Trevor Potter CLC
see CLC and am pro
gettable for MTA?
:{:{President, Campaign Legal Center, Former FEC Chair, Former Campaign Counsel to Sen. John McCain; Washington, D.C.}::{}:
“I am proud to add my voice to those who are calling for a constitutional amendment by July 4, 2026 (the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence), and have joined the cross-partisan American Promise movement to enable all Americans to take effective action-together-to move the constitutional amendment process forward.”
---
not the trib bad one
Trevor Potter: Future of self-government depends on campaign finance amendment
TREVOR POTTER
:{MAR 22, 2022
The candidates in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, and their super PACs, are raising huge money: up to $50 million so far, with that total projected to increase to record levels as we approach the November election.
Those millions of dollars mean Pennsylvanians are in for a very loud and contentious election season, with outside money working to influence the vote. For instance, one California mega-donor has already spent $1 million supporting Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro.
Those millions of dollars also mean that the very idea that launched this country into existence — that the people can govern themselves — is under threat. As a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and someone who helped craft the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as “McCain-Feingold”), the bulk of my legal career has focused on the intersection of money and politics.
When I distill what I’ve learned, it goes like this: If we can’t limit the influence money has over our politics, we will lose key aspects of our democracy.
Special interests are deploying financial power in a way that increasingly drowns out the voices of ordinary Americans. The situation grows worse when complicated by secret spending, also known as dark money. If voters don’t know who is funding campaigns, accountability is impossible and the likelihood of corruption increases.
The goal of a government that responds to the people is not a partisan one. It come from a shared belief that every American — regardless of race, economic status or political affiliation — should be able to participate meaningfully in the political process. Americans across the board believe that representatives should be accountable to the people who can vote for them, not a few big national donors.
But those of us who have been fighting to stem the corrupt influence of money in politics have been met with a series of Supreme Court decisions that stand in the way of effective self-government. Can we set limits on election-related expenditures? The Court says no. Can we differentiate between human beings and corporate entities when it comes to campaign finance? No again. Can we limit the amount one wealthy individual can give? I think you can see the pattern here.
For a long time, I hoped we could persuade the Court its campaign finance jurisprudence was misguided. But lately, every Court anti-corruption decision makes it easier for wealthy special interests to solidify power, and harder for the rest of us to even trace where the money is coming from. To quote the late Justice Scalia, “I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously.”
Amid our challenges, however, there is a bright path, if we take it. America is right now in a “constitutional moment.” The time is ripe for the American people to press for a 21st-century amendment that, as with eight previous amendments, corrects course after disastrous Supreme Court mistakes.
Such an amendment should enable reasonable and effective regulation and limits on how money is raised and deployed in state and federal elections. This amendment would attest to and reset our shared commitment to the American project of representative self-government. It would help prevent our country from sliding further into one where ordinary voices are drowned out, and too many Americans check out in hopelessness — or turn to extremism and conspiracy theories.
Like the Declaration of Independence, this amendment should affirm the political equality of all Americans. And it should enshrine “We the People” as the fundamental source of legitimate political power in our nation.
I urge Pennsylvanians to join us in calling for a constitutional amendment by July 4, 2026: the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It is an ambitious goal but well underway, with support from an overwhelming majority (75%) of Americans. Further, 22 states that have called on Congress to act.
It is time to set the Constitutional foundation right for a new century of American democracy, with a renewed mutual trust between Americans and our government.
It is time to think big and act big — before it’s too late.
Trevor Potter is the president of the Campaign Legal Center and serves on the National Advisory Council of American Promise.
First Published March 22, 2022, 4:50am
---
an 6 22
in a decision Monday that liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned will further corrupt the nation's money-dominated political system, the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority struck down a campaign finance regulation limiting federal candidates' ability to use campaign funds to repay personal loans.
Established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the rule barred candidates from using more than $250,000 in campaign funds collected after an election to recoup their loans to their own campaign.
The legal challenge to the cap was brought by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who intentionally violated the $250,000 cap during his 2018 reelection bid in order to pursue a repeal of the limit, which he characterized as a violation of free speech.
As CNNexplained:
A day before he was reelected in 2018, Cruz loaned his campaign committee $260,000, $10,000 over the limit—laying the foundation for his legal challenge to the cap... [H]e could have been repaid in full by campaign funds if the repayment occurred 20 days after the election. But Cruz let the 20-day deadline lapse so that he could establish grounds to bring the legal challenge.
The high court's 6-3 decision strikes another blow to the nation's campaign finance restrictions, which were already weak and rife with loopholes that big donors readily and frequently exploit.
"While the direct effects of this decision are limited to the narrow federal provision at issue in the case, it reveals a Supreme Court increasingly out of step with the American people—who overwhelmingly recognize that unchecked campaign giving poses profound risks to the integrity of our democracy," said Trevor Potter, the president of Campaign Legal Center. "More immediately, the ruling could imperil an array of similar restrictions on post-election loan repayments adopted at the state and local level out of legitimate concerns over corruption."
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) added on Twitter that "the right-wing Supreme Court has issued yet another preposterous decision effectively legalizing government corruption at the request of Republicans."
In her dissent, Kagan argued that the court's ruling will make even more common the kinds of "crooked exchanges" that have long sullied the U.S. political system, which is awash in money from corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals.
"Political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption," Kagan argued, pointing to the issue of recouping personal loans. "The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money (to replenish his personal finances), and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone's incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing."
Kagan went on to contend that quid pro quos—political favors carried out in exchange for money, in this case post-election donations—could become more rampant thanks to the Supreme Court's new ruling, which was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who helped orchestrate the high court's infamous Citizens United ruling and other attacks on campaign finance law.
"Post-election donors can be confident their money will enrich a candidate personally," Kagan wrote. "And those donors have of course learned which candidate won. When they give money to repay the victor's loan, they know—not merely hope—he will be in a position to perform official favors. The recipe for quid pro quo corruption is thus in place: a donation to enhance the candidate's own wealth (the quid), made when he has become able to use the power of public office to the donor's advantage (the quo)."
"The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption," she continued. "In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today's decision can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."
In a statement, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) voiced agreement with Kagan's dissent, calling the high court's ruling "another victory for right-wing donors in their assault on our campaign finance system, and another step toward unlimited special-interest spending in our elections."
"Big Republican donor interests built their supermajority to deliver wins like this one," Whitehouse added, "wins that help special interests skirt our democratic process to achieve what they want."
---
---
}: