The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law - Symposium Re: Accountability After Citizens United - April 29th

The Brennan Center for Justice held a day-long symposium on Accountability After Citizens United at the Greene Space at WNYC in New York City on April 29th. The symposium explored the current debate between shareholders and corporate managers over corporate political spending, new strategies to promote accountability through regulatory pressure points, and the constitutional tensions between the rights of associations and the rights of individuals.


Opening remarks by Brennan Center Executive Director Michael Waldman and keynote address by Hon. Cynthia L. Bauerly, Chair of the Federal Election Commission.





Panel 1: Can Shareholders Save Democracy?

Moderated by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, with panelists William T. Allen, John Coates, Robert Jackson, Jennifer Taub.





Lunchtime remarks by Charlie Kolb, Committee on Economic Development. Introduction by Wendy Weiser, Director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program.





Panel 2: Regulatory Pressure Points: New Strategies for Accountability

Moderated by Mimi Marziani, with panelists Ellen Aprill, Marc Elias, Bruce Freed, Holly Schadler.





Panel 3: The First Amendment Rights of Associations and Individuals

Moderated by Mark Ladov, with panelists Frances Hill, Dale Ho, Glenn Magpantay, Daniel Ortiz, Tobias Wolff.





Closing remarks by Sanford Lewis, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability.

SEC Gives Shareholders a Voice on Corporate Campaign Spending by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy - Brennan Center for Justice

Read original...

The SEC has just issued an important post-Citizens United  no-action letter that will enhance the ability of shareholders to have more of a voice when publicly-traded corporations spend money on politics. In doing so, the SEC recognized that shareholder accountability over corporate political spending is a significant policy issue that can’t be barred from a proxy statement under the ordinary business exclusion.

The no-action letter came after Home Depot tried to keep a shareholder resolution on corporate political spending off of this year’s proxy statement. The SEC said the shareholders would get a chance to vote on the matter. This action provides shareholders with greater protections when corporations spend their money, in the form of general corporate funds, on politics.

The substance of the Home Depot proposal, submitted by NorthStar Asset Management Funded Pension Plan, is the following:

Shareholders recommend that the Board of Directors adopt a policy under which the proxy statement for each annual meeting will contain a proposal describing:

• the company's policies on electioneering contributions,
• any specific expenditures for electioneering communications known to be anticipated during the forthcoming fiscal year,
• the total amount of such anticipated expenditures,
• a list of electioneering expenditures made in the prior fiscal year, and
• providing an advisory shareholder vote on those policies and future plans.

NorthStar’s supporting statement requested that management provide an analysis as to whether Home Depot’s political spending was in line with its values and policies, and any risks it might pose to the company’s reputation, brand, or shareholder value.

This shareholder proposal was based in part on draft legislation written by the Brennan Center last year which became the Shareholder Protection Act in the 111th Congress.

The SEC rejected all of Home Depot’s objections to the inclusion of this shareholder proposal on the 2011 proxy statement.

This SEC no-action letter means shareholders can assert self-help on a company-by-company basis, not just on transparency of political spending, but also on an advisory shareholder vote on such spending. This is a big step in the right direction for giving shareholders more protections after Citizens United allowed corporations the ability to spend other people’s money in politics.

Assemblymembers and Advocates Call for Publicly Financed Voter-Owned Elections in Wake of Citizens United Anniversary

Letter to Senate, Assembly Signed by Over 50 Organizations Saying New York Must Lead by Putting People, Not Big Money Corporations, In Control of Elections, Restore Trust in Government

Members of the New York State Assembly joined advocates from good government groups, labor, issue advocacy organizations and citizen activists today as they called for passage of a publicly financed voter-owned elections system for statewide and legislative races in New York.

In a Siena poll release last week, 70% of New York voters supported creating a system of publicly financed voter-owned elections. Governor Cuomo has repeatedly noted his support, as well.

As the one year anniversary of the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision that allowed corporate and special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections passed last Friday, New Yorkers were again reminded of the need to truly reform our elections system, putting the voices of people before those of wealthy corporate interests. Voter-owned elections are the best way for our elected officials to restore the public’s trust in government.

Organizations presented a letter addressed to Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, signed by over 50 organizations from across New York calling for the passage of publicly financed voter-owned elections during this legislative session. 

