Political Payments Explained

by Pat LaMarche
Wednesday, February 9, 2011 by the Bangor Daily News (Maine)

This week, I was copied on an e-mail that a faithful BDN reader sent to about 20 people. A number of the co-recipients were prominent Maine politicians, and several of the other names appeared to be his family.

Here’s part of what he wrote, “I just noted the Federal Election Commission has raised the limits on campaign contribution to candidates and political parties committees as an inflation adjustment for the next election cycle. As an individual on social security I was informed because there was no inflation last year … and there would be no increases in social security benefits this year. Well, what is it, 0 percent as declared by the Social Security Administration, or the 4.166 percent inflation increase adjustment declared by the Federal Election Commission for politicians?”

If anyone got back to him, they didn’t “reply all” because it didn’t reach the rest of us.

Seeing no response from his elected officials, I thought this faithful reader deserved a larger audience for his outrage at the double standard he so adeptly exposed.

And for Charlie — his name is Charlie — I looked for some answers. According to the Federal Election Commission, those cost-of-living increases in donation amounts are automatic. The law mandates the increases happen every odd year, no matter what the economy actually does. The new limits are $2,500 for candidates or $30,800 to national party committees.

But really, Charlie, you shouldn’t worry your pretty senior head about the contributions. That increased donation won’t affect you because on your miserly Social Security income you can’t afford to be a maximum donor anyway.

Because I don’t know your finances, Charlie, I did a little research on the Internet to see what the average Social Security recipient is facing and just pictured you as that guy.

If you’re ordinary, Newsweek says you get $1,170 each month as your benefit payment. AARP says that even though more than 10 million seniors have nothing to live on but Social Security, the average senior adds to his or her income by about 20 percent each month from what was basically his or her life’s savings.

That’s still less than 1,500 bucks a month, Charlie. So you’re not going to donate more than six weeks’ pay to a candidate or almost two years’ pay to a national party committee this year.

Charlie, practically speaking, you don’t matter. Congress would have to double your Social Security to get you to even consider maxing out on a political contribution and really, they have much bigger fish to fry.

Charlie, remember Citizens United? This is from the FEC website. It’ll put into perspective why no candidates or elected officials got back to you in your semipublic forum, “In Citizens United v. FEC, issued on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court held that the prohibitions in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) against corporate spending on independent expenditures or electioneering communications are unconstitutional.”

Poof! No need for cost-of-living increases on limits now. No limits! If someone’s got gobs of money, it can all go to engineer any election he chooses. Well, that won’t do you much good, Charlie. You’re on Social Security. But if you were the CEO of a Wall Street bank or defense contractor, imagine the fun you’d be having.

But Charlie, that’s not all. That zero inflation rate has got to be sticking in your craw. Our high unemployment has wages down, and I’m sure you know the price of yachts has plummeted during the past two years. And travelmole.com says the cost of a cruise is off a whopping 11 percent.

But after you pay your rent, you’re probably thinking about food and heat, not yachts. Sadly, Charlie, those two are way up. If the crumbling prices of extravagances and all those unemployed neighbors of yours hadn’t flattened the inflation statistics, you might have seen an increase of 2 or 3 percent. That’s what the Consumer Price Index says your food costs will increase by this year, and the Energy Information Administration says you’ll pay about 20 percent more for heat this winter.

Maybe that’s why Wall Street-financed politicos aren’t talking about Social Security’s zero inflation much — because a simple Web search and a little common sense prove what liars they’d have to be.

