The group, known as End Citizens United and Let America Vote, is endorsing Sens. Mark Kelly of AZ, Maggie Hassan of NH, and Catherine Cortez Masto of NV, Raphael Warnock of GA and Michael Bennet of CO, according to an announcement shared first with CQ Roll Call.
"During their time in the Senate, these five reformers have become leaders in the battle against Big Money in politics and protecting our constitutional right to vote," ECU/LAV said in a statement. In 2020, End Citizens United merged with Let America Vote, which was founded by former Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander.
All five of the Democratic senators the group is endorsing have signed on as co-sponsors to S 1, a sweeping proposal that would overhaul campaign finance rules, redistricting, voting practices, and lobbying and ethics regulations.
Biden: You want to do that? Do what I proposed over 30 years ago: federally fund all elections.
FACT-CHECK: Did Biden propose campaign finance reform long ago? Yes, he proposed donation limits when there were no limits, in 1974, with federal matching funds:
Biden on 1974 WGBH "Open Vault" (PBS interview): "The system does produce corruption; I think implicit in the system is corruption. If the only way you can raise any money to run for public office is to go to vested interest groups, then you prostitute the ideas you have about government. If you limit the amount that can be spent, you run the risk of the tyranny of the incumbent [against] a challenger. [I support] a bill that limits the amount that an individual can contribute [to] $3,000. And I support [a bill to federally] match donations up to $100.
SANDERS: I do not believe that any group, Our Revolution or anybody else, should be raising money from wealthy people. I'm not asking for their help. They legally can do what they want to do, because you have a corrupt political system. We are independent of Our Revolution. My message for all of the candidates, let's end all of that stuff right now. You want to do it today? Let's do it today.
A: I think we need to do some catchup. So I think we've got to follow and find all sorts of above-board strategies to do that.
Q: If there is a Super PAC that supports you, you're not going to tell them to stop?
A: No, I'm not. I will say that I would like to see any contributions to such a PAC fully disclosed. If there is going to be Super PAC money that supports me, the sources of that should be fully disclosed.
WARREN: I don't just want to push Donald Trump off Twitter. I want to push him out of The White House. That's our job. We really need to address the elephant in the room and that is how campaigns are financed. We need campaign finance rules and practices that support us all.
In October 2017, Steyer invested $10 million in a television ad campaign calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Q: Are you open to expanding the size of the Supreme Court?
A: "I'm open to trying to say, how can we actually make sure that that court isn't reflective of politics?"
Nelson: Yes. Backed 2017 DISCLOSE ACT requiring ads to disclose funders & major funders to reveal donations.
Scott: No position found.
Support Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited political donations from corporations & unions?
Nelson: No. The decision "opened the floodgates to dark money in campaigns."
Scott: Probable yes. Considers political donations part of exercising the right to free speech.
Ted Cruz (R): No. Opposes DISCLOSE Act, as it raises "grave constitutional concern for speech protected by the First Amendment." Supports Citizens United as aid to 1st Amendment free speech protections.
Beto O'Rourke (D): Yes. Co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act to "shine light on the unlimited, secret spending flooding American elections," including foreign influence. Supreme Court should end Citizens United.
Ted Cruz (R): No. Opposes DISCLOSE Act, as it raises "grave constitutional concern for speech protected by the First Amendment." Supports Citizens United as aid to 1st Amendment free speech protections.
Beto O'Rourke (D): Yes. Co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act to "shine light on the unlimited, secret spending flooding American elections," including foreign influence. Supreme Court should end Citizens United.
In just forty-eight hours, as a direct response to that ugly attack, our donors contributed $1.2 million into the campaign, with an average contribution of $23. In an e-mail thanking our contributors I stated: "I hope that sends a very clear message that the American people are sick and tired of politics as usual and negative campaigning."
As we contemplated the run for president, several things became clear in terms of fund-raising. First, I was not going to do what every other presidential candidate was doing, and that was to establish a super PAC. Super PACs, which allow for unlimited contributions from wealthy people, are the exact manifestation of everything that is wrong with politics today. The idea of establishing one was tempting, and easy to do, but I wasn't going to do it.
