Mediaboss Marketing

Campaign finance rulings contributed $1.3 billion, nearly half of the spending in the 2016 presidential election

How SCOTUS Campaign Finance Rulings [...]

The Supreme Court of the United States. (Photo by Matt Wade/ flickr CC 2.0)

This post originally appeared at Common Dreams.

With the pending confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch shaping up to be a referendum on the role of money in politics, a new study published on Tuesday highlights the actual impact of campaign finance rulings on the 2016 election.

Published by public policy organization Demos, Court Cash: 2016 Election Money Resulting Directly from Supreme Court Rulings quantifies for the first time the direct impact of the Supreme Courts four most significant money-in-politics cases, using the highly competitive presidential race as well as the 22 congressional races won by 5 percentage points or fewer as the studys focal point.

According to the report, the Supreme Courts rulings led to more than $1.3 billion in spending on the 2016 presidential election, which is equivalent to 49 percent of the total cost.

According to the report, the Supreme Courts rulings inBuckley v. Valeo,Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) and Citizens United v. FEC(2010) led to more than $1.3 billion in spending on the 2016 presidential election, which is equivalent to 49 percent of the total cost.

The same rulings led to 77 percent, or $649 million, of spending in competitive congressional races.

In addition, the study notes, 2014sMcCutcheon v. FECallowed 1724 wealthy donors to contribute $274 million in McCutcheonMoney in 2016 money that went beyond what would have been permitted by the previous aggregate contribution limit. The average contribution from these elite donors was more than five times the median annual household income in the US.

Lead author Adam Lioz, counsel with Demos Policy and Outreach, wroteTuesday that the study demonstrates the profound impact offour decades of flawed Supreme Court rulingson the role of money in American politics.

Bystriking basic protectionsagainst big money dominating our elections, he continued, the Supreme Court has shifted the balance of powertoward the wealthy and special interests and away from ordinary Americans.

The study is especially timely as it comes just days before the US Senate begins confirmation hearings for President Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee. Opponents areraising alarmover Gorsuchs troubling money-in-politics record, as more than 120 groups warned in a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Writing forSalonon Tuesday, Lioz and report co-authors Sean McElwee and Juhem Navarro-Riveraexplainedhow, taken together, these decisions quite literally transformed the American political system.

They wrote:

In theBuckleycase, the Supreme Court addressed Congress post-Watergate reforms, dramatically changing the legal landscape surrounding money in politics. The court upheld contribution limits (money given to candidates), disclosure requirements and a system providing public funding for presidential candidates, but struck down several key protections against big money: limits on self-funding, spending by candidates and independent expenditures on behalf of candidates.

Twenty years later, the court built upon that decision inColorado Republican I, which eliminated limits on party expenditures for or against candidates. Most infamously, in 2010sCitizens United, the court allowed corporations to spend directly on elections. Another result of that case (through a DC Circuit Court opinion that closely followed its logic) was the rise of Super PACs political action committees that do not make direct contributions to candidates or parties but can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, and spend unlimited money flooding our airwaves with ads favoring or opposing candidates. More recently, inMcCutcheon, the court struck down the aggregate limits on how much wealthy individuals could give to all federal candidates, parties and PACs combined.

Highlighting previous Demos research, the authors further note that large donors are disproportionately wealthy, white, male and conservative, and are generally more supportive of domestic spending cuts, more likely to oppose taking action to mitigate climate change and less supportive of the Affordable Care Act.

Thus, they observe that [t]he Supreme Courts decisions have empowered wealthy, white conservative men, distorting democracy.

Daily Reads: Trumps Taxes Show His Tax Plan Benefits Him the Most; Edward Snowdens Advice for Donald Trump

If We Dont Act Now, Fascism Will Be on Our Doorstep, Says Yale Historian

See the article here:
How SCOTUS Campaign Finance Rulings 'Distorted' US Democracy - BillMoyers.com

New York Times

Venezuelan Democracy Needs the Hemisphere's Help New York Times There is a world of difference between the unilateral imposition of sanctions by the United States and the invocation of the O.A.S. democratic charter. The charter has legitimacy of origin it was written and signed by members, including Venezuela ...