HR 5175 and How it Pertains to Bloggers

(Well, well, well...talk about bending a cause to fit your agenda. See, the Disclose Act is aimed at corporate sponsored entities, but if it does hit bloggers, too, then it is a net cast too wide. I am firmly opposed to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision--it furthers the wrongly designated rights of individuals granted to corporations, basically giving corporations rights which actually supersede those of the individual. But if they restrict the free speech of bloggers--even those bloggers bought and paid for by corporations to further their political agenda (something I oppose philosophically but not constitutionally), then they are violating the First Amendment for real this time. Definitely a sticky issue. Here is an article against HR 5175. I will try to find one in support of it. The Official Summary of HR 5175 can be read below the following article.--jef)

Bloggers Beware – They’re Coming After You!
by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)

Just when you thought it was safe to start expressing your right to free speech, Democrats in Congress are gearing up for a vote on a new piece of legislation to blatantly undermine the First Amendment. Known as the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), this bill – written by the head of the Democrats’ congressional campaign committee – is their response to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In short, the Supreme Court found that the government could not restrict the free speech rights of individuals or other entities wishing to participate in the political dialogue.

It is hard to see how establishing a level playing field for free speech – as our Founding Fathers did by making it a right under the Constitution and which the Supreme Court upheld – is a threat to our democracy. Nevertheless, the White House and their allies on Capitol Hill see honest criticism as a threat to forcing their big government, liberal agenda through Congress. So, there is no time like the present – namely five months before an election – to start putting the muzzle on those individuals and organizations not sticking to the Democrats’ talking points.

Under the DISCLOSE Act, certain incorporated entities would be restricted in how they can exercise their free speech rights. There is an exemption for some in the media sphere like newspapers, TV news, and the like. However, there is one driving force in today’s public debate that is NOT exempt. Bloggers will not have the same exemption provided to other media sources. Never mind that the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Citizens United case stated, “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment.”

For many bloggers to exercise their free speech rights, they would have to jump through the same onerous new hoops as many businesses, nonprofit groups, and even such threats to democracy as your local chamber of commerce. If this sounds like an absurd overreach by one party in power, I invite you to take a look at their government takeover of health care, taxpayer-funded bailouts, and general hostility to private sector economic growth.

The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have not racked up a stellar record of transparency and openness. For a White House that touted its willingness to engage critics openly in hopes of staving off greater partisan rancor, Obama’s team has endorsed backroom deal-making, special giveaways to garner support for their agenda, and a closed-door decision-making process that has the American people more fed up with Washington. Now, under their brand of leadership, they stand ready to stifle free speech via legislative fiat.

Democrats should not be allowed to give themselves carte blanche to shut down the ability of those in the blogosphere or elsewhere to participate in our nation’s collective dialogue. That flies in the face of our most sacred rights as American citizens.

~#+#~

Official Summary HR 5175

4/29/2010--Introduced.Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act or DISCLOSE Act - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to prohibit:

(1) independent expenditures and payments for electioneering communications by government contractors if the value of the contract is at least $50,000; and
(2) recipients of assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) from making any contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office, or to any person for any political purpose or use, or from making any independent expenditure or disbursing any funds for an electioneering communication. Applies the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic corporations. Treats as contributions:

(1) any payments by any person (except a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political committee of a political party) for coordinated communications; and
(2) political party communications made on behalf of candidates if made under the control or direction of a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee. Revises the definition of independent expenditure to mean, in part, an expenditure that, when taken as a whole, expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Requires any person making independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 to file a report within 24 hours. Increases the period before a general election during which a communication shall be considered an electioneering communication. Requires corporations, labor organizations, and other covered organizations to include specified additional information in reports on independent expenditures of at least $10,000. Sets forth special rules for the use of general treasury funds by covered organizations for campaign-related activity. Authorizes covered organizations to make optional use of a separate Campaign-Related Activity Account for making disbursements for campaign-related activity. Prescribes additional information to be included in certain radio or television communications by persons (including significant funders of campaign-related communications of a covered organization) other than a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political committee of a political party. Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require registered lobbyists to report information on independent expenditures or electioneering communications of at least $1,000 to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Requires certain covered organizations to disclose to shareholders, members, or donors information on disbursements for campaign-related activity. Authorizes judicial review of the provisions of this Act.