In an interesting twist yesterday, the FEC ruled that donors who contributed to the Specter campaign while he was a Republican can now be contacted and informed of their right to request a refund.
The FEC voted 4-2 to advise the Club for Growth -- a conservative group tied to Specter's main GOP rival -- that it was within its legal rights to contact Specter donors and remind them of his pledge to provide refunds to any contributors unhappy with his party switch. When Specter announced he was leaving the GOP earlier this year, he promised to return campaign contributions from the 2010 cycle "upon request."
[...]
The FEC, which keeps tight restrictions on the use of donor lists, ruled that the Club for Growth can send one letter or make one telephone call to each donor, but the group cannot sell their names, addresses and telephone numbers to others, or request contributions.
In one sense, I see this as a marginal violation of privacy. If you give to a candidate more than $200 in an election cycle, campaigns are required to disclose you publicly, and you show up in public records. But there are lots of donors to campaigns who never show up. Is the Club for Growth now able to access the Specter campaign's entire donor list, even those who gave him $25 and $100? To me, I don't relish the prospect that the Club is able to view the names, addresses, occupations and employers of the entire Specter donor list, even if they are unable to use that information for their own fundraising purposes. I would hope the FEC required safeguards to keep the process blind should the Club decide to call or mail a donor.
Also, does this only apply to the Club, or can a group like National Right to Life contact these donors if they wanted to? I haven't seen answers to this anywhere.
On the other hand, this is good news for the Sestak camp- last FEC filing had Specter at $7.5 million and Sestak at $4.3 million. Specter had $5.8 million in the bank four weeks before he switched parties, which he had been raising since 2004, meaning almost 3/4 of his money was from people giving to a Republican. This may have a significant effect on draining his coffers.
Update: Over e-mail, a friend and campaign finance attorney says that the Club will only get to use information of those donors who are publicly available, e.g. contributors over $200 to the campaign per cycle. The Club is not allowed to use that information for resolicitation on their behalf.
Regarding the ability of conservative groups to "pile on" and each get one phone call and mail solicitation encouraging donors to ask for their money back, he writes:
As long as they're truly working independently, yes. The Commission seemed to place great weight on the privacy concerns of contributors and CfG's assurance that this was a one-shot letter or phone call.
To date, Specter has returned just $126,000 in individual contributions and $97,000 in PAC contributions. This could grow significantly if the Club and other groups all mobilize, although there are resource costs to them of doing that. I have doubts that a lot of people understood the vagueries of campaign finance law and knew they could get their money back.
There are five seats in the FCC, and "only three commissioners may be members of the same political party." For the next five years, the FCC will have a 3-2 Democratic majority, once the remaining Republican open seat has been filled. That makes this appointment by President Obama the key swing vote that will largely determine FCC policy and regulation over the next five years.
The reason Mignon Clyburn is such a worrying pick is that she is the daughter of South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, who has an anti-Net Neutrality record:
In 2006, Representative Clyburn voted againstH. Amdt. 987 to ensure that network neutrality clauses be added to the Title VII of the Communication Act of 1934. The amendment required all broadband service provides to "operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content, applications, and services through, or over, such broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation."
Here's what we do know. Clyburn serves on the South Carolina public service commission (which is considered very pro-Bell). She is virtually unknown by knowledgeable telecom people. And, she seems to have focused more on energy issues than telecom, if early accounts are to be believed. Plus, Verizon and the cable trade association are very happy. All in all, not good.
And check out this creepy comment that appeared below the Washington Post story on Clyburn's appointment:
At Sprint Nextel, we believe that Mignon Clyburn would bring experience, deep policy understanding and the perspective of a state utility commissioner to the FCC. We have worked with her in South Carolina where she has served on that state's Public Service Commission and we look forward to working with her again on any number of issues including restoring competition to the failed special access markets that are stifling broadband deployment in our country.
John Taylor
Public Affairs
Sprint Nextel Corp.
Feel reassured about the new deciding FCC vote on net neutrality and open media yet? This is a dangerous and risky appointment by President Obama that will need extensive clarification in the coming days and weeks leading up to her confirmation hearing. It seems possible that more information will be revealed that will demand a withdrawal of the appointment.