“New York can’t afford to wait any longer to enact a system of publicly financed voter-owned elections,” said Jessica Wisneski, Legislative Director of Citizen Action of New York. “Voters don’t trust that their government is working for their interests. 70% of the public wants to take their elections back from big money corporations, Wall Street bankers, and their lobbyists by establishing a system of voter-owned elections for statewide and legislative campaigns. Citizen Action commends the Assemblymembers who are standing with us today who have taken action to stand up for democracy by restoring integrity to our electoral process.”

"No single reform has the power to reshape Albany like campaign finance reform -- removing money from the political process will open the door to competitive elections and shut the door on donor driven decision-making," said Assemblyman Rory Lancman.

[Assemblyman Lancman was on the Susan Arbetter show on Capitol Pressroom to discuss campaign finance reform.  The show airs across the state and in the Capitol Region on WVCR-FM 88.3.  The Assemblyman discussed public financing of campaigns. Click below to listen (9 mins 13 seconds)...

 

"In the year since the Citizens United decision, we have already seen corporate money begin to flow in ways that are troubling for our democracy," said Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh who chairs the Assembly subcommittee that oversees election operations and voting rights. "The ability of special interests to drown out the average citizen’s voice has never been greater, and the need for common sense campaign finance reform, including public financing of campaigns, has never been more pressing. It’s not an overstatement to say that our democracy depends on it."

"Campaign finance reform is a critical step that we must take toward making our government more transparent and less captive to special interests,” said Assemblymember Hakeem Jeffries. “I look forward to working with my colleagues in government and the distinguished advocacy groups represented here today to make this a reality."

"If we are really going to reform Albany, we've got to start with where all of us start when we run for office--with the way campaigns are financed," said Assemblymember Francisco Moya. "Publicly financed elections allow for more accountability, transparency and time to focus on the most important part of our job, the voters and the issues they care about."

"If the State is going to see the kind of reform that Governor Cuomo has called for, and that the people of New York expect, we need to change the way elections are financed, and that begins with public financing of elections," said Lawrence Norden, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center. "The best way to end expensive give-aways to special interest is to counteract the corrupting influence they gain by financing our elections."

"Public Campaign applauds the members of the New York Assembly and advocates who are pushing for a publicly financed fair elections system to combat the influence of big money interests in politics." said Nick Nyhart, President & CEO of Public Campaign. 

"Citizens United made a bad problem worse, and in order to put voters back in charge, the entire state legislature should pass an alternative small-donor driven system of funding elections this year."

“New York’s political landscape, with its sky-high campaign contribution limits, is easily dominated by big money contributors – a situation compounded by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, as we saw in last year’s election. To his credit, Governor Cuomo recognizes that this situation is toxic to a well-functioning state and has pledged to help end it by his support for public funding of elections for state races. There is great momentum for making this pledge a reality now, while the excesses of the 2010 election are still fresh in everyone’s memory. Common Cause/NY, as a long-time advocate of public funding for New York State urges Governor Cuomo to work with these Assembly Members, our coalition and the thousands of supporters for public financing around the state to pass a public funding bill early in the session,” said Deanna Bitetti, Associate Director, Common Cause/NY.

"Putting in place a system of public financing of elections is the single best way to combat the negative consequences of the Citizens United decision and reduce the improper influence of large private contributions," said Dave Palmer, Executive Director of the Center for Working Families.

"Extraordinarily well financed special interests, whose narrow interests are far too often adverse to the interests of the people of our state, will continue to exert undue and detrimental influence until such time as we finally adopt a state wide system of public financing of elections," said Assembly member Charles Lavine (13th Assembly District).

"Public financing is needed now more than ever in the wake of the Citizens United court decision which has allowed unregulated, undisclosed, and unrestricted private spending to dominate politics," said Assemblymember James F. Brennan.

"It's never been more important, with the vast amounts of corporate money being poured into elections, that we enact public financing of campaigns this year," saidAssemblywoman Barbara Lifton.

"We need public campaign financing to make sure candidates who don’t have personal wealth or support from wealthy contributors can get their message out and compete effectively with wealthy or well-funded candidates," said Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried.

"With unchecked spending and appallingly high contribution limits, corporate interests have used their power of the purse to unduly influence elected officials on issues ranging from the environment to affordable housing," said Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal (D/WF). "I am proud to support legislation requiring stricter contribution limits, instituting public financing for state elections and tougher regulations governing lobbying practices. New Yorkers deserve honest, transparent government and it’s time to finally act on these reforms. Albany has been marred by scandal in recent years, but this session offers us a chance at redