Empowering Small Donors in Federal Elections

7/31/2019 Empowering Small Donors in Federal Elections

1/40

E M P O W E R I N G S M A L L D O N O R S

I N F E D E R A L E L E C T I O N S

A S F W

at New York University School o Law

B R E N N A NC E N T E R F O R J U S T I C E


2/40

about the brennan center for justice

T B C J N w Y U v S L w - w j

v , j

. A , v B C , v w , . T

M P j w v v .

about democracy 21

D 1 - v z w, v ,

, v . A , z

, v , v , , w , .

acknowledgements

T B C w D A P , F J F , T JPB F , T K F , J D. C .F , M z G F , O S F , Ov F

R B F w

D 1 w J D. C . M AR B F , O F , C M F ,

v , w

T x M M C F I x . T B C M M z , W W , J

S w z v v , w J P -C , D R R , E

K L .

1 . T v C v C A -N D v -N C . ). I B C J NYU S

1 , z w v , . T , , w B C D

z w .


3/40

about the authors

Adam Skaggs S C B C D , w , j , v . B j

w P , W , R , W G LLP, w v

B C . H N L w J , N w R , P , A , U.S. N w , w q N w Y

MSNBC W S J F x N w .

Fred Wertheimer F P D 1. A P C , Te New York imes

, ime Magazine v Te Boston Globe - v v . W w

W w 3 Legal imes W Te Hill . A U v M H v L w S ,

H v U v S C P , P P P W F w V L Y L w S N w ABC N .

Michael Waldman P B C J NYU S L w w D S w P B C 1995-99, vP . A W H ,

.H v , A Return toCommon Sense ( 7);PO US Speaks ( ); Who Robbed America? A Citizens Guide to the S&LScandal (199 ).

Jonathan Backer R A B C J w .

Donald Simon C D 1 S , C , S , E P . O x , S

v v 3 .

Kathryn Beard C R A D 1.


4/40


5/40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

I. The Problem: Our Broken Campaign Finance System 3

II. The Impact o Citizens United 5

III. A History o Public Financing o Federal Elections 8

1. The Creation of Public Financing for Presidential Elections 9

2. Success of Presidential Public Financing 10

3. Congress Fails To Modernize the Presidential System 11

IV. A 21st Century Solution: Empowering Small Donors with Public Matching Funds 13

V. Elements o a Small Donor Empowerment System or Congressional Races 16

1. A 5-to-1 Match for Small In-State Contributions 16

2. Reduced Contribution Limits 17

3. A Cap on The Amount of Public Funds Candidates Can Receive,But No Limits on How Much They Can Raise or Spend 18

4. Qualifying Thresholds 18

5. Political Party Support 19

6. Effective Disclosure and Enforcement 19

7. An Adequate and Reliable Funding Stream 22

Conclusion 23

Endnotes 25


6/40


7/40

EMPOWERING SMALL DONORS IN FEDERAL ELEC IONS |1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

O v . P v . O

C . A w C , v .

T , v w Citizens United 1 v w . O - v C

. M v , w , .

A , v v . B z

I v , . C J M C H w D

R P B O w .

B v O , .3 A M C

w , v PAC .

T j , w, v . C z

- .

T v x

w . T w

w

A w w w

v . S v w z ,

.F v v , v , v w

, v v , .5

T w v : x w

w , w q . O .


8/40

| BRENNAN CEN ER FOR JUS ICE AND DEMOCRACY 1

T w v v

w v w .

W v w w v . T w v

w , , N w Y C .6 T w

, w w w x :

A 5-to-1 match - $ 5 . D v $ 5 w . A $1 w

; $ 5 w $1, 5

Reducing contribution limits by hal . T x v ( ) w

. F w x v w 5 , $1, 5

A cap on public unds v $ H S but no expenditure limits or candidates . S

v Citizens United w . S j v w

. Ev v x ,

( ) v j .

A quali ying threshold w . B , H

$ , , S w . T

$ 5 - .

Unlimited coordinated party expenditures in support o candidates , $1, 5

w .

Efective disclosure and en orcement w v , .

An adequate and reliable unding stream v .


9/40


O v A

T w H M L P x :

L z w v W . H S

; w . . . . T . . . . T v . M

w , j .7

T w v x . T $77 197

$1. 1 $1.7 , v .R , w

v w . C w v ;

q w w v , H S .

L v , ,

A . G WP S Ov x :

W 6 % A v N v , [ ]

.9 [I ] I v w v $1 , 11% . . . 1 .9% v , v

x % z .1

T . I 1 , q 11

T H S . D v w $

35 w v $1, , 36 PAC . D w 1

w v $1, , , w v v 1

I. THE PROBLEM: OUR BROKEN CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM

The current campaign fnance system

compels members o Congress to

ocus their undraising on a tiny slice

o the American electorate.


10/40


T P Av , M S . A C R , x , M U E S

z z .13 I w v , C

.

B C w v x v v

v x . A 1 , ABC N w /W P j 13 A

w C j , w v w 197 .1 S x - v v

v - .15 I G v C w 1 v

, z , .16

P q v , j v , , . A CNN/O R P

6 v .17 A 1 O R C

A 77

.1 A x v A v v C ,19 w

. . . w , ,

A J 1 , v x j

.1

T x .A w

S C v


11/40


O J 1, 1 , v S C

w Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 23

T w v .

I w x w

R B . T S x w

x v

J A K , w j , w , w v , :

L x , [ x x w G v v

q . T q .5

I , J K

.6

T Citizens United , w D.C. C C A SpeechNow v.

Federal Election Commission7 w w x Citizens United , S PAC . T , w

, j - 5 1( ) w .

S PAC , w x Citizens United , w j x, v , v - . T

w v , , , . T q x

.

A J 1 , 65 S PAC v $1 3 , 67 v v S PAC , v $ .

C R v P . T 65 j S PAC .

A J 1 , 33 v R O F , S PAC M R . T $5 , $1 .

II. THE IMPACT OFCITIZENS UNITED


12/40

6 | BRENNAN CEN ER FOR JUS ICE AND DEMOCRACY 1

C - S PAC v S PAC . T v v $ ,5

v v C 197 v .

I R , j R PAC . P O S PAC, P USA A

.

C - S PAC de acto . T

. C

v

S x, v , - S PAC j w v A w $1 - S PA

$1 w w S PA

T S C Buckley v. Valeo w

.9T inherently corrupt v C w v S PAC .

T - S PAC 1 w q w

x w 3

x- x , - : . FCitizens United ,

- $135 .31 T x 1 .

O , C GPS, D 11 v , $67 , w v

A . T w $1 3 T w w w , w

v v .33

The Citizens United decision is in the

process o returning us to the system

o legalized bribery that existed prior

to the Watergate scandals.


13/40


T Citizens United x W . O v

P S v C C A , Citizens United w : O v v S

- F A .3

G v S C Citizens United , x

. W , w vz v

, , - .

I w w . T

w . T w z ,

- . I w v w .


14/40


A , P T R v C

. T w 19 7. I , R v w w . R v w v C v x , z , w q x35

H w w .

R v w , v

I 19 9, S . H C L (R-M .) w v

. I , C A L , A , x v

w v w . . . . I , 36

N w L .37

R v 19 7 w v 19N (D-O .). N

j . H v

v q v .3 N , A w

.39

I 1966, S . R L (D-L .), C PF A , w v j

x - . P J w N v 13, 1966.

T w , w v , w S R K (D-N.Y.), A G (D- .), J(R-D .). T S K G w P J 196 .

III. A HISTORY OF PUBLIC FINANCING OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS


15/40


I 1971, w S D , C v v 1967. P N x

v w v 1976 1 T W .

W w , v P N x - .

1. The Creation o Public Financing or Presidential Elections

I w W , C F E A 197 , w . T

1966 w .3

C A W , S

. T H , w v1 7,

H . T S w H -S

197 .

