, Vance
said. Now candidates are counting the Super PACs.
Unlimited independent expenditures remains another looming variable.
Emilys List Non-Federal 2012 expenditures include items such as $71,728 for
miscellaneous administration, $261,000 for broadcast, $227,133 for candidate contributions
and $7,640,180 for Federal transfers, according to opensecrets.org.
The money trails ambiguity was enough to make Department of Defense Budget
Analyst Len Mahoneys head spin.
This is confusing, he said.
The traditional Emilys List 527 had $0 worth of independent expenditures. Emilys List
is the affiliated political action committee for Emilys List Non-Federal - the registered super
political action committee with unlimited expenditures. Emilys List 527 can directly contribute
to candidates using a separate fund.
Emilys List raised $36.7 million and spent $34 million in 2012, including $42,448 to
Democrat nominee Shelley Adler for N.J. representative.
According to fec.govs political action committee summary, corporation recipients
totaled $361,351,599 for 2012.
The FEC CG CCC, August 2011 edition states:
Although corporations (including incorporated trade associations and membership
organizations and labor organizations) are prohibited from using their treasury funds to make
contributions in connection with federal elections, they are permitted to establish separate
segregated funds (popularly referred to as PACs), which can support federal candidates.
It is hard to measure the concrete impact of corporate political spending since the
legislative process is complex with multiple players, Torres-Spelliscy said. But it can have an
impact on legislative agenda setting including most importantly legislative choices about what
areas not to regulate.
According to opensecrets.org, Comcast Corp PAC spent $2,094,236 on federal legislators
in 2008 and $2,511,439 in 2012. This media conglomerate does not raise funding, therefore it
is a classic 527.
N.J. Senator Frank Lautenberg received $20,500 from Comcast in 2012. Other N.J.
congressional recipients include Representative Jon Runyon, Representative Scott Garrett and
Representative Leonard Lance who is a Comcast shareholder, according to opensecrets.org.
Even if a person maxes out at $2,500, you have a corporation throwing $26,000, said
N.J. Libertarian Treasurer Kevin Ferrizzi. The candidate in question goes to the highest bidder.
Its legalized bribery.
Suppose a banks political action committee donates 15 increments of $500 to a party
committee.
The FEC CG CCC, August 2011 edition states:
Local party organizations that do not have to register with the FEC may contribute an
aggregate of $1,000 to federal candidates without triggering a reporting requirement with the
FEC.
We should take measures to deter secret corporate donors from dumping millions of
dollars into political campaigns that drown out the voices of countless individuals, said
Tagmire on Andrews stance.
According to above consensus, the voter is at a disadvantage.
The kaleidoscope money trails stockpile enough databases to stump a laptops RAM
before stumping the viewer. Citizens United laws further obscure the election process.