Campaign Finance

Viewers in media markets nationwide are already well familiar with being bombarded with ads either supporting or criticizing candidates for Congress and the White House in the months before an election. But that could be nothing compared with what today's landmark Supreme Court campaign-finance decision appears to invite, experts say. The ruling removes limits on corporations from spending their money on federal races, meaning that companies -- and probably labor unions -- will be free, for instance, to buy up advertising time days and weeks before an election to support or attack a potential candidate, perhaps creating slick spots with high production values similar to drug or car ads, or purchasing large blocks of network time.

WASHINGTON - In spring 2010, agents in the Cincinnati office of the Internal Revenue Service, which handles applications for tax-exempt status, faced a surge of filings by new advocacy groups, with little guidance on how to treat them. Their decision to deal with the problem by singling out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny has now triggered a criminal inquiry, congressional investigations, the departure of two top IRS officials and the naming of a new acting commissioner Thursday.

Like it or not, and we didn't like it, the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission determined that corporations have a constitutional right to make independent expenditures in connection with an election — expenditures, that is, on behalf of (or against) a candidate, but not given directly to the candidate's campaign. Such spending, the court said, may not be limited. But the court left standing a 100-year-old prohibition on direct corporate contributions to political campaigns.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen is resisting a push by activists and journalists for better disclosure of campaign finance data, arguing in essence that it would cost too much to comply. It's a surprising stance from Bowen, whose office has fought to make more information about donors available to California voters. It also strains credulity. At issue is a request by MapLight California, California Common Cause and 10 others, including this newspaper, for a downloadable version of the campaign finance data that the secretary of state collects.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen is resisting a push by activists and journalists for better disclosure of campaign finance data, arguing in essence that it would cost too much to comply. It's a surprising stance from Bowen, whose office has fought to make more information about donors available to California voters. It also strains credulity. At issue is a request by MapLight California, California Common Cause and 10 others, including this newspaper, for a downloadable version of the campaign finance data that the secretary of state collects.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a vote on a bill that would force special interest groups to disclose their donors when purchasing political ads, defeating an effort to impose new campaign finance regulations before the November congressional election. As the Senate's 41 Republicans voted in unison to filibuster the bill, Democrats vowed to bring the legislation up again. "This fight will continue," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the bill's sponsor. The result had been expected, as Democratic leaders failed to round up the necessary 60 votes to move the bill forward, and came a day after President Obama spoke in favor of the bill from the White House Rose Garden.

A recently formed outside money group is testing the limits of independent political spending, alarming campaign finance reform advocates. Indiana attorney James Bopp Jr., one of the lawyers who brought the watershed Citizens United case before the Supreme Court, registered the political action committee, the Republican Super PAC, with the Federal Election Commission last week. As an independent expenditure-only committee, the group can raise unlimited funds from individuals and corporations to advocate for or against candidates.  These "super PACs" are banned from coordinating with candidates or parties.

Former lawmaker Mike Feuer, a candidate for Los Angeles city attorney in the May 21 runoff, had raised $308,000 by April 6, the first campaign reporting deadline, and had collected an additional $350,000 in taxpayer matching funds, according to a document filed Wednesday with the City Ethics Commission. Feuer turned in his campaign finance report a day ahead of Thursday's filing deadline. He showed more than $540,000 in cash on hand. The report indicated Feuer made a $15,000 payment to Shallman Communications, his consulting firm.

Campaign finance laws are designed to reduce the possibility of corruption and to minimize the effects of money so that elections don't go merely to those who raise and spend the most. But the rules are invariably porous, so ambitious candidates and their clever consultants look for ways to evade or manipulate them. The current race for Los Angeles city attorney, which pits incumbent Carmen Trutanich against former Assemblyman Mike Feuer, is demonstrating once again that even the most well-intentioned laws don't always work the way they're supposed to. First, there are the troubling implications of the unusual financial relationship that Feuer had with his political consultant, John Shallman.

WASHINGTON -- Michigan Democrat Carl Levin announced Thursday that he would not run for reelection in 2014, adding to an exodus of experience in the chamber.  Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is the sixth sitting senator to decide not to run again. He said his decision would free him to serve both his state and nation best, by "doing my job without the distraction of campaigning. " In a statement, Levin cited four key issues he wanted to focus on in his remaining months in office, including tax reform, boosting American manufacturing, campaign finance and military readiness.

WASHINGTON - A nonprofit advocacy group allied with President Obama revealed Thursday that it would decline corporate donations and release more information about its contributors, but the decision did not placate campaign finance reform advocates who said the organization still provided big donors a conduit for access to the White House. Jim Messina, who managed Obama's 2012 reelection campaign and is now chairman of Organizing for Action, announced the changes after a torrent of criticism from reform advocates, as well as Republicans, about the group's fundraising plans.

For Mitt Romney, there will be no next chapter in politics - at least no third run for the presidency. But in his first post-campaign interview, the former Massachusetts governor did not shy away Sunday from his criticism of President Obama and said he hoped to help the Republican Party regain its footing - from a distance. “I recognize that as the guy who lost the election, I'm not in a position to tell everybody else how to win,” Romney told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.

Stepping back into the spotlight for the first time Sunday, Mitt Romney offered a blunt critique of President Obama - accusing his former rival of playing politics rather than finding a resolution to across-the-board spending cuts now being enacted. The former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee acknowledged a handful of mistakes in his first post-campaign interview with "Fox News Sunday," during which he also said he did not envision a future in politics. He called his failure to engage minorities in 2012 "a real mistake" and admitted that he had suffered "real damage" from the fallout of his now-infamous comments that 47% of Americans were dependent on government assistance and unlikely to vote for him. But he did not back away from his controversial assertion that Obama won the election by securing the loyalty of key groups such as Latinos and African Americans with programs like his healthcare plan.

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider taking another step toward dismantling campaign finance laws, potentially freeing wealthy donors to give as much as they want in any election cycle and raising the possibility that it could overturn limits that apply to individual candidates as well. In its landmark Citizens United decision, the court ruled in 2010 that corporations, unions and individuals could spend unlimited sums on campaign ads so long as they are independent of the candidates and political parties.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has agreed to go beyond its controversial Citizens United decision and consider striking down the limit on the total amount that wealthy persons may give to candidates and political parties. The justices voted to hear an appeal from an Alabama donor and the Republican National Committee, which contends the total contribution limit of $123,200 per election cycle is "unconstitutionally low. " The case, to be heard in the fall, will focus on a little-known part of the campaign finance laws that set a total limit on contributions by individuals.