Media is one of the five most dominant ideological institutions in our country (work, school, worship, and family / demography being the other four). Also, the rise of self-publishing and social networking options created by the network netural Internet has created a cultural explosion that is both unparalleled in human history and helped turn the country in a largely progressive. This may sometimes seem like a wonky boutique issue, but over the long-term it is as essential to the progressive movement, and indeed an improved world, as any other area of policy.
Reiterating My OPPOSITION to Tolling I-80 as PA Turnpike Commission Reveals Plans to Spend I-80 Toll Money:
This week the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission released details of their plans to repair Interstate 80 using the funds generated from tolls paid by users of the highway. It was stated by the Turnpike Commission and their consultants that "An assessment of the interstate showed that more than half its length has not been repaved since it was built some 40 years ago". In press accounts, Barry J. Schoch, identified as Project Manager, also detailed plans to build a "cashless open road tolling system" that will utilize the EZ Pass system to collect a portion of the tolls. Mr. Schoch also described how vehicles not equipped with EZ Pass will have their tolls collected saying "a driver without E-ZPass will have his or her license plate photographed, generating a mailed-out bill for the vehicle owner". He also stated that this non EZ Pass system "is not currently used on any U.S. highway."
This is a direct mail piece addressed to 'Current Resident' and marked 'Urgent'. How is this any different than spam, content-wise?
I gave a speech today at UConn Law School about the internet, free speech, and a new framework for campaign finance regulation. Basically I divided the world up into spam media (TV, radio, mail) and social media, and said that the former should be regulated and the latter not so much. A description of the event and a copy of my speech is on the flip.
As the ranks of political appointees at the Department of Justice thin in shame over the historic politicization of law enforcement, one such official is flying under the radar towards a huge promotion. Until his recess appointment to the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky filled a political post in the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. While he was there, he was the architect for shifting the Division away from its historic mission to enforce protections against minority voters and towards a partisan motivated witch hunt for phantom fraudulent voters. Throughout the DOJ, politics has trumped law enforcement in agenda setting, prosecutorial priorities and resource allocation but it was the Civil Rights Division and the section that handles voting rights that saw such a dramatic shift away from its core mission. Von Spakovsky set many of these priorities. He is currently nominated for a full appointment to the FEC. He should not be allowed to continue as a strong influence overseeing how elections are conducted. The Senate must act now and say "no" to von Spakovsky and "no" to the politicization of voting rights.
At the Department, von Spakovsky was part of a conscious effort to purge the section of the talent and dedication of long time civil servants; punished career staff when they recommended a course of action that diverted from the political goals of the administration; politicized substantive law enforcement decisions; and shifted the priorities of the section away from protecting the participatory rights of America's voters. His actions while at the Department raise serious questions about his professionalism and commitment to serve his country before his party.
During his time at the Department, the Voting Section overruled decades of precedent by using Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to approve discriminatory legislation, such as the Georgia photo identification requirement and redistricting in Texas, over the near unanimous objection of career staff. Mr. von Spakovsky's Voting Section turned the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, the cornerstone of civil rights laws, on its head by using it to remove voters from the process instead of ensuring all eligible voters may vote. While a political appointee, he brought the weight of the Department of Justice down on the side of the Republican Party in partisan squabbles on the heels of the 2004 election, ignored documented failures of states to comply with federal mandates to help low-income voters register, and encouraged states to adopt irresponsible protocols for "purging" voters from their registration lists, likely leading to countless eligible registrants being removed.
I am fortunate to have Joe Rich, a former chief of the Voting Section, Bob Kengle, a former deputy chief at the Voting Section, and Jon Greenbaum, a former senior trial attorney at the Voting Section as colleagues at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Together they have nearly 70 years of experience in the Civil Rights Division. Each worked with von Spakovsky. As they have made clear, together with a number of their former career colleagues at DOJ, in two letters sent to the Senate Rules Committee, von Spakovsky frustrated the enforcement of the critical civil rights statutes that have protected Americans for a generation. The Senate can affirm its commitment to protecting the right to vote by rejecting von Spakovsky's nomination. To read the letters and for more information about von Spakovsky and the politicization of voting rights, visit http://www.nationalc...
