Posts tagged with ‘campaign finance’

Tumblr Goes to Washington

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in a campaign finance case. At issue is whether total caps on direct individual giving to candidates and PACs violate First Amendment rights.

As CNN puts it, “The competing arguments are stark: supporters of campaign finance reform say current federal regulations are designed to prevent corruption in politics. Opponents said it would criminalize free speech and association.”

While oral arguments run today with a decision on the case expected next spring, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig submitted a brief in September in the form of a Tumblr.

First: Via Fred Wilson:

Professor Larry Lessig has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in a case arguing that limiting large political contributions is Constitutional and exactly what the Framers had in mind when they used the word corruption.

As part of the evidence he has submitted in his brief, Larry created a Tumblr with 325 citations from the Framers themselves showing that they had a very broad understanding of the word corruption. This will be the first time that a Tumblr has been submitted as evidence in a Supreme Court case.

Second: So what’s Lessig doing? Via “Corruption,” originally.

According to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment does not limit Congress’s power to pass laws narrowly tailored to attack “corruption” or the “appearance of corruption.” (Buckley v. Valeo). But by “corruption,” the Court increasingly speaks as if it means “quid pro quo” corruption only. 

This modern understanding of the term “corruption” struck me as odd, at least for the originalists on the Court. Because it seemed to me clear that the Framers of the Constitution had a different conception of “corruption” than one limited to “quid pro quo” alone. For the Framers, “corruption” could predicate of an individual (“Aaron Burr is corrupt.”) as well as of an institution (“Parliament is corrupt.”). And when it predicates of an institution, that institution is not only corrupt because its members have engaged in “quid pro quo” corruption. Instead, according to the Framers, an institution could also be corrupt when it develops an “improper dependence.”

In other words, the Framers’ “main focus (or most common usage) was institutional corruption. And one prominent example of the institutional corruption they were concerned about was an institution developing an improper dependence. Like — to pick just one totally random example — a Congress developing a dependence upon its funders, rather than the dependence the framers intended — ‘on the People alone.’”

Third: Need help sifting through the "Corruption," originally site? Tumby, the social discoverability engine, has added its search magic to Lessig’s Tumblr to help you go through tags and keywords. To use and experience it, grab the tumbyHover Chrome Extension here.

Networked Donors: Political Moneyball

The Wall Street Journal takes a close look at political contributions in a thorough interactive that pulls data from monthly Federal Elections Commission reports.

Pictured above are overall individual and committee contributions (top); contributions and contributors to Restore Our Future, a PAC created to support Mitt Romney (middle left); the balance between ideological or single issue committees and the Democratic and Republican parties (middle right); and who health services and HMO’s are donating to (bottom). (Select any to embiggen).

It’s all very clicky with a various data points available under various layers so explore through.

Meanwhile, via the Wall Street Journal:

We all know that politics is awash in money, money that is accounted for in disclosures made public through the federal government. But the degree to which we understand this universe is limited by how well we can imagine how the players and the money are interconnected.

To better understand, we used social network software to analyze the universe of money in politics.

All the money in politics starts with donors — either individuals or groups like companies and unions. Their donations go to Political Action Committees (which represent the interests of companies or groups) or candidate or party committees (which finance campaigns and other political spending). These committees often send money to one another, which tells us a lot about who their friends are.

Based on the money sent between the players (and other characteristics like party and home state), our presentation pulls players toward similar players and pushes apart those that have nothing in common. The players who are most interconnected (like industry PACs who try to make alliances with everyone) end up close to the center. Those who are less connected (like a donor who only gives money to Ron Paul) are pushed away from the center. The resulting picture is a first-ever interactive portrait of the universe of money in politics, complete with obvious macro lessons (like the gulf between Democrats and Republicans) and with many micro stories that are still emerging.

The interactive was created using CartoDB, a geospatial platform from Vizzuality.

Comparing the Fundraising Performance of the US Presidential Candidates

The NYTimes released a competitive dashboard of sorts, titled “The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates” [nytimes.com]. Basically, the interactive graphic allows readers to contrast the various performance parameters in terms of fundraising from 2 presidential candidates next to each other. Another recent graphic [nytimes.com] lists the hundreds of organizations and people that fund the so-called Super PACs that are officially not controlled by those very candidates.

Via sunfoundation.

Comparing the Fundraising Performance of the US Presidential Candidates

The NYTimes released a competitive dashboard of sorts, titled “The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates” [nytimes.com]. Basically, the interactive graphic allows readers to contrast the various performance parameters in terms of fundraising from 2 presidential candidates next to each other. Another recent graphic [nytimes.com] lists the hundreds of organizations and people that fund the so-called Super PACs that are officially not controlled by those very candidates.

Via sunfoundation.

As the depth and breadth of TV news has decreased – especially at the local level – communities have fewer and fewer sources of meaningful election coverage. The result is that people now receive the majority of their information about candidates from campaign ads – not from the news. In their recent future of media report the FCC noted that in 2006, “viewers of local news in the Midwest got 2.5 times more information about local elections from paid advertisements than from newscasts.”…

…And as campaign ads have become huge windfalls for TV broadcasters, there is little market motivation to change this equation. More than two-thirds of all campaign spending in the last election went to TV stations. In 2008, TV commercials ate up at least $2.8 billion in campaign funds nationwide. In the wake of the Citizen’s United decision political advertising broke the $400 million mark in the 2010 election. It is a paradox of our media moment that technology has put a printing press in almost everyone’s hands, but increasingly freedom of speech and the press is only available to those who can pay.