T w , S C Buckley v. Valeo(1976)

w . T C C w

w , w

.5

T C z w F A

[P ] , ,

, v - v . T , [] , , F A v .6

T C v , 7

Every Republican presidential nominee

rom 1976 to 2008 used the presidential

unding system to fnance their general

election campaigns.


16/40


2. Success o Presidential Public Financing

F w , w w .

T w 19 6 C N E , w , P

v w , , v .

A C , , , A ,

v v w A . I.9

I 6, W P E.J. D w :

O v - - . B

W 197 , w x w w v .5

Ev 1976 w w

A j 1976 . T x w G v. G W. B 51

Ev R 1976 . T P G F

R ( w ), P G H.W. B , S . B D , P G W. BS . J M C . A G W. B S . M C

.5

S , v D 1976 , w xB O , . T J C ( w ), V P W M , G v. M D , P( w ), V P A G , S . J K . A K P O

.53

W , . T 5 v

1 v 5


17/40


N R R . U , 1976 R

w w 19 19 .

I 1976, w v $ , J R . H F , 15 . T R vF 1976 v x

v v .55

P R w v x .56

19 w 1 , did not hold a single campaign undraiser 19 .57

3. Congress Fails to Modernize the Presidential System

T w v

F , C 197 w . (A

x , w G M G v .) A , v ,

v w .

C w . T w

199 w . S j w

.

P 199 ,

w v

v I C B C(BCRA). S S J M C (R-A z.) R F (D-W .), BC

w 5


18/40


A w v j . G v. G

R , . I , G v. H w D , S . J K , P B

, K P B .59

I , B O w . O

R N x R , S . J M C , j

.

T P O v . T

w x , w w z v .6

L w R . D v P (D-N.C.), C V H (D-M .) W J (R-NC) (H.R

w S S . M U (D-C .) (S. 331 ).61 T C .

T x w . w

v -


19/40


I q w v A w v v .

R B , 1916

A v v v - .63 B , v ,

w w w : w w M v , S C w , x

F A .6

U S C j ( x ), w

v .

T S C wincrease .65 T F A

, , w - ,66 more

F ,

w x . R v z . I w

z x z

F 19 7 199 w H S . I 199 , P G H.W. B v C H 67

I 1993, H . T S 1993 v v

5 w v . W D , H D

w S 199 w , w w C .6 W R v C 1995,

C v .

IV. A 21st CENTURY SOLUTION: EMPOWERING SMALL DONORS WITH PUBLICMATCHING FUNDS


20/40


I v w - ,69 v v

v w .

F , .

A , w v w . T w .

Ov w , x C v v .

I 19 , N w Y C , x , - - v

C v w w

v N w Y w w , - w - N w Y . T w

. Ov , w w w C 6- -1 . A $1 w

B w v

z .

A C C F B , 9 , w v w [ ] :

v $175 .7 T C C .71 A , C

F I , C w (w 7

I 9, w - N w Y C v w $ 5 , v w $ 5 . B ,

U.S. H S 1 , v , w w N w Y C 73

w M w w v w N w Y C x . I M , 57

w v $ 5 ; W , .7 I , w v ,

, - w

Making the voices o regular voters

matter in elections is vital to the

health o our democracy.


21/40


P v .

N v v

T C G v S , x , , w 16 . S , w 39

.75

N w Y C . C w , w

, .76 A 9 w

w v $175 C C 9. B 1 S A 3

.77

T w C C w . . . [ ] v w , v ,

w 7

I , v .79

B , S F , N w Y G v. A w C

v , w C N w Y S .

B , , w v , v

. N w Y C x

w v v , .


22/40


O w w C

T x

1. A 5-to-1 Match or Small In-State Contributions

T v w . C w v w

x . A q -

v w q $ 5 v 5- -1 .

A w v w . S I w N w Y C

, .1 I ,

v w v .

