AUSTIN, Texas - The U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 cleared the way for unlimited campaign spending by independent groups, unions, and corporations as long as the candidates who stand to benefit stay out of the loop. Some states already are seeing substantial increases in independent expenditures on local races thanks, in part, to the Citizens United ruling.
However, http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=459" target="parent">a new report finds that in Texas, independent spending has held steady at just 1 percent of overall campaign spending. Edwin Bender, executive director of Follow the Money, the research organization behind the report, says this doesn't mean Texas politics is any less money-driven.
"Texas is the Wild West. You've got no contribution limits. People can give money all they want. It is a different animal. There's not really a need to do independent expenditure campaigns."
Between 2006 and 2010, Texas campaigns saw about $5 million in independent expenditures, according to the report, compared with about $500 million in direct contributions to state-level candidates and ballot measures.
But these figures could be way off. Bender says Texas has some glaring flaws in its reporting requirements. For example, the state only tracks independent spending on electioneering that clearly says to vote "for" or "against" a certain candidate.
While state-level independent spending is going up around the country, Bender says corporate spending levels are staying fairly flat - despite the Citizens United decision. He thinks many businesses don't want to alienate potential customers with displays of political activism.
"For them to say, 'We are, as a company, going to give $10 million to elect this slate of candidates,' is really going out on a limb. And I don't think you're going to see that from very many corporations."
He says it's possible that corporate spending will increase in years to come, as businesses weigh public-relations risks against the benefits of influencing local tax and regulatory policies or winning government contracts.
Jeff Friedman, research director at Maplight.org, which looks at the influence of money in politics, thinks today's biggest problem is not the amount of money being spent but the lack of transparency regarding who's doing the spending.
"They're allowed to come up with any benign-sounding name for the organization and put forth their particular slant on the issue, but without knowing any kind of the motivation behind it."
For instance, the largest independent spender in Texas during the 2010 season was a group known as Conservative Republicans of Texas, which helled out a bit more than $500,000. The Follow the Money report notes that many groups make it difficult to determine exactly who's funding such organizations.
The full Texas report is online at followthemoney.org.
get more stories like this via email
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has emerged from a long court case with another win.
After nine years and multiple delays, prosecutors are going to drop securities fraud charges against the embattled official. As part of the deal, Paxton must perform 100 hours of community service, pay almost $300,000 in restitution and take advanced legal education courses.
Dan Cogdell, attorney for Ken Paxton, said they welcomed the deal.
"It is not a plea bargain, he didn't plead," Cogdell emphasized. "There is no admission of guilt, there will never be an admission of guilt, because he's not guilty."
In 2015, Paxton was accused of persuading investors to buy stock in a tech startup, without disclosing he would be compensated for the deal. He was also accused of steering clients to a friend's investment advising business without registering with the Texas State Securities Board.
The deal is the second recent legal ruling in Paxton's favor. Six months ago, he was acquitted on 16 corruption charges in an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate but he has not been cleared of all accusations against him. Paxton is being sued by four of his former deputies, who say they were fired after making reports to the FBI he was using his office to help a supporter.
Cal Jillson, professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, said the federal investigation will be handled differently.
"They're taking their time turning over all the rocks," Jillson observed. "If they think there has been illegal behavior on the part of the attorney general, that will be a much different process than the political process that we saw in the Texas Senate."
Despite his legal troubles, Paxton has remained a popular politician. He's been reelected two times since he was indicted. Prosecutors in the case said if Paxton does not comply with the terms of the deal, he could still be tried on the original fraud charges.
get more stories like this via email
The New Hampshire House passed a bill to eliminate any exceptions to the state's voter ID law and requires documented proof of citizenship in order to register.
The bill would eliminate "affidavit voting" for those without ID and give any registered voter the right to challenge a person's voter registration on Election Day.
Rep. Heath Howard, D-Strafford, said challenges would require the lowest burden of legal proof and could prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot.
"It doesn't seem logical to me or fair that somebody could walk into a polling place, sign an affidavit, and take away somebody else's right to vote," Howard stressed.
Howard explained people would have to visit a state superior court to reclaim their eligibility, an often lengthy and costly process. Supporters said the bill simply aims to solidify existing ID law and prevent voter fraud.
Voting-rights advocates said more than 2,000 Granite Staters without identification used affidavits to vote in the 2022 midterm election and strict voter ID laws disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly and student voters.
Howard noted not everyone has their birth certificate, and passports or naturalization papers can take months to receive. He emphasized several state investigations of voter fraud in 2020 yielded zero criminal proceedings.
"I think that we've experienced enough of this nonsense when it comes to accusations of voter fraud," Howard asserted. "This is just further perpetuation of that's not necessarily grounded in facts."
Howard added the latest attempt to tighten ID requirements could also be in violation of the Help America Vote Act and National Voter Registration Act. A similar law in Kansas was struck down in 2020 by a federal appeals court as unconstitutional.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email
More than 86,000 Wyoming voters have been purged from voter rolls, thanks to a state law requiring county clerks to remove people who did not vote in the most recent election, according to a new analysis by AARP Wyoming.
Wyoming is one of 20 states to purge inactive voters, a policy affecting more than one in three Americans.
Tom Lacock, associate state director for AARP Wyoming, said it is important for people who sat out the midterm elections to make sure their registration is up-to-date.
"For folks who have not voted during the 2022 election, it's really the right time now to get to their county clerk's office and register for the 2024 presidential election," Lacock emphasized.
The high number of purged Wyoming voters is largely attributed to higher than normal turnout in the 2020 presidential election followed by near record low turnout in the 2022 general election. Lacock noted county clerks typically send postcards to those being purged, encouraging voters to contact their clerk to remain registered.
Secretary of State Chuck Gray has also proposed changes to the state's voting rules, which could make it much harder for people who do not have a valid driver's license to vote, such as nursing home residents or older voters who have stopped driving. Lacock noted the window for early voting is also closing.
"The other big change this year is we're going to see the number of days that voters can participate in early voting dropped from 45 days to just 28 days," Lacock pointed out.
A new state law also changes how Wyoming voters can vote in primary elections. Lacock explained people must now pick which party's primary they want to vote in no later than May 15.
He encouraged all eligible voters to make sure they can participate in the upcoming November election, which will determine the makeup of half the U.S. Senate, the entire House of Representatives...
"... and the presidential election, all hitting in the same year," Lacock stressed. "This is really an opportunity to make sure that candidates understand what is important to you, and to stand up and be counted."
Disclosure: AARP Wyoming contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement, Consumer Issues, Health Issues, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email