Go here to read the rest:
Venezuelan Democracy Needs the Hemisphere's Help - New York Times

Arab News

Why India should scrap parliamentary democracy Arab News In short, India's freewheeling multi-party democracy has become one of perennial plebiscite. India's latest round of elections included five state assemblies. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) prevailed in Uttar Pradesh ... BJP's Hegemonic Power Poses a Challenge to Indian DemocracyThe Wire all 3,400 news articles »

View post:
Why India should scrap parliamentary democracy - Arab News

Fair and honest elections are always important in a democracy. In a period of political polarization such as we are currently experiencing, conducting elections in a manner considered fair and honest by all participants is even more important. John Gale, Nebraska secretary of state, was in Grand Island March 6 and gave members of the Noon Rotary an assessment on how well Nebraska is protecting and promoting the election process.

The sanctity of the ballot box in Nebraska seems very secure under the care of Gale and his staff, and for that we are grateful. Following the very close and contested presidential election of 2000, the federal government provided $3.6 billion to the states to improve voting procedures. In Nebraska that money was used to update and standardize voting equipment across the state.

Online voter registration has been used to increase the number of Nebraskans registered to vote. The number of people casting ballots is up. Voter fraud, while investigated where merited, is essentially nonexistent in Nebraska and where identified is almost never prosecuted. He stated no instance where fraud may have influenced an election on a local or national level.

He did identify areas of concern and where improvements could be made. The monies used to update voting mechanics in Nebraska is gone and the equipment is now at least 12 years old. Voting machines are expensive and many counties, particularly those with small populations, will be unable to replace and/or update those machines without new funding sources. He predicted that up to 68 counties may have to resume hand counting ballots, a system considered much less reliable.

Given that three counties have 50 percent of Nebraskas population, the state Legislature should address the cost of elections in small counties.

Gale also identified the problem of keeping voting rolls updated as people move from address to address both within the state and out of state. This is another area where the state Legislature may want to assist the Nebraska secretary of state with appropriate legislation.

Perhaps most importantly, Gale addressed the need to educate citizens so that they will be capable and willing voters. This responsibility falls especially on our K-12 schools and colleges. The education of young people must include a study of the structure of government, the role and limits of government in a democracy, as well as the history which has shaped our modern democracy.

It is in school that people should learn that effective democracies guarantee human rights, protect and honor separation of powers and protect freedom of speech and press. Democracies must protect religious liberty and the right to vote. Our schools public and private need to develop well informed independent thinkers.

Much of the emphasis in education in recent years has been in the areas of science, mathematics and technology to the exclusion of the social sciences. In Nebraska the social sciences have never been a tested subject area. The subject area that teaches us how to preserve and build democracy surely merits equal emphasis with any other subject area.

We live in an unusual time when those who govern us identify the free press, which keeps us informed, as an enemy. Democracy can be fragile. We must protect it!

Go here to see the original:
Election process, civic education vital in democracy - Grand Island Independent

As the Dutch election campaign, swayed by far-right leader Geert Wilders, draws to a close, parties set to gain a near-majority in parliament have made proposals threatening the rule of law: bills on denaturalization and digital privacy that pose threats to individual rights have been approved by parliament.

The Rule of Law Under Threat

A report published by the Dutch Bar Association last month shows that 40 percent of the programs of Dutch parties contain proposals in conflict with the rule of law, fundamental human rights and the right to due process.

Though election polls have been rather volatile over the last couple of weeks, three parties on the right of the political spectrum appear set to win a near-majority in parliament ahead of the election. Prime Minister Mark Rutte's liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the Party for Freedom (PVV), and the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), are set to win a total of between 60 and 72 seats. 76 seats are required to gain a majority in the 150-seat parliament.

The association identified all three parties' election programs as making pledges at odds with the rule of law. Most of those pledges, if put into practice, would discriminate against Muslims.

The PVV's anti-Islam manifesto includes proposals to close all mosques and Islamic schools, ban the Quran, Islamic 'expressions' deemed at odds with 'public order' and headscarves in public functions, and calls for the preventive detention of 'radical' Muslims. The bar association deems the proposals a breach of the right of Muslims to freedom of belief, speech and education. On the other hand, the CDA seek to halt the financing of mosques and Islamic organizations from abroad. Again, the proposal has been regarded as discriminatory to Muslims as the same measures are not proposed for organizations of other religions.

But proposals endangering the rule of law have also been made in areas unrelated to religion. The PVV calls for the denaturalization and deportation of criminals with dual nationality. Similarly, the VVD wants to confiscate the Dutch nationality of citizens participating in terrorist organizations abroad, regardless of whether the person in question has received a criminal sentence. The party also wants to restrict the application of international agreements in the Netherlands.

Already in Practice?

Ahead of the election, last month, the Dutch senate passed a version of the VVD's law giving the justice and security ministry authority to strip those posing a risk to national security and joining terror organizations abroad of their Dutch nationality, without the need for a court order. A prior criminal conviction is not required either. Courts will only be informed after the person in question is denaturalised, but would then be able to overturn the decision.

In practice, the law will only be applicable to dual nationals, as leaving citizens stateless through the confiscation of nationality is against international law. Thus, like Wilders' proposal on dual national criminals, the law equates to an unequal status for dual nationals. This is a violation of the first article of the Dutch constitution, which requires that all citizens be 'treated equally in equal circumstances'.

In a letter to the Dutch government, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Niels Muinieks has said that Moroccan and Turkish nationals are more 'likely to be, de facto, primarily affected by the bill than others,' warning that the principle of non-discrimination should apply to those who acquired Dutch nationality by birth and those who acquired it later on.

Though discussion of the law, by politicians and media alike, has focused on citizens who leave to fight in Syria -- referred to as Syrigangers in Dutch -- hostility towards dual nationals is a deep-seated issue which has lain at the heart of xenophobic politics for over a decade. Figures from the Central Statistics Bureau show that of the 1.3 million Dutch citizens who are dual nationals, 50 percent hold the Moroccan or Turkish nationality. As such, targeting dual nationals has been a key issue of interest to Wilders and his anti-Islam stance. In 2007, he accused two junior ministers of Turkish and Moroccan descent, of 'double loyalty' due to their dual nationalities and tabled a motion of no confidence in them. Last year, he called the Dutch parliament 'fake' for electing a speaker of Moroccan descent instead of the PVV candidate.

Despite criticisms, the bill was voted into law by a coalition of the ruling VVD, the PVV, the CDA and two other fringe parties, while the Labour Party, part of the current coalition, had supported it in the lower chamber of parliament, but not in the senate. Wilders has praised the new law, but argued that the PVV proposal on criminality would take it a necessary step further.

Intelligence-Gathering

A second bill regulating intelligence-gathering, approved by parliament last month but pending senate approval, paves the way for further potential rights violations. The bill gives the AIVD intelligence agency the power to tap all forms of communication on the orders of or with the permission of the interior minister, subject to approval by an independent commission. The bill requires 'serious suspicion' that a person or an organization poses a threat to the democratic order, security, or other state agencies. It was mostly adopted by the same parties voting in favor of the revocation of nationality, as well as the Labour Party.

Unlike the current law, which only permits the tapping of a specific suspect's online communications, the new law makes way for bulk data collection. There are serious concerns regarding the scale of data that could fall into the hands of the AIVD and could breach rights to privacy. Despite assurances that irrelevant data will be deleted, this has not been enough to convince digital privacy organizations as well as the opposition parties that voted against the bill.

Both the law on the revocation of Dutch nationality and intelligence-gathering were drawn up with specific concerns about terrorism and Dutch citizens leaving the Netherlands to join militant groups in Syria, one of the key issues, alongside the European migration crisis, that has kept Wilders up in the polls for over two years. In this sense, they are the policy consequences of the rightwards shift of Dutch politics in recent times. With the volatility of its election campaign and Dutch political system based on coalitions, it is difficult to predict which parties will form a government after the election. But, looking at the polls, these issues are likely to remain very much alive.

Read more here:
The Erosion of Dutch Democracy - Truth-Out