Title
Priority
(Normally leave blank. Articles with numeric priorities are placed in order at the top of the page. Examples: 1, 2.5)
Expiration
(The article will be automatically archived on this date.)
Content
Categories
(Use existing categories when possible. Separate categories with commas.)
Image Upload
Image position:

Event date (Leave event fields blank if this is not an event announcement.)
Event time
Event end date
Event end time
Event location
Event color
Sample
 
This event recurs every until .
This is not a recurring event.

UsernameForgot username
PasswordForgot password
We will send you an email immediately to which you must respond
within one hour to complete your registration.
Your login name will be your first name and last name separated
with a space.
Your first name
Your last name
Your street address
Your city
Your state
Your zipcode
Your phone number
Your email address
 
Choose a password
Confirm your password
 
You can change your account settings or delete your account here.
Username
Street address
City
State
Zipcode
Phone
Email address
New Password
Confirm New Password
 
Edit  DeleteExpires Jun 23, 2016

Developed by League of Women Voters:  Money in Politics
For more information about money in politics go to https://lwvc.org/issues/money-and-politics

For convenience, unofficial definitions of some of these terms and others follow, but it is important to know that for legal purposes many of these have detailed and well-established meanings in law  that are only approximated here.

 

  Terms

Coordination. An expenditure for express advocacy made in "cooperation, consultation or concert" with or at the request of a candidate, or an agent of the candidate's committee or of a political party committee. However, the FEC's interpretations exclude many common-sense examples of cooperation.

Corruption. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that corruption or the appearance of corruption is a justification for limiting free speech rights in campaign finance law. The current Court has continuously narrowed the definition of corruption as a quid pro quo exchange. This fails to recognize the corruption of the political process when millionaires and billionaires can spend unlimited sums in an election. It also fails to recognize the subtle influence or favored access granted to a large donor by an elected official who was supported by big spending. (See quid pro quo.)  

Dark Money. Political spending, the source of which is not disclosed under current regulations. This is typically accomplished through an arrangement whereby the originating donor contributes to a nonprofit corporation (that is not required to disclose) and that in turn makes an expenditure disclosed under the name of the corporation rather than the originating donor.

Expenditure. Any purchase, payment or other use of money or anything of value for the purpose of influencing an election. It includes the transfer of money or anything of value between political committees. It does not include any news story, or editorial; any nonpartisan voter registration or get out the vote activity; or communications by an organization to its members.

Express Advocacy. Political communications that explicitly advocate for the defeat or election of a clearly identified federal candidate. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) allowed corporations, unions and non-profit groups to use their general treasuries to fund express advocacy so long as it was not done in coordination with a candidate. (See coordination and independent expenditure.)

Federal Election Commission (FEC). The six-member, bi-partisan federal commission with enforcement, regulatory and interpretative authority over federal campaign finance law. Four votes are required for the FEC to act.

Hard Money. Direct contributions to a political candidate. These contributions may only come from an individual or a political action committee, and are limited to $2,600 per election for an individual. They are subject to broad disclosure rules set by the FEC. Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal candidates. (See soft money.)

Independent Expenditure. An expenditure that is not coordinated with any candidate or political party committee. (See coordination and express advocacy.) See, Money in Politics "Independent Expenditure" issue paper.

Issue Advocacy. Political communications in the form of advertising that is framed around an issue. Outside the election cycle, many groups use issue ads as part of their lobbying campaigns, but close to an election they can point a voter toward or against a candidate even if the ad doesn't contain express advocacy. Congress and the Court have not been able to agree what constitutes a "true" issue ad and a "sham" one for regulating contributions and expenditures in elections. Issue ads that explicitly mention or depict a candidate that are broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election must be reported to the FEC as electioneering communications.

Political Action Committee (PAC). A political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election. (See hard money.)

Quid Pro Quo. A Latin phrase that literally means "this for that." In the context of political campaign finance, it refers to the kind of corruption that justifies limits on First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has been narrowing its definition of quid pro quo corruption so it is virtually the same as bribery -- an explicit agreement by a candidate or elected official to perform a specific act in exchange for something of value. Hence the Court ignores the subtle influence or favored access granted to a large donor, and rejects the notion of corrupting the election process or achieving greater political equality. (See corruption.)

Soft Money. Prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, 2002), soft money consisted of huge contributions to a political party for "party-building activities." Such contributions had no limits but could not lawfully be used for express advocacy. They did, however, provide access and special treatment for donors. Soft money is still barred by BCRA, but Citizens United opened a similarly large loophole by providing for unlimited independent expenditures by corporations, unions and non-profit organizations.

SuperPAC. A political action committee that makes unlimited independent expenditures that are not coordinated with any candidate or party. SuperPACs run ads, send mail or communicate in other ways with messages that may advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate. There are no limits or restrictions on the sources of funds or on the amounts of SuperPAC expenditures. However, both PACs and Super PACs are required to file timely financial reports with the FEC that include the names and amounts from donors above a base level (generally $200), along with the amounts of their expenditures.

More at - https://lwvc.org/issues/money-and-politics  

 

Nancy Abbey2016-05-24T16:49:38Z
Login to leave a comment.
Leave a comment
File Upload
 
Use rich text editor

Multiple item entry (Return separates items)