New Index for California Campaign Finance Reformers

campaign finance,

California Common Cause has released a first-of-its-kind index and report on campaign finance laws in all California cities. The report, Local Dollars and Local Democracy, is an analysis of all campaign finance reforms in California cities, as of December 2022.

Key statewide findings include:

  • 97% of all California cities now have contribution limits, thanks to AB 571 (Mullin – 2019), compared to just 22% of California cities in 2016.
  • 482 California cities (and other local jurisdictions) now have pay-to-play prohibitions that require governing-body members who accept large campaign contributions from interested parties to recuse themselves, compared to just 35 cities before the passage of SB 1439 (Glazer – 2022).

But the report’s main emphasis is on identifying those cities that go beyond these state-wide norms, and it is set up so that local jurisdictions can the Municipal Campaign Finance Index (MCFI) to see what types of reforms other cities have implemented and determine which are desirable for their jurisdictions.

The report and interactive spreadsheets of the index can be downloaded HERE. The findings in the report are a product of the data collected in the California Municipal Campaign Finance Index (MCFI), which is an organized accounting of campaign finance laws codified in the charters and/or municipal codes of all California cities.

Share this:

Travis Crum Reviews “The Court v. The Voters”

Uncategorized

Travis Crum (Wash U) reviews Joshua Douglas’ new book in the Washington Monthly.

“The Court v. The Voters: The Troubling Story of How the Supreme Court Has Undermined Voting Rights is essential for anyone who wants to understand the Supreme Court’s role in setting the rules of our democracy and what threats loom this year’s elections. As a professor of constitutional law and voting rights, I will recommend Douglas’s book to my students who are looking for a primer on election law. Here are five key takeaways from Douglas’s book.”

Share this:

The Court’s Stay in the LA Redistricting Case

Uncategorized

As I noted earlier on this blog, the Court was faced with a procedural mess (I called it a “train wreck”) in the LA redistricting case. Two different federal courts had issued two decisions which left LA with no valid congressional map in place. The first federal court said LA’s original map violated the Voting Rights Act; the second federal court said the new map LA enacted to remedy the VRA violation itself violated the Constitution.

Today, the Court stayed that second decision. The effect of that stay is the state’s remedial map — which creates 2 VRA districts rather than just the 1 the state had created initially — will be the map LA uses this fall.

The stay application apparently got tangled up with Purcell issues, but the Court didn’t have to say anything about Purcell even if it were going to issue the stay. The Court was up against some tight deadlines regardless of any issue about Purcell. It basically had two options:

  1. The Secretary of State represented very forcefully to the Court that she had to know which map was in place by today, in order to meet the series of deadlines the state’s election laws rolled out from here on in. If the Court accepted those representations, then the case for issuing a stay was strong.
  2. The other side disputed whether May 15th was such a firm deadline. If the Court thought there was a bit more play in the joints, then it did not have to issue the stay today. The Court could have given a couple more weeks for the next stage of the remedial process to play out (the lower court had stated it would have a remedial map in place by June 4th). Justice Jackson’s dissent disagreed that the May 15th deadline was so important, but didn’t explain why; she simply noted that the lower court had disagreed with the Secretary of State’s representation.

The majority could have said we aren’t in a position to second guess the Secretary of State’s representation that May 15th is a firm deadline by which a map must be in place in order to meet the rest of the election deadlines under the state’s laws. Because we accept that representation, we issue the stay. That would not require invoking Purcell or deciding how it ought to apply in this procedurally messy situation. Since I would imagine the Secretary of State’s representation did play a major role in the Court’s stay decision, the Court could have justified the stay, if it accepted the SOS’s representation, without bringing Purcell into the picture.

Share this:

CNN [UPDATE: and ABC] will host presidential debate with Biden, Trump, but some questions about its criteria

campaign finance

Last November, I blogged some questions about the future of the Commission of Presidential Debates. And my instincts were right. We learned today that the Biden and Trump campaigns have privately back-channeled with one another about an alternative debate format. More at the New York Times. There are lots of political reasons for each campaign to do this–both have grievances with the CPD and apparently have the leverage to jettison it (aging candidates looking to have greater control over timing and conditions)–and have agreed to a debate hosted by CNN on terms they prefer.

To get around campaign finance restrictions, CNN has listed “pre-established objective” criteria to participate in the debate. And here’s where things get complicated.

Continue reading CNN [UPDATE: and ABC] will host presidential debate with Biden, Trump, but some questions about its criteria →
Share this:

Fusion as a Party-Centric Reform to Empower the Center-Right

third parties

What does it take to get a lefty union organizer and former director of the Working Families Party on stage with neo-liberals? Donald Trump. In “The Power of Fusion,” Dan Cantor provides a great overview of how fusion works and how it could empower the center-right. If we care about the future of democracy, he argues, our key goal should be to find a party home for the “politically homeless anti-Trump, pro-Constitution Republicans who continue to stand for democracy and freedom.” They still make up one-fifth of the Republican Party. What they need is a mechanism for leveraging those numbers. Fusion voting is that mechanism. The article is also just a great read.

“But here I was on a panel with a former Joe Manchin staffer and a former executive director of the Michigan GOP. I wasn’t sharing the stage with them because I had altered my views on the policies I’d like to see our government enact. But I’m traveling in more mixed company these days because I’m convinced that the threat of ethnonationalist authoritarianism must take precedence over everything else. My views on Reaganism, Bushism, and neoliberal corporatism haven’t changed, . . . But for the moment, I’m more interested in building bridges than barricades. The only way to defeat authoritarianism is with an electoral coalition that includes the center-right.”

. . . .

“If fusion voting were the norm today, it would provide a way for Republican and unaffiliated moderates and centrists to cast a vote for Biden without endorsing a Democratic party they mostly disagree with. . . . In the current moment, it will force GOP leaders to make a choice: risk more and more defections to a center party currently favoring Democrats, or change your behavior enough to warrant your share of a center party’s nominations. Either outcome should be welcomed by all supporters of pluralism and liberal democracy.”

Disclosure: I serve on the Center for Ballot Freedom’s voluntary Advisory Board and view fusion as a meaningful and achievable party-centric reform worthy of serious consideration for a variety of reasons.

Share this: