Podcasts about bipartisan campaign reform act

Who Was Granny D and Why is She Important to American Democracy?Today's LinksArticles & Resources:Open Democracy:   REGISTER for free Granny D Birthday Celebration, featuring former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold.Open Democracy - Remembering Granny DGrannyD.org -  Videos of Granny DNew York Times Obit (paywall) - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/12haddock.htmlLos Angeles Times obit - Doris Haddock dies at 100; activist and Senate candidate ‘Granny D'Keene State University Archives - Doris "Granny D" Haddock CollectionOpen Democracy - Granny D's Speech on the Capitol StepsGroups Taking Action:Open DemocracyToday's Script:  (Variations occur with audio due to editing for time) You're listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.You've heard me say, “Granny D said, Democracy is not something we HAVE, it's something we do.”   Just who is Granny D, and why is she important to American Democracy?Doris “Granny D” Haddock, a former shoe factory employee, homemaker and sometimes activist from rural New Hampshire died in 2010 at 100 years old.  In 1999, seeing elected representatives in Washington becoming beholden to special interests by taking money from corporations to fund campaigns, she decided to take a walk.  Not just any walk.  At 88 years old, she decided to walk from Pasadena, CA to Washington, DC, to get people to pay attention to Big Money corruption.Because of her age and tenacity, she captured the attention of local and national media, and began to put pressure on the House & Senate to pass meaningful campaign finance reform.  Fourteen months later, she arrived in DC after 3200 miles, returning to Washington again in 2002 for the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sponsored by Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain.  There is much, much more to her story, but her birthday will be marked by the organization she founded, Open Democracy, on January 24 at 7 pm Eastern,  with a free virtual program featuring remarks by former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and others.  We have links to learn more about Granny D at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  For the American Democracy Minute, I'm Brian Beihl. 

One of the Deals Made to Elect Kevin McCarthy Speaker Was With a SuperPACToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Salon: - “Shameful”: Democrats sound alarm over “creepy” dark-money super PAC deal to help McCarthy winPolitico - Complaint from End Citizens UnitedReuters - Kevin McCarthy elected House speaker, but at a costThe Hill - McCarthy-backed PAC agrees to not spend in safe GOP open-seat primaries in Speakership concessionGroups Taking Action:End Citizens United, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in WashingtonToday's Script:  (Variations occur with audio due to editing for time) You're listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.You've likely heard that Kev “The Contenda” McCarthy won in the 15th round in a heavyweight title bout early Saturday morning.  Oh, sorry, wrong blood sport.   That was U.S. Representative Kevin McCarthy, who was elected Speaker of the House early Saturday morning on the 15th ballot. It was, however, a slugfest, with ultra-Conservative Republicans in the Freedom Caucus, trading votes for key committee positions and rules changes.  Such backroom deals are part of Congress.But what raised an alarm for Democracy advocates was a reported deal negotiated as part of Congressional business with a SuperPAC.  Salon reports McCarthy openly negotiated with the Congressional Leadership Fund SuperPAC to NOT run and support more moderate candidates against Freedom Caucus-supported ultra-Conservative candidates for open primary seats.In a letter published by Politico, End Citizens United, a money-in-politics watchdog group, complained to the Office of Congressional Ethics, that QUOTE,  “McCarthy and House staff acting on his behalf are using official resources to plan and direct campaign & political activities with federal super PACs” UNQUOTE, in violation of House rules, and that McCarthy and agents working on his behalf are directing the political decisions of Congressional Leadership Fund, in violation of the soft money prohibition of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.  Another of McCarthy's concessions to the Freedom Caucus?  Gut the Office of Congressional Ethics.We have more at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  For the American Democracy Minute,  I'm Brian Beihl.