U , $ 5 5- -1 w $1, 5 v

w $1,5 .

I v x $1, 5 v , . T , $1, 5 w

w $ 5 . U , x v$1, 5 w v $1, 5

$ ,5 w w $ ,5 - .

U , v w x v v . T

w 5 -

w 5 x -

z v ,

w w .

V. ELEMENTS OF A SMALL DONOR EMPOWERMENT SYSTEM FORCONGRESSIONAL RACES


23/40


F , , $ 5 v w $ 5 , $1, , $ 5 w

S , H S

w . T w v z , v .

1 . T v

- $ 5 , - - PAC. A w

$ 5 PAC - - q $ 5 - $1,5 .

Table 1

Contributor Contribution Amount Match AmountTotal Value o Contribution

to Candidate

In-State Resident $75 $375 $450

In-State Resident $250 $1,250 $1,500

In-State Resident $1,250 $1,250 $2,500

Out-of-State Resident $75 $0 $75

Out-of-State Resident $1,250 $0 $1,250

PAC $250 $0 $250

T w q - w ,

2. Reduced Contribution Limits

I , . T

$ 5 , w v

U , v w . N - , . P

.

A F A.O. S w z, J ., C N w Y C C Fv : P not . P


24/40


. L . B .3 B z 5 ,

w w

v w .

3. A Cap On The Amount o Public Funds Candidates Can Receive, But No Limits OnHow Much They Can Raise or Spend

A v , w . A ,

w w w w,

w $5 , . A wx , w x

v . T w $ H $1 . T

v v C- .

Ev v x , w v , v w w . B

v - 5 1( ) z w

. U , , ,

. T w w

v .

C w w q v

, . A w v w

4. Quali ying Thresholds

B q , w v

w v .


25/40


H w q $ , $ 5 - . S w q

H

A q , - 5- -1 ( x v

I , w w v v w

w j w v v w v z

w v w v ,

w z

5. Political Party Support

P w x w . T x

.

T w w x w

.

T w v w w w w x

6. E ective Disclosure and En orcement

A q v . A C

C F B , j B w B v 5

R F E C w - , v

First, FEC . A , v

w .


26/40


A C M C -F w 15 ,Te Washington Post w v

v FEC.6I w : T FEC M C -F v w .

T x- FEC w w . S v , w w .

Ov v , FEC ,

, w q7 I q v - FEC w w

w w .

T FEC -

x , , v1. U D 1 , , x- w

z . A - FBI 1 - ), v , w

.9 U D

1 , w w v w , w

w . T v FEC w D J , v

H .9

T w w v w w , w j

w v w w w v .91

Second, w w , w

w v

v w w , v

The FEC must be re ormed

or the health o all campaign

fnance laws.


27/40

EMPOWERING SMALL DONORS IN FEDERAL ELEC IONS | 1

S w q x w. U w, q w FEC 9 G v v ,

v .

A , j w , w w . I 9 6

w q z T w v FEC w FEC w w

v , q

F w w q $ , w q

.93 P , w v ,would q

v FEC , q v , v

w v , w w v

A q q w

v w ,

9 U , w v , v

v .95 I , N w Y C w v

q . S z ,

.

A , v w w x . C PAC , , w .

F , w v w w . T ,

w q T q w v


28/40


7. An Adequate and Reliable Funding Stream

I v w v q . T x

. S .

A C F I , H S x $7

T A v

x , .

O x x - x -

, v v v , v - ,

.

A C G v S v . . . , 96 T

C w .97

A q A .


29/40


CONCLUSION F w Citizens United , w

, , , , , PAC , S

. T - .

E w z w

I w z v -

I w - w v w .

A v w w z w w . T

v w v w M , w z -

F v . T w . T

.


30/40



31/40


ENDNOTES1 Citizens United v. Fed. Election Commn, 13 S. C . 76 ( 1 ).