Bennet: Yes
Glenn: No visible stand.
Q: On Campaign Finance: Support Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions?
Bennet: No. Wants to overturn.
Glenn: No visible stand, but likely yes. Supports unlimited contributions by individuals.
Q: On Voting Rights: Support stricter voting rules such as voter ID requirements or reduced registration times, even if they prevent some people from voting?
Bennet: No. Co-sponsored Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore federal oversight of voting laws. Co-sponsored Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore federal courts' ability to review voting changes made at the state and local level and monitor for discriminatory practices.
Glenn: Unknown
Bennet: cosponsored a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn Citizens United and restore common-sense regulation to our campaign finance system. I've also long been a cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would help bring transparency to political spending. And I've introduced legislation to prohibit solicitation of campaign contributions from lobbyists while Congress is in session, and eliminate lobbyist bundling.
| Issue | Trump | Pence |
|---|---|---|
| Gun rights | Exceptions & local restrictions ok | Hard-core pro-Second Amendment |
| War on Drugs | Cautious approach following states | Hard-core drug warrior |
| Infrastructure investment | Invest in transportation infrastructure | Opposes federal investment; leave it to states |
| Campaign finance | Mixed views on reform | Campaign donation limits are censorship |
| Tax reduction | Creative ideas including raising some taxes | No-new-taxes pledge on all taxation |
| Minimum wage & affirmative action | Some support of both | Unambiguously opposes both |
| Gay marriage Supreme Court ruling | Accept it as the law of the land | Overturn that ruling |
| Iraq War | Opposed invasion | Supported invasion |
CLINTON: You're referring to a Super PAC that we don't coordinate with, that has decided that they want to support me. They are the ones who should respond to questions. Let's talk about our campaigns. I'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750 thousand donors. But, the real issue, I think, that the Senator is injecting into this is that if you take donations from Wall Street, you can't be independent.
SANDERS: What we are talking about is a corrupt campaign finance system. It is undermining American democracy. We had a decision to make early on, do we do a Super PAC? We said no. Secretary Clinton's Super PAC received $25 million dollars last reporting period, $15 million dollars from Wall Street. Our average contribution is $27 dollars.
CLINTON: You're referring to a Super PAC that we don't coordinate with, that has decided that they want to support me. They are the ones who should respond to questions. Let's talk about our campaigns. I'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750 thousand donors.
SANDERS: What we are talking about is a corrupt campaign finance system. It is undermining American democracy. We had a decision to make early on, do we do a Super PAC? We said no. Secretary Clinton's Super PAC received $25 million dollars last reporting period, $15 million dollars from Wall Street. Our average contribution is $27 dollars.
CLINTON: But, the real issue, I think, that the Senator is injecting into this is that if you take donations from Wall Street, you can't be independent.
CLINTON: Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. But there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. I absolutely reject that. You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received. I have represented my constituents to the best of my abilities, and I'm very proud of that. Let's talk about the issues that divide us.
We checked, and it is. A super PAC called Future45 ran the ad below. Future45 has three known donors: Kenneth Griffin, president of Citadel; William C. Powers, an investor; and Paul Singer, founder of hedge fund Elliot Management. According to Al Jazeera News, Singer has endorsed Marco Rubio for president. Here is our transcript of the ad:
Millionaires and billionaires are pouring unbelievable sums of money into the political process in order to fund super PACs and to elect candidates who represent their interests, not the interests of working people. What this campaign is about is whether we can mobilize our people to take back our government from a handful of billionaires and create the vibrant democracy we know we can and should have.
It is immoral and wrong that the top 1/10 of 1% in this country own almost 90 percent--almost--own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57% of all new income is going to the top 1%.
The ad, called `Politician,` begins by showing images of Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and asks which presidential candidate supports higher taxes. `It's Donald Trump,` the narrator says.
Asked for backup, the Club for Growth referred us to a Feb. 15, 2000, article in The Advocate in which Trump states, `My plan to impose a onetime net worth tax of 14.25% on the super-wealthy, when combined with our current projected surpluses, will raise enough to pay off the national debt.` But Trump isn't advocating anything like that in 2015.
SANDERS: People do not understand why the middle class of this country is collapsing at the same time as almost all of the new income and wealth is going to the top 1%. People do not like the idea that, as a result of Citizens United, our campaign finance system has become corrupt and politicians are dependent upon super PACs and billionaires for money. People want us to deal with climate change, make college affordable. Those are the issues I have been talking about.
Q: You also talk about taking on the billionaire class. Give us some specifics.
SANDERS: I think that the business model of Wall Street is fraud. And I think these guys drove us into the worst economic downturn into the modern history of America. I think they're at it again. I believe that, when you have so few banks with so much power, you have to not only reestablish Glass-Steagall, but you have got to break them up.
In Texas state government races, there are no limits on individual donations under state campaign finance laws. This had made it a lot easier for an unknown like me in the attorney general's race to raise money from a committed group of donors, compete, and potentially win against entrenched incumbents.
By contrast, federal campaign finance laws make such an effort impossible in a race for US Senate. They impose strict limits on the amount any individual can contribute, in effect rewarding candidates with deep pockets who can self-finance (since there are no limits on what you can donate to yourself) or those who are already well-known across the state. Written by political incumbents, these rules function as incumbent protection laws, designed to combat what they see as a great evil--that some outsider could raise enough money to defeat them.
As a result (and by design), it is practically impossible for someone who is not an incumbent politician--without an existing, massive fund-raising apparatus--to raise enough money in small increments to run statewide in a large state like Texas.
Sanders proposes a Constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling and ban corporations and nonprofits from unlimited campaign expenditures. The independent senator would also require disclosure of any organizations spending $10,000 or more on an election-related campaign.
The American Commitment Action Fund, a conservative PAC behind the BookerFAIL website, funded a new ad that claims Booker condones abortion at any stage of pregnancy and without restrictions. "He supports late-term and partial-birth abortion and opposes safety regulations," the ad states.
We checked with the Booker campaign. "We can all agree that we want to prevent unintended pregnancies, and therefore the need for abortion," a spokesman said. "Mayor Booker supports Roe v Wade, which allows women the right to choose up to the point of viability."
As for late-term and partial-birth abortions? "Cory Booker does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortions if exceptions are made for the health and the life of the mother," the spokesman said.
Now it's legal, but keep marijuana out of the reach of kids We need to expand our DUI law to keep our highways safe from those driving while impaired, and we must put in place consumer and
"Ron DeSantis is a Reagan conservative who will stand for limited government principles and traditional values," Schlafly said in a statement on Monday. "We must send authentic conservatives like Ron to Congress, not 'go along to get along' politicians who place expediency over principle. We cannot afford to elect anymore RINOs. Ron DeSantis represents a new generation of conservative leadership--he is pro-life, strong on marriage issues and is committed to bold reforms. He will be a leader in Congress and will be an articulate defender of the Constitution."
DeSantis said. "I am committed to reversing the Obama agenda and reasserting American sovereignty, limited government principles and religious freedom. I will be guided by the core values that have made America great."
"Ron DeSantis is a Reagan conservative who will stand for limited government principles and traditional values," Schlafly said in a statement on Monday. "We must send authentic conservatives like Ron to Congress, not 'go along to get along' politicians who place expediency over principle. We cannot afford to elect anymore RINOs. Ron DeSantis represents a new generation of conservative leadership--he is pro-life, strong on marriage issues and is committed to bold reforms. He will be a leader in Congress and will be an articulate defender of the Constitution."
DeSantis said. "I am committed to reversing the Obama agenda and reasserting American sovereignty, limited government principles and religious freedom. I will be guided by the core values that have made America great."
The filing deadline for the first quarter of 2012 was Sunday. Dewhurst raised $1.7 million and Cruz raised $1.3 million.
The night before the debate, the Texas Conservatives Fund, Dewhurst's Super PAC run by Dewhurst's former chief-of-staff, put out a new attack ad on Cruz. "Shattered Vision" calls Cruz a "false conservative" whose law firm has donated over $200,000 to Obama's campaign, sides with Chinese businesses over American ones, and opposed lowering property taxes in 2006. The ad's epic graphics, dark imagery and daunting music make Cruz out to be some sort of Manchurian candidate. Essentially, standard Republican fare, but a sign nonetheless that Dewhurst will be hitting Cruz back hard until Election Day.
We passed campaign finance reform. It had been vetoed twice during the previous administration, and its passage ended the Wild West practice that allowed unlimited and undisclosed amounts to go to a political party or caucus.
Within Obama's operation, "the options" became a code phrase , a reference to three live possibilities: launching a presidential run, bolstering his stature in the Senate with an eye toward the VP slot in 2008, or returning to Illinois to run for governor--with a presidential bid so far remaining at the bottom of the option pile.
The scheme revolved around a simple transaction. Every time he did an event for a candidate, Hopefund would requir the beneficiary to set up a registration system and then turn over the attendees' email address to the PAC.
The was no small thing. As 2006 rolled on, the requests poured in. That added up to a lot of chits, and a lot of email addresses.
We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7% of McCain’s total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1% of the RNC’s receipts.
It’s not our place to comment on Obama’s financial strategy, except to note that it is perfectly legal and also that McCain and Obama both refused to accept public funds or spending limits during the primary campaign. We also note that Obama’s decision is likely to give him a big financial advantage over McCain in the weeks just before the election.
I cringe when I hear how many millions the 2008 presidential candidates have raised in campaign contributions.
I'm not big on socialism, but maybe it's time we limited the campaign money to one publicly funded source so that every candidate's share is equal. If that's unconstitutional, then why not remove all limits and go to full disclosure? At least that way, you know who is buying the influence.
A: Well, I’m very much in favor of public financing, which is the only way to really change a lot of the problems that we have in our campaign finance system. You know, as soon as my campaign found out that he was a fugitive from justice, we did return any contribution that we could in any way link to him.
Q: Back in the 1996 campaign, Johnny Chung plead guilty to illegally funding of money, under very similar circumstances. How do you convince the American people that you have changed?
A: Well, this is a problem for every campaign. I have more than 100,000 donors, the vast majority of whom have given me less than $100. We’re spending an enormous amount of time and effort raising money, mostly to be clear to go on television. It is not good for our political system. There has to be a way that public financing becomes the law.
A: I don’t accept money from federal registered lobbyists and from federal PACs. Now, I’m sure that we’ve received money from people who work at insurance companies or work at drug companies, because we’re getting contributions of $5, $10, $100 from all sorts of people. We don’t want to finance our campaign by people whose professional job it is to influence legislation in Washington. The drug companies, the insurance companies spent a billion dollars over the last 10 years blocking reform. That’s how we ended up with a prescription drug bill that is better for drug companies than it is for our seniors. So it is an imperfect system. Money is the original sin of politics, & when you’re running for president, you’re going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money because otherwise you can’t compete. But it’s less important what your health-care plan is, than are you able to overcome the special-interest-driven agendas?
The senate’s Democratic leader offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit fo the do-good persona projected by Obama. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. One colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying that it impinged on lawmakers’ inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue by an overwhelming 52-4 vote.
The bill lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to restrictions.
A: No, no, I do not have federal-registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don’t take PAC money. People need to know who we are going to fight for. The reason I’m in public life, the reason that I am running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks.
GRAVEL: Barack Obama says he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is? And, besides that, he has received $195,000 from the head of a foreign-owned bank who has lobbyists in Washington.
OBAMA: Well, the fact is I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyists’ money. And the bundlers--the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ve shown in the Senate. And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ll show as president of the United States.
KUCINICH: The new doctrine that I’m going to promote throughout this campaign is that we’ll use the science of human relations and diplomacy to settle your differences without committing the young men and women to war, unless it’s absolutely necessary.
