OPINION FAIRFAX COUNT Y TIMES
Friday-Sunday, May 6-8, 2015
Page A-5
Campaign Finance – Is It Free Speech or a Political Travesty? THE LEGAL EDGE by PAUL
SAMAKOW
Here is an historical and current discussion of giving money to support your candidate. Oh, the tangled web we have woven. It would seem that the more money spent on, or by, or for a candidate for political office, the better would be that candidate’s chance of winning. Some candidates have “taken the high road” (a tacit and sometimes openly direct statement that political finance laws are broken) declaring that they are not taking contributions, instead funding their candidacies by themselves. In the case of a local Maryland candidate, David Trone, who ran for Congress in Maryland’s 8th District, his fortune was not enough. Trone spent over $12.4 million of his own money and lost to a three-term state senator, Jaime Raskin, who raised about $2 million. Trone’s spending was certainly considerable, but not even close to some others whose personal parlays came up short. Linda McMahon spent more than $48 million in her unsuccessful attempt to become a Senator in Connecticut in 2012. David Dewhurst also failed to reach the upper chamber as one of the two from Texas after plunking down almost $20 million that year. Meg Whitman spent more than $140 million of her personal
fortune trying to become California’s governor in 2010, only to lose to Jerry Brown. Donald Trump is advertising that he is using his own money in his bid for the oval office. Technically, he is making loans to his candidacy, allowing him to potentially recover that money later with campaign financing. It is clear that money is important in running a political candidacy, but as seen, the amount spent is not always determinative. Nonetheless, clearly, the amount of money can influence. Leastwise, why all the concern? For most candidates then, reliance on the money of others is seen as critical. In a perfect world, elections would be determined by a competition of ideas and all candidates would have the exact same amount of money at their disposal, from all quarters, to use to convey their message to the voters. In the real world of the United States of America, however, fundraising, wealth and access are more often the determining factors. Thus, since 1907, when questions about which corporations funded Theodore Roosevelt were raised, the Tillman Act became the first ever campaign finance law. It banned corporate contributions for national campaigns. Laws and court decisions followed, and today, two disparate camps provide continuing debate on several campaign finance issues. In one corner are those who
believe that campaign contributions should be a protected form of free speech, and they advocate for an unlimited ability to donate, and for “the right” to secret their identities in the process. In the other corner are those who are in favor of limits and disclosure, seeing donations as giving the wealthy undue political influence. The world of campaign finance evolved with the passage of the Federal Election Commission Act in 1971. The Act was re-written in 1974 after it was learned that Richard Nixon used corrupt funds in his re-election campaign. The Federal Election Commission was born and was tasked to regulate matters on the federal level. The new law put limits on individual contributions to candidates, contributions to PACs, total campaign expenditures and spending by individuals or groups to a specific candidate. Consistent with everything that has to do with money, the Act was challenged and the Supreme Court eventually addressed it. In 1976 the Court ruled in a landmark case, Buckley v. Valeo, that free speech allowed individuals to spend unlimited political money, that ads for or against a candidate had to be financed with regulated money, and that corporations, unions and individuals could contribute “soft” money (money given to a political party rather than directly to a candidate) to political parties in an effort to influence campaigns. Many companies then set up
PACs to donate. In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed. Wealthy Democratic donors had previously received special privileges and the Party had illegally accepted foreign money. Also called the McCain-Feingold Act, it stopped corporations and unions from donating directly to candidates. Next, the Supreme Court served up a true bombshell. In 2010, in a 5-4 split decision, in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the Court ruled that corporations are people, and that the government cannot prohibit corporations and unions from spending money for political purposes. It gave the green light for corporations and unions to spend as much as they wanted on campaigns. This ruling led to the rise of super PACs, formally known as independentexpenditure only committees, these groups have no legal limit on the funds they can raise from various groups. The most recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance came in 2014, in another 5-4 decision. In McCutcheon v. FEC the Supremes struck down caps on what individuals can contribute to federal candidates in any two-year election cycle, saying that the caps restricted the democratic process and violated the First Amendment’s free speech rights. So, what is the geography of the law now? There are basically
two “groups” of donors, and each have rules by which they must abide. The rules address amounts of money that can be donated, by whom, and whether or not the donors must be identified. Group 1 – These must abide by federal limits on the amount of money they can receive and donate. 1. Candidate’s Committees 2. Parties and their subsidiaries – Republican National Committee or the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 3. Traditional Political Action Committees (PACs) All of these must disclose all expenditures and the identity of donors. Group 2 – These groups can collect and spend in unlimited amounts as long as they do not coordinate with or contribute to political campaigns. 1. Super PACs – such as House Majority PAC, 2. 527’s – reference to federal tax code Super PACs and 527’s regularly disclose to the IRS all of their expenditures and the identity of donors. 3. The “501-c” groups: 501-c-4s – social welfare nonprofits such as NRA, Planned Parenthood 501-c-5s -labor unions, such as AFL-CIO 501-c-6s – trade and business associations, such as U.S. Chamber of Commerce
501-c’s disclose money expressly spent to defeat or elect a candidate, but are not required to disclose donors (“dark” money). Ingenuity has always been the adjective used to describe doing something a different way if the obvious way doesn’t work. So it is in the world of campaign finance. Want to donate money and keep your identity secret? (1)there are no caps on the amount someone can give a Super PAC, but that person’s name will be disclosed; (2)individuals can funnel contributions through Limited Liability Corporations (LLC’s) they can set up which can then be sent to Super PACs. LLC’s have fewer disclosure requirements and individuals can shield their names. (3)“Dark” money can also enter the system through the IRS rules governing 501-c contributions, if the organization’s main activity is “social welfare.” A penny for your thoughts? Paul A. Samakow is a Personal Injury attorney and author, headquartered in Tysons Corner and Wheaton, Md. He has been practicing since 1980. His book “The 8 Critical Things Your Auto Accident Attorney Won’t Tell You” can be downloaded for free on his website: http://www.samakowlaw. com/book.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear editor,
Reader applauds federal commitment to computer science funding
As a long-time resident of the VA 10th District and member of the Northern Virginia technology sector, I applaud the news that a group of national business and education leaders, as well as 27 governors
(including our own Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe), recently urged Congress to provide federal funding for computer science education. Information technology is fundamental to all parts of our society and economy. It is essential to healthcare,
government, finance, and every American industry. Given its importance, computer science should be an essential part of K-12 school curriculum. Instead, only one out of four American K-12 schools offers classes in computer science.
Inadequate computer science education is already holding back our economy, and we are falling behind other nations that are committed to tech education. In addition, for young Americans who will be entering the workforce, computer science
education leads to the highestpaying, fasting-growing jobs in the U.S. economy. If a bipartisan group of governors and diverse business leaders can agree on this issue, then Congress can, too. All of Virginia’s members of Congress should unite to sup-
port federal funding specifically dedicated to computer science education.
Sylvia Orellano Springfield
Fears should not deter us from a meals tax
Dear Editor,
The last edition of the Fairfax County Times included a letter to the editor from Mr.Kyle McDaniel, Supervisor Pat Herrity’s former Policy Director, cautioning Fairfax County voters to consider the unintended consequences of a meals tax on wait staff. However, Mr. McDaniel’s concerns are overstated and misleading because he mistakenly relies on a single cherry-picked hypothetical rather than looking at a variety of possible situations and outcomes. I have run my own simulations. They show that when diners round to the nearest dollar or the nearest five dollars, a meals tax has virtually no impact on tips. When hypothetical diners choose to round up to the nearest ten
dollars, in the manner posited by Mr. McDaniel, a meals tax even results in slightly greater tips overall. Furthermore, there are plenty diners among us who habitually tip based on the post-tax price of a meal, which would increase how much we tip wait staff. Furthermore, Mr. McDaniel erroneously assumes most consumers round their total payment to the nearest ten dollars. However, the vast majority of consumers round tips to the nearest dollar or half-dollar, with only about one-quarter of consumers rounding the tip plus bill to a round dollar figure. Mr. McDaniel is correct that we should pay attention to the impact of a meals tax, not just on restaurateurs, but on wait staff as well. However, given the significant upside potential of raising revenues from a meals tax, and given
the downside of trying to raise those same revenues from property taxes or allowing schools and county services to deteriorate, we should not let flimsy hypotheticals scare us from voting for granting the Board of Supervisors with meals tax authority. Rather, we should empower the Board of Supervisors to levy a meals tax and charge them with continuously monitoring the restaurant industry for any significant negative impact warranting a partial or complete roll back of the meals tax. We have the opportunity to diversify our tax base in an intelligent, sustainable manner. We should not let unwarranted fears hold us back.
Jason V. Morgan Vienna
Take control of your diabetes! Tired of needing prescription refills… being lectured by your doctor about your diet… and not feeling any healthier? We invite you to try a proven, life-changing path to better health offered by the: Innovative Diabetes Program at Family Healthcare of Fairfax With our personalized approach, we have helped: Ø 87% of patients improve sugar control Ø 60% of patients decrease their medications or eliminate some of them completely We will teach you how to overcome obstacles to maintaining a healthier lifestyle. We take the time to show you how and why to make changes – with dramatic results.
Special introductory offer for new patients
DON’T BE FOOLISH There are many things you don’t do that you should --eating right, exercising, kissing your chosen partner goodbye. Probably, you often wish you did them.
Instant Answers, 100% Free
HERE’S AN EASY NO-BRAINER 1x THING TO DO
You are going to get into an auto accident, sooner or later. Maybe you have just been in an accident. How do you prepare? What do you do? • • • • • •
Download this NEEDED book: www.samakowlaw.com/book1
Who do you talk to after and what do you say? Do you answer insurance adjuster questions or give a recorded statement to them? Do you sign the forms they send you? Who is going to pay your medical bills? Do you need an attorney? You know some things but just have a few questions?
GET INSTANT ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, AND MORE:
Download this 14-page, easy to understand book, gain knowledge, be prepared for the inevitable and get answers to your “what do I do now” questions. Not doing this may have devastating monetary and time-related consequences. Don’t be foolish. Protect yourself.
www.samakowlaw.com/book1
A comprehensive three-month diabetes program for a $300 participation fee, led by Eugene A. Shmorhun, MD. Top Washingtonian Doctor
For more information and to make an appointment Visit www.beatdiabetesfhf.com or call 703.573.6400 3025 Hamaker Ct. #350 Fairfax, VA 22031
Paul A. Samakow Attorney.
703.761.4343 | 301.949.1515 www.samakowlaw.com