See generally , M J. M , A D , G F B G v , TNeed or an Integrated Vision o

Parties and Candidates: National Political Party Finances, 1999-2008, inhe State of the Parties (J G , ., BI . A P U v. A ) ( ),available at ://www. . / / - /BLM - - _ - -B _I _ - 1 3 5. ;Small Donors and Federal Elections , Campaign Fin. Inst., ://www.

. / D / . x ( v A . 9, 1 ); Financing the 2008 Election (D v B. M C , ., B I P , 11); Financing the 2004 Election (D v B. M , A-

K D. P , ., B I P , 6); Financing the 2000 Election (D v B. MB I P , );see alsoMichael Waldman, A Return to Common Sense 7 -75 (S ).

3 P R , C F . I ., R C : O R v A S P S B (N v. , ),available at ://www. . /P /PR / -11- /R _C _-_O

S _D . x.

A j w J 1 x .See Anthony J. Corrado, Brookings Inst., Michael J. Malbin, Campaign Fin. Inst. homas E.

Mann, Brookings Inst. & Norman J. Ornstein, Am. Enter. Inst., Reform in an Age of Net orked Campaigns:Ho to Foster Citi en Participation through small donors and Volunteers ( 1 ), available at ://www. .

/ _ / R - - -A - -N w -C . .

5 S A. Ov ,Te Participation Interest , 1 G . L.J. 1 59, 1 79 ( 1 ).

6 S v Corrado et al.,supra , v .See , e.g., M J. M , P W. B B G v ,Small Donors, Big Democracy: New York

Citys Matching Funds as a Model or the Nation and States , 11 E L.J. 3 ( 11); Angela Migally & Susan Liss, Bren-nan Ctr. for Justice, Small Donor Matching Funds: he NYC Election E perience ( 1 ), available at ://www.

. / / / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x /; A W ,What Albany Could Learn rom New York City: A Model or Meaning ul Campaign Finance Re orm in Action1 Alb. Go t L. Re . 19 , ( ).

7 Robert G. Kaiser, So Damn Much Money 19 (V 9). P , D R v H

1977 1993, - v 9. H x v v D O C v R , D H , E W

, C H B C , D O M B S C A , CIA D S D O A

C able Containing History o CPI-U U.S. All Items Indexes and Annual Percent Changes From 1913 to Pres-ent , U.S. D . of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (J 17, 1 ), :// . . v/ / . q / /

- j 197 w v x 1 197 .

9 Ov ,supra 5, 1 61.

1 Id. 1 6 . P Ov v w v w v

A . S A. Ov ,Te Donor Class: Campaign Finance, Democracy,and Participation,153 U. P . L. R v 73, 7 -75 ( ).

11 Mimi Mar iani, Laura Moy, Adam Skaggs & Marcus Williams, Brennan ctr. for Justice, More than Combat-ing Corruption: he Other Benefits of Public Financing 5 ( 11) ( C R v P ).

1 Corrado et al., supra , 2 -22.


32/40


13 Ams. for Campaign Reform, Money in Politics: Who Gi es (20 0), available at ://www. . /w - // 1 /1 /F -S -W -G v . .

1 G L ,Congress Hits a New Low in Approval; Obama Opens Election Year Under 50%,ABC Ne s(J . 16, 1 ), ://w . . / / / 1 / 1/ - - - w- w- - v - - -

15 Id.

16 J M. J , Americans Most Con dent in Military, Least in Congress , Gallup (J 3, 11), ://www. . //1 163/A -C -M -L -C . x.

17 CNN Poll: wo-thirds Say Elections Are usually or Sale , CNN.com (J 9, 11, 11: 5 AM), :// .. / 11/ 6/ 9/ - - w - - - - - - - /.

1 Brennan Ctr. for Justice, National Sur ey: Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy ( 1 ), available at :// www. . /S _PAC_ v .

19 Most Say Political Donors Get More than Teir Moneys Worth, Rasmussen Reports (F . 9, 9), ://www. -. / _ / / _ / _ 9/ _ _ _

_ _w .

wo Years A ter Citizens United, Voters Fed Up with Money in Politics , Democracy Corps (J . 19, 1 ), ://www.. / / 1 / 1/ w - - - z - -v - - -w - -

1 Americans Want Next President to Prioritize Jobs, Corruption, USA oday/Gallup (J 3 , 1 ), ://www. . //1563 7/ - x - - z -j - . x.

Buckley v. Valeo, U.S. 1, 7 (1976).

3 13 S. C . 76 ( 1 ).

T C Citizens United w w - $ $3 v

. F W , O -E ,Courts Corruption o Election Law,Politico, D . 15, 1 ,available at ://www.. / w / /1 1 / 6 1 . .

5 Citizens United , 13 S. C . 9 .

6 C w , , v . T Fv w

. F W , C z UMore Radical Tan Realized , he Hill, F 6, 1 ,available at :// ./ / - / 9 3- z - - - - - z .

7 599 F.3 6 6 (D.C. C . 1 ).

T S C , v , 19 7. . . . M v ,

w . T 197 v . F W , O -E , C z U :Watergate Redux , POLI ICO,

J 15, 1 ,available at ://www. . / w / / 61 /77 36. .

9 U.S. 1, (1976).

3 F W , O -E ,How to Stop Super PACs, Wash. Post, A 3, 1 , A17.

31 F W ,How Citizens United Unleashed Campaign Spending in Federal Elections by ax-Exempt Organizations,Huffington Post (F , 1 , 11: 3 AM), ://www. . / -w / w- z -

_ _1 97 9 . .


33/40


3 S.V. D ,NPR Analysis: Crossroads GPS Funded Heavily by $1 Million-Plus Donations , NPR.org (J 1, 1 , 7: 6 PM),://www. . / / / 1 / 6/ 1/15 16 93/ - - - -- .

33 T DISCLOSE A 1 S S W (D-RI) - DISCLOSE 1 A R v C V H (D-MD) -

, w 11 C . ( 1 ); H.R. 1 , 11 C . ( 1 ). I J 1 , S

W , j S v DISCLOSE Act Dies Again, Politico (J 17, 1 , : 1 PM), ://www. . / / - / 1 / 7/

-1 9 35. .

3 R P ,Unlimited Campaign Spending A Good Ting? , Becker-Posner Blog (A , 1 , 9:3 PM), :// www. - - . / 1 / / - - - - - . .

35 R. Sam Garrett, Cong. Research Ser ., RL 8 4, Public Financing of Congressional Elections: Background and Analysis 0 (200 ).

36 Id. 1

37

Id.3 Id. 13.

39 Id.

Id. 1 -15.

1 Id. 15. C F E C A 1971, w q .

T W w v A w x- P N x

. I $ , 197 R vD q I v , w P N x

v $ N x w P N x v j A D

W ,supra .

3 T w w v , F E C v w . F

1971, P . L. N . 9 - 5, 6 S . 11.

Garrett, supra 35, 15-17.

5 U.S. 91.

6 Id. 9 -93.

7 T C Buckley v q

x w .Id. 35, 5 .

F W , DNC C P N S

9 Anthony Corrado, homas E. Mann, Daniel Orti & re or Potter, he Ne Campaign Finance Sourcebook 1 (B I . P 5).

5 E.J. D ,Re orm Worth Rescuing , Wash. Post, A . 1 , 6, A 1.


34/40


35/40


7 N.Y.C. Campaign Fin. Bd., Why Do We Ha e Public Financing of NYC Elections 1 ( 1 ), available at ://www.. /PDF/ /W P F . ? = _ 1 .

71 Migally & Liss, supra 6, 15 .113.

7 M .,supra 6, 1 .

73 Id. B , .

7 Michael J. Malbin, Peter W. Brusoe & Brendan Gla in, Campaign Fin. Inst., Public Financing of Elections After C itizens U nited and A rizonA F ree e nterprise 2 (20 ),available at ://www. . / / /CFI_R _S -D - -S x-M w -S - J 11. .

75 Ste en M. Le in, Ctr. for Go ernmental Studies, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing and American Elections6- 7 ( 6),available at :// . .w . / / 66/ K _I _C . .

76 Elisabeth Genn, Sundeep Iyer, Michael Malbin & Brendan Gla in, Brennan Ctr. for Justice & Campaign Fin.Inst., Donor Di ersity through Public Matching Funds ( 1 ), available at ://www. . / -

/ / _ v _ _ _ _ /.

77 Id.

7 Id.

79 Id .

See , e.g., J V ,Cuomo turns to campaign nance; Governor cites need or change as supporters rally to advance issue , Albany imes-Union, J 11, 1 .

1 M .,supra 6, 9. M C F I 5- -1 , 5- -1 .See id. 13-16.

L H R v J L (D-C ) S

D (D-IL). H.R 1 , 11 C . ( 11); S.75 , 11 C . ( 1 ).3 F A.O. S w z, J .,Foreword Migally & Liss,supra 6, .

See generally Corrado et al., supra , -53 ( ).

5 S w z,supra 3, .

6 B j W B M C ,Te Little Agency Tat Cant , Wash. Post, F . 1 , 1997, A1.

7 Craig Holman & Kelly Griffin, Pub. Citi en, FEC Split Vote otals 200 -20 0 ( 11), available at ://www.z . / /FEC-S - 11 3 . ; E ,Cynical Non-En orcers , N.Y. imes, M . 1 , 11, A 6.

R B v ,FEC Splits onCoordination, Politico, D . 1, 11,available at ://www. . / w / -

/1 11/6955 . .9 Pro ect FEC askforce, No Bark, No Bite, No Point: he Case for Closing the Federal Election Com-mission and Establishing a Ne System for Enforcing the Nations Campaign Finance La s 35-3 ( ),available at ://www. 1. /v /S /%7B3D66FAFE- 697- 6F-BB39- 5FBBBA57 1

/%7BB BE5C -65EA- 91 -97 C-7596 EC 9 1%7D. .

9 Id . 39- .


36/40


91 Id . - .

9 U.S.C. 3 ( )(A).

93 U.S.C. 3 ( )(C).

9 P M. N ,Te Perverse Efects o Campaign Contribution Limits: Reducing the Allowable Amounts Increases the Likeli-hood o Corruption in the Federal Legislature , Am. Bus. L.J. 77, 1, 1 7- ( 11) (

w v x x v ).

95 R L. H ,Clipping Coupons or Democracy: An Egalitarian/Public Choice De ense o Campaign Finance Vouchers , 84Cal. L. Re . 1, 31 (1996).

96 Center for Go ernmental Studies, Public Financing of Elections: Where to Get the Money ? 3 ( 3),available at ://www. v . / /1 7/ / 3 . .

97 s ee generally id .


37/40


38/40


39/40

STAY CONNECTED TO THE BRENNAN CENTER

S w www.brennancenter.org/signup v Election 2012 page www.brennancenter.org/election2012.

Latest News | U - - - w , , v

Voting Newsletter | L v , , w ,

Legal Services | W v - -j w

Fair Courts | C v w j

Twitter | www. w . /B CFacebook | www. . /B C

STAY CONNECTED TO DEMOCRACY

V w www.democracy21.org, E-news newsletter w

C w www. w . / w D 1 F P

NEW & FORTHCOMING BRENNAN CENTER PUBLICATIONS

Voting Law Changes in 2012 W R. W L w N

Te Challenge o Obtaining Voter Identi cationK G S I

Better Design, Better Elections L w N w W Q D v C. K

ransparency or Corporate Political Spending: A Federal Solution

D v E I V w

Donor Diversity Trough Public Matching Funds E G , S I , M J. M , B

F , v www.


40/40

b r e n n a nc e n t e r f o r j u s t i c e

at New York University School o Law

161 A A M Av

Documents

Empowering Small Donors in Federal Elections