CLINTON: The issue is: Which of us is ready to lead on day one? I have 35 years of being an instrument and agent of change.
OBAMA: I don’t think this is just a Republican problem. I think this is a problem that spans the parties. And we don’t just need a change in political parties in Washington. We’ve got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason I don’t take PAC money, I don’t take federal lobbyists’ money is because we’ve got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests. And that is something that I’ve got a track record doing.
GRAVEL: Barack Obama says he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is? And, besides that, he has received $195,000 from the head of a foreign-owned bank who has lobbyists in Washington.
OBAMA: Well, the fact is I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyists’ money. And the bundlers--the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ve shown in the Senate. And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ll show as president of the United States.
Gravel and Obama weren’t actually contradicting each other. However, Obama’s policy is an ethical tightrope. Obama’s official policy is: “The Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs.” Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban on lobbyist contributions.
[The largest bundler was] Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. Those contributions don’t violate the letter of Obama’s pledge, even though UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other “bundlers” (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site.
Nevertheless, Obama accepts money from lobbyists’ spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren’t registered to lobby, senior executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year. The campaign says it is making a “best effort” to stay away from tainted money. “It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol,” a spokesman said.
A: Yes
Q: For PAC contributions?
A: Yes.
Q: For Corporate contributions?
A: Yes.
Q: For Political Parties?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support limiting the number of terms for Massachusetts state senators and representatives?
A: No.
A: Supports campaign finance reforms and Publicly Financed Campaigns to allow regular working people to get into office, not corporate-financed candidates.
During the 2002 election cycle, Hillary was among the Senate’s top donors, disbursing more than $1 million to candidates and to party committees.
Hillary raises almost half of her funds from outside the state, with trial lawyers and law firms as her top categories. She endearingly bestows the title ‘Hill Raisers’ on those who collect large sums for her. Lesser mortals can log onto the Hillary website and become ‘Hill’s Angels’
A: Yes
Q: For PAC contributions?
A: Yes.
Q: For Corporate contributions?
A: Yes.
Q: For Political Parties?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support requiring full disclosure of campaign finance information?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support imposing spending limits on state level political campaigns?
A: No. I believe we need to bring sunshine to the political process in SC. Soft money donated to parties should be disclosed.
VENTURA: I think that it touches on the subject but it doesn't go nearly as far as it ought to go. We're trying to pass that type of legislation here to try to get the money out of politics. This last election, it was like 3 or 4 billion dollars were spent across the nation to elect candidates. Now imagine what we could do with that money if it wasn't being spent for that.
On the issue of PAC money, my general election opponent, Robert Barber, raised the point that he did not want to unilaterally disarm when it comes to fundraising. Over the last five years in Washington, I have heard his argument used by Republicans and Democrats alike. In politics we never seem to like the idea of just leading the way because we think it right or what we believe.
We also need to fix the loopholes in the campaign funding system. There’s already a cap on donations to an individual candidate, but no limit to the amount you can donate to a party. This so-called soft money is then funneled to individual candidates in the form of “issue ads.” We ought to cap the amount that each candidate is allowed to spend on a given campaign.
Some people have tossed around the idea of providing all candidates with equal chunks of free air time, free print space, and free Internet access, which they could use to state their positions, hold debates, and conduct question-and-answer sessions. We just have to be careful with the term FREE. In some circumstances, FREE may not mean what it appears to. Who exactly will pay for the free air time?
While I will not accept PAC money from corporate America, I gladly accept PAC contributions from organizations fighting to improve life for ordinary people. Over the years, my campaigns have received strong financial support from PACs associated with organized labor, the environment, women, senior citizens, human rights, and the needs of children. My opponents call me a "hypocrite" for accepting PAC money. How can I accept PAC money, they say, and then claim that I am fighting against "special interests"? Isn't a PAC, by definition, a "special interest"? [It does] make a difference who the PAC represents--the problem is NOT that ordinary people have too much influence.
Kerry, who opposes term limits, said the real issue involves reforming campaign finance laws. "The problem is money--the average person can't run," Kerry said.
| |||||||||||||