Former SC Justice Proposes Six Amendments, Including Allowing Congress to Regulate Spending

Citizen Times: “Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has recently published a book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution (New York, Little, Brown and Company, 2014), which I found particularly relevant in light of the recent election and other current events. Stevens was appointed to the court by Republican President Ford and served from 1975-2010.”

“Justice Stevens quotes President Theodore Roosevelt in his 1905 annual message to Congress, ‘All contributions by corporations to any political committee for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders’ money for such purposes’ and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts.'”

“Stevens proposes the following amendment to the Constitution:

“’Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.’

“Justice Stevens discusses the history of gerrymandering, both racial and political, from the time that the word was coined to describe the bizarre shapes of districts drawn by the partisans of Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts in the 1812 election. He proposes the following amendment: ‘Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historic boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.'”

Chevron Bypassed Rules Against Contractor Donations by Creating Second Company on Paper, FEC Approves

The Hill: “The federal pay-to-play law reads in part: ‘It shall be unlawful for any person … who enters into any contract with the United States … to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use….’ (2 USC 441c). The Congressional Leadership Fund is fully aware of the law and even posts on its website that “Contributions from foreign nationals, Federal government contractors, national banks, or corporations organized by act of Congress are prohibited.”

“The catch: The FEC, the agency charged with enforcing the law, ruled in a complaint filed against Chevron by Public Citizen regarding a similar $2.5 million contribution to the same super PAC in 2012, that as long as Chevron creates separate legal entities within the same corporate family – even if only on paper – a Chevron entity that does not itself receive a government contract may tap into the corporate treasury for making campaign contributions on behalf of the company.”

Case Study: Influence of Campaign Contributions, Lobbying on Ebola Vaccine Research

There’s a lot to this one so I’m pulling from a few sources. This is a case involving a doctor accused of defrauding the government and convicted of using foreign money to violate campaign contribution limits. BUT, the main thing this case demonstrates is the effectiveness of campaign contributions and lobbying at influencing elected officials, specifically for putting federal grants into the hands of the wrong people.

First, the current update on the case:

The Post and Courier: “After a 10-day trial, a federal jury in Charleston could not reach a verdict Friday on charges against Dr. Jian-Yun Dong related to the alleged fleecing of government funds, resulting in a mistrial. Now the government must decide whether to drop the case or retry him.

“Dong was accused of misusing $3.6 million in federal grant money intended for research for vaccines for the Ebola and Marburg viruses.”

The article notes that Dr. Dong was previously convicted of making illegal contributions to Senator Lindsey Graham, of which investigators say Graham had no knowledge.  Fine, Graham didn’t know that he was breaking the law – but, he knew that they were raising money for his campaign and PAC, and, as laid out below, he acknowledges helping them with federal grants.

From the Center for Responsive Politics: “Dong then donated most of those funds [illegally solicited from a German national] through conduits — such as his estranged wife Dahner Wang, daughter Deanna and GenPhar employees — to Graham and his leadership PAC.

“The alleged illegal activity began after the couple contributed the legal maximums to the Graham during his 2008 re-election campaign. The couple had promised to raise $25,000 for the senator, a goal for which Dong relied on the German stockholder to meet.”

“The manner in which Dong and GenPhar secured this and other federal grants points to the persuasive power of political spending. The lobbying firm Dong hired to secure such grants was American Defense International, Inc., whose chairman, Vann Hipp, Jr., is a former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party.”

“Dong is accused with using $3.6 million of that total on non-grant related purposes such as travel, construction of a new GenPhar facility and compensation for ADI’s $280,000 worth of lobbying expenses.”

Washington Post: 

“From 2004 to 2010, GenPhar received $19.6 million in federal grants from NIH and the military secured with help from Graham, according to the senator’s office. The money was focused on attempting to develop vaccines for use against the Ebola, Marburg and dengue viruses.

“In one example, Graham requested a $5 million earmark for GenPhar for a program to develop a vaccine against dengue fever. The company eventually received about $1.3 million in 2010, according to LegiStorm, which tracks earmarks.”

Shocker: Campaigns Tried to Get Around Coordination Limits, this Time Using Twitter

CNN: “Republicans and outside groups used anonymous Twitter accounts to share internal polling data ahead of the midterm elections, CNN has learned, a practice that raises questions about whether they violated campaign finance laws that prohibit coordination.”

“A typical tweet read: “CA-40/43-44/49-44/44-50/36-44/49-10/16/14-52–>49/476-10s.” The source said posts like that — which would look like gibberish to most people — represented polling data for various House races.”

“Beyond coordination, the social media operation could also raise questions about whether the polling data contained in the tweets constituted a donation to the NRCC that should have been reported. The groups could have violated election rules by not reporting the information in the tweets as a donation.”

Lessig Calls For Tax Rebates for Small Contributions with Matching Funds, Argues Transparency Isn’t Enough

NY Daily News: “People would get a $50 tax rebate via a voucher they could then give to candidates. Candidates would parlay those into potentially very significant matching funds, perhaps in a 6-to-1 ratio.”

“As one watched all that oil spewing into the gulf, Lessig cautioned that we would not have been better served by better video. There remained the basic problem of fixing the spill.

“Similarly, he said, merely knowing who’s giving money to politicians doesn’t solve the core problem of money’s influence. Transparency is an illusory remedy.

“‘The point is to stop the guck from pouring into the Gulf, not to see it more clearly,’ he said.”

Vietnam Veteran, Voter Suggests Limiting Contributions to Registered Voters in District, Other Reforms

Citizen Times: “1. Only registered voters may contribute to any campaign fund.”

“2. Registered voters may contribute only to those running for office who is on their ballots.”

“3. The maximum contribution by any registered voter in total is equal to two 40-hour work weeks times the federal minimum hourly wage.”

“4. No candidate may spend out of his/her own funds (either funds he/she has or borrows) other than the same maximum as any other voter as defined in point No. 3.”