One thing we don't need in 2008 is a practiced Republican expert at voter suppression as a Commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission.
Hans von Spakovsky, who was the boss from hell at the Justice Department (he would apparently go through the private inboxes of employees he didn't like), as well as a practiced expert at denying voting rights to minorities, is causing a bit of wrangling within the Senate. Von Spakovsky is up for appointment to the FEC, which regulates elections. The FEC has four commissioners under recess appointments right now, and Mitch McConnell is using this as leverage to force von Spakovsky onto the FEC by putting a single up or down vote on all four current FEC nominees at once. Reid wants to allow this to go forward because one of his guys is slated to be appointed.
A credible but non-Hill source told me that Feingold is going to object to McConnell's attempt to force von Spakovsky onto the FEC through this tactic. I don't know if the FEC will shut down if it doesn't have enough commissioners, but this is another back-against-the-wall surge strategy maneuver from the right-wing.
Feingold's standing his ground. Good for Russ. And Reid is not. Boo.
Two controversial news items this week potentially impact the course of election law before the 2008 election. First, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide upon the constitutionality of voter ID laws, one of the country's most hotly debated issues with a deeply partisan divide. Second, the names of Federal Election Commission nominees have been sent to the full Senate this week, including a key player in promoting the so-called "voter fraud epidemic," Hans von Spakovsky - and civil rights groups are not happy.
Here are six election items of note for a rainy Monday night:
Lane Hudson Busts Fred Thompson
Fellow blogger Lane Hudson has filed an FEC complaint on Fred Thompson, arguing that Thompson has violating the "testing the waters" provision of FEC law in several ways. These violations include:
Raising $72,000 for the general election.
Using money for advertising, specifically Google Ad words
Repeatedly referring to himself as a candidate for President, even though he continues to raise money only for an exploratory committee
Signing long-term leases on office space.
Some of these charges clearly have merit, as they have raised red flags from FEC commissioners and election lawyers. It is also receiving a lot of press, as you can see here, here and here. The press surrounding this matter will continue to grow tomorrow. Stay tuned.
In Act Two, the candidates begin saturation television advertising in Iowa, New Hampshire and perhaps a few other early states. This process begins to reach those voters who are less attentive to politics and can move numbers more dramatically for candidates who begin with less recognition. Act Two of the 2008 race started early for Mitt Romney and Bill Richardson (thus producing upward movement for both in Iowa and New Hampshire), but appears to be getting underway for most of the other candidates right about now. So it will be interesting to watch the round of early state surveys in September and October to whether greater exposure to all of the candidates changes perceptions and preferences.
Every Democratic candidate, except Kucinich and Gravel is now on the air in the early states, so Act Two is in full swing. As such, the next set of polls will indeed be very telling of where the campaign will be heading through at least the middle of November. The trends we see in September will likely continue through at least October. Act Three begins when the negative ads start, which typically is about five or six weeks before Iowa. Remember that in 2003, Dean was able to take the lead during "Act Two," but fell apart when the arrows started flying his way in Act Three (the "murder suicide" with Gephardt, among other things).
By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 60 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16. By his own standard, Giuliani was one of the Yankees more than he was one of the rescue workers.
I remember watching a lot of baseball immediately after September 11th, too. It was a good way to avoid depression. However, I was just a lowly graduate student and English teacher who was shocked at the direction the nation was turning following those terrible attacks and whose girlfriend was out of the country. I was not Mayor of New York City. And I don't even like the Yankees, anyway.
Obama Slows Debate Schedule, Then Rocks A Debate At MyDD, Todd Beeton notes that almost immediately after Barack Obama said he wouldn't debate anymore, he is now being credited with an excellent debate performance by most pundits. He also seems to be receiving positive reviews from pundits for deciding to not accept anymore debate appearances than he has already made. Personally, I'm not sure what to make of Obama's move, since it is always difficult to cast canceling possible campaign appearances in a positive light. Then again, I think most major Democratic constituencies already have held candidate forums, so he isn't really dissing anyone while simultaneously avoiding potential future political difficulties by individually telling certain groups "no." Also, this means that any potentially revised Fox News debate really is dead. There is no way Edwards or Clinton will show up at a Fox News debate if Obama won't, given the potential netroots backlash that would come if they do.
Why I'm Not Jumping In With Dodd Or Kucinich
Since my declaration yesterday that I would not be joining up with either Dodd or Kucinich's campaigns as a way of trying to change the focus of the primary toward of substantive policy discussions, some people have asked me why. To be as simple as I can, Dodd has already been on the air in New Hampshire, and simply has not seen the same upward movement from his advertising that Richardson did. In other words, I don't think Dodd has any traction, and I don't think I would change that. Second, as far as Kucinich goes, basically I am in agreement with what Markos wrote back in February, except for the part about Kucinich refusing to sell the local power company.
Rove Had Nothing To Do With Kerry Being the Nominee
There has been a lot of buzz about a recent LA Times article that claims Karl Rove and Matthew Dowd masterminded John Kerry's rise to the Democratic nomination in 2004. Apparently, the theory is that Rove and Dowd used reverse psychology on the Democratic base, by attacking the candidate they feared less, Kerry, in order to drive the Democratic base to Kerry instead of Edwards. Here is my simply response to this: What-fucking-ever. The idea that this played any role in Kerry becoming the Democratic nominee is absurd. As Pollster.com shows, that ship had already sailed by "late January" when supposedly rove and Dowd began messing with our feeble minds:
So, when exactly did the great wave of effectively anti-Kerry attacks from the Bush campaign start? Was it during the week after the Iowa caucuses when Dean was facing character assassination over the "scream," and when Kerry was riding a huge wave of post-Iowa momentum after that win? If it wasn't during that one week, then it didn't matter, as that was when all of the meaningful movement in national polls took place (Kerry went up 30, and Dean went down 15). In fact, if it was during that week, it didn't matter either, because the only news stories that week were about Kerry's victory and Dean's scream. The idea that Karl Rove had any impact on this is nonsense, as is the idea that they are having any impact on the 2008 Democratic nomination campaign.
Over at ActBlue there are a couple of things that inspire our team to innovate. I'd like to share two recent examples which highlight how we are freeing more information to our users and the broader online community.
The first thing that drives our innovation is the demand for new functionality based upon what we hear from campaigns and users. A popular request that we received this summer was to be notified of new contributions when they were made through ActBlue. That idea got our developers thinking so they built that functionality and expanded upon it, resulting in last week's launch of the Daily Notifications system.
A email will now go out to every ActBlue user who has access to a campaign report, has sent an appeal via the Spread the Word system, has ownership of a fundraising page, or has access to a partnership AND has received a contribution through one of those four elements the previous 24 hours. Because of that, hundreds of fundraisers and campaigns are now being notified on any given day about their donors, putting faces to individual contributions. This is actively reminding campaigns who's responsible for their fundraising success- be it bloggers, loyal grassroots supporters, or other organizations raising funds on their behalf. With more information, they can be more responsive to their donors and fundraisers.
The second thing that drives innovation is our desire for efficiency in gathering and organizing information. Occasionally we come across a problem that cries out for an automated solution. One of these problems involved periodically updating the database with newly filed Federal Democrats. To help keep us up to date, my colleague Nate Thames wrote a ruby script which queries the FEC and compares the current list of filed Candidate Committees to the list the last time the script was run. It then emails whatever address you specify in the code with the candidate name, address and committee ID.
This was released with the MIT software license so please use it to your heart's content. Be sure to glance over the script before running it, as it does have some dependencies that may need to be installed and variables that need to be set. Note: this script is being released without any technical support from ActBlue. Nate will be first to admit that he's not a formally trained programmer- feel free to edit and improve.
We'd like to continue doing our part towards freeing information and making it more useful. I'd like to believe this gives it added value and make it of greater use to campaigns, bloggers, and activists. As we work towards freer information, step by step, we will inspire a larger community of progressive innovation.