Audio of the 2010 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or BCRA (bik-rah) - more commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act, placed restrictions on federal campaign fundraising in an effort to regulate "big money" campaign contributions and prevent corruption. One such restriction prevented corporations and labor unions from financing electioneering communications.  The conservative nonprofit Citizens United sought an injunction from the D.C. District Court in an attempt to prevent BRCA from being applied to their film Hillary: The Movie, featuring commentary that was critical of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations. Striking down election restrictions dating back nearly a century, the Court held that that, under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, and freedom of political speech applied to both corporations and individuals alike. The Court's decision completely changed the political playing field, clearing the way for the creation of Super PACs and effectively allowing those with the deepest pockets to, without publicly disclosing their identity, donate unlimited cash to federal campaign advertising - so long as fundraising organizations do not directly coordinate political ads with the candidate's campaign.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.   Music by Epidemic Sound  

This episode, we continue reading the second half the 2010 opinion of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Picking up where we ended last episode, we begin with Part III of the opinion. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or BCRA (BIK-rah) (even more commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act) placed restrictions on federal campaign contributions in an effort to regulate "big money" and prevent corruption. One such restriction prevented corporations and labor unions from financing electioneering communications.  The conservative nonprofit Citizens United sought an injunction from the D.C. District Court in an attempt to prevent BRCA from being applied to their new film Hillary: The Movie, featuring commentary that was critical of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations. Striking down election restrictions dating back nearly a century, the Court held that that, under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited; freedom of political speech applied to both corporations and individuals alike. The Court's decision completely changed the political playing field in federal campaigns, clearing the way for the creation of Super PACs and effectively allowing those with the deepest pockets to, without publicly disclosing their identity, donate unlimited cash to federal campaign advertising - so long as fundraising organizations do not directly coordinate political ads with the candidate's campaign.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.   Music by Epidemic Sound  

3 SCOTUS Rejects FEC Argument Against Sen. Cruz's Standing to Sue In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has invalidated a provision of federal campaign finance law limiting the amount of money a candidate can be repaid for personal loans made to their campaign. NCLA filed an amicus brief in support of Senator Ted Cruz's challenge to Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which unconstitutionally burdens core political speech. Senator Cruz also raised challenges to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) implementing regulation. In the amicus brief, NCLA argued, and the Court agreed, that the FEC's proposed heightened standing standard, if adopted, would severely restrict the ability to challenge unlawful government action. Mark interviews NCLA Litigation Counsel Sheng Li about our amicus victory in FEC v. Cruz. 4 Court Denies Covid Eviction Moratorium Taking Claim Thirty-eight landlords and rental property owners filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, asserting that the nationwide residential eviction moratorium effected either a compensable taking or an illegal exaction under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued in Darby Development Company v. U.S. that the government forced them to continue housing non-rent-paying tenants rather than replace them with rent-paying tenants and subjected them to significant fines and imprisonment if they pursued otherwise lawful evictions. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Vec bemoans the Court's decision.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court's latest decision chipping away at campaign finance reform was a victory for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who challenged a limit on how much candidates can expect to recoup when loaning their campaigns money. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to review the May 16 decision striking down another provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Muller explains how the issue of campaign finance splits the justices along ideological lines and what future challenges might come before the conservative-majority court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Federal Election Commission vs. Ted Cruz for Senate. Listeners may remember our guest today, Professor Bradley A. Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, who joined earlier in the term for the post-argument segment. Today, Professor Smith, a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (2004), joins to provide expert analysis on this decision.Holding: Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — which limits the amount of post-election contributions that may be used to repay a candidate who lends money to his own campaign — unconstitutionally burdens core political speech.Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 16, 2022. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

During his 2018 Senate reelection campaign and consistent with federal law, see 11 CFR §110.10; 52 U. S. C. §30101(9)(A)(i), appellee Ted Cruz loaned $260,000 to his campaign committee, Ted Cruz for Senate (Committee). To repay these and other campaign debts, campaigns may continue to receive contributions after election day. See 11 CFR §110.1(b)(3)(i). Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) restricts the use of post-election contributions by limiting the amount that a candidate may be repaid from such funds to $250,000. 52 U. S. C. §30116(j). Relevant here, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has promulgated regulations establishing three rules to implement that limitation: First, a campaign may repay up to $250,000 in candidate loans using contributions made “at any time.” 11 CFR §116.12(a). Second, to the extent the loans exceed $250,000, a campaign may use pre-election funds to repay the portion exceeding $250,000 only if the repayment occurs “within 20 days of the election.” §116.11(c)(1). Third, when the 20-day post-election deadline expires, the campaign must treat any portion above $250,000 as a contribution to the campaign, precluding later repayment. §116.11(c)(2). The Committee began repaying Cruz's loans after the 20-day post-election window for repaying amounts over $250,000 had closed. It accordingly repaid Cruz only $250,000, leaving $10,000 of his personal loans unpaid. Cruz and the Committee filed this action in Federal District Court, alleging that Section 304 of BCRA violates the First Amendment and raising challenges to the FEC's implementing regulation, §116.11. The District Court granted Cruz and his Committee summary judgment on their constitutional claim, holding that the loan-repayment limitation burdens political speech without sufficient justification, and dismissed as moot their challenges to the regulation. Held: Appellees have standing to challenge the threatened enforcement of Section 304. Credit: Justia US Supreme Court, available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/21-12/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Russ Feingold became a household name co-authoring the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold. It's the only major piece of campaign finance reform legislation passed into law in decades. Today he is using his experience navigating the levers of power to tackle alarming biodiversity loss and the worsening climate crisis. Feingold believes, “The threats posed to people from the destruction of nature are just as serious as those posed by climate change.”  Guests:  Russ Feingold, President of the American Constitution Society, former Senator from Wisconsin Jean Su, Energy Justice Director and Senior Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity Dan Farber, Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, University of California, Berkeley Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Russ Feingold became a household name co-authoring the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold. It's the only major piece of campaign finance reform legislation passed into law in decades. Today he is using his experience navigating the levers of power to tackle alarming biodiversity loss and the worsening climate crisis. Feingold believes, “The threats posed to people from the destruction of nature are just as serious as those posed by climate change.”  Guests:  Russ Feingold, President of the American Constitution Society, former Senator from Wisconsin Jean Su, Energy Justice Director and Senior Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity Dan Farber, Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, University of California, Berkeley Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Anonymous speech In Talley v California (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority opinion: "There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression. ... Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." In McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature. However, in Meese v Keene (1987), the Court upheld the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, under which several Canadian films were defined as "political propaganda", requiring their sponsors to be identified. Campaign finance. In Buckley v Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws, which restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates. The Court affirmed the constitutionality of limits on campaign contributions, saying they "serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion." However, the Court overturned the spending limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech". The court again scrutinized campaign finance regulation in McConnell v Federal Election Commission (2003). The case centered on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), a federal law that imposed new restrictions on campaign financing. The Supreme Court upheld provisions which barred the raising of soft money by national parties and the use of soft money by private organizations to fund certain advertisements related to elections. However, the Court struck down the "choice of expenditure" rule, which required that parties could either make coordinated expenditures for all its candidates, or permit candidates to spend independently, but not both, which the Court agreed "placed an unconstitutional burden on the parties' right to make unlimited independent expenditures". The Court also ruled that the provision preventing minors from making political contributions was unconstitutional, relying on Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

A Louisville grand jury on Wednesday indicted one officer in connection with the March 13 police raid that took Breonna Taylor’s life. The grand jury declined to charge the two officers who fired directly at Breonna Taylor and her boyfriend that evening, instead only charging the third officer, who was outside and fired indiscriminately, with wanton endangerment. David explains the basic facts leading up to Taylor’s shooting, as well as the legality surrounding police raids and the right of self-defense under Kentucky law. “You begin to see where we’ve backslidden in our commitment to key constitutional liberties,” David explains, where “decades of bad Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has empowered violent tactics even when the stakes are low.” On today’s episode, David and Sarah also address how much the chief justice matters to the trajectory of the Supreme Court and the democratic prudence of voluntary judicial restraint. After a requisite foray into all things SCOTUS, our podcast hosts are joined by Federal Elections Commission Chairman Trey Trainor, who explains the ins and outs of election law, foreign election interference, and why the FEC is paralyzed right now. Trainor also explains how campaign finance laws like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act have significantly weakened the national political parties while funneling money into the state parties in the process. “What’s happened is the smoke filled room has moved from Washington, D.C. to each of the 50 states.” Stick around for an inside scoop on the rise and fall of Kanye West’s presidential campaign. Show Notes: -30 day free trial at The Dispatch, FEC Chairman Trainor’s statement on the dangers of procedural dysfunction, “A Resignation in Time, that Saved Nine” by Josh Blackman in Reason, David’s French Press: “Supreme Court Precedent Killed Breonna Taylor.”

Citizens United, a conservative non-profit corporation, was once caught in the crosshairs of campaign finance law. The company violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act by broadcasting a political film within 30 days of a primary election. The Supreme Court split 5-4 on the issue. Did the court side with the free speech of a corporation? What happens when there are two different visions of the First Amendment? Are corporations people? Join James Harrigan, Antony Davies, and special guest Trevor Burrus as they recount the courtroom drama of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and more on this week’s episode of Words & Numbers. Show your support for Words & Numbers at Patreon https://www.patreon.com/wordsandnumbers Quick hits The bystander effect https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31157529  The world is becoming a better place https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP59tz2WreY Advances toward a cancer cure https://www.studyfinds.org/strategic-medicine-researchers-develop-trojan-horse-drug-that-tricks-then-kills-cancer-cells/ Foolishness of the week https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html Topic of the week: Political Speech and the Citizens United Decision Trevor Burrus https://www.cato.org/people/trevor-burrus Trevor Burrus on Twitter https://twitter.com/tcburrus McCain-Feingold, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act https://ballotpedia.org/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/michael-moore-trumpland-might-have-been-illegal-citizens-united-its-all Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce https://ballotpedia.org/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage https://www.facebook.com/groups/130029457649243/ Let us know what you think mailto:wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Antony Davies on Twitter https://twitter.com/antonydavies James R. Harrigan on Twitter https://twitter.com/JamesRHarrigan

Congress' passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not end the debate on campaign finance. Instead, it arguably created more legal questions than it did answers. -- The Act's passage quickly unleashed subsequent litigation, resulting in a number of Supreme Court decisions directly related to the BCRA and, more broadly, to general laws regulating campaign finance. These recent Supreme Court cases, including the much-discussed Citizens United decision, struck down many campaign regulations on the grounds that they infringe upon individuals' First Amendment rights. Some have charged that decisions like these have increased the influence of a privileged few in our political system. Others have argued that these decisions are not only doctrinally correct, but the prudential fears many have expressed have not been borne out. -- Still, Americans remain discontented with the current campaign finance regime. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in 2015, 46% of respondents agree that the country needs to completely rebuild its campaign finance system, while 39% believed it requires fundamental change. Today, groups and individuals continue to fight limits on political contributions, and restrictions on political speech, while others push for stricter regulations. -- This panel will weigh in on whether decisions like Citizens United are correct as a matter of law, and if they are desirable from a policy perspective. The panel will also discuss the jurisprudential foundations of Citizens United—including the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo—and where future fights over campaign finance regulations are likely to occur. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former FEC Commissioner; Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice; Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

A case in which the Court ruled that the two-year aggregate campaign contribution limit of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was unconstitutional.

Former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) is perhaps best known as the co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold). He also cast the only vote in the Senate against the USA Patriot Act, which he believed posed an unacceptable threat to civil liberties. In May, Feingold spoke with UC Hastings law professor Evan Lee about the war on terror, the Obama presidency, and how the Senate has changed. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 25085]

Former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) is perhaps best known as the co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold). He also cast the only vote in the Senate against the USA Patriot Act, which he believed posed an unacceptable threat to civil liberties. In May, Feingold spoke with UC Hastings law professor Evan Lee about the war on terror, the Obama presidency, and how the Senate has changed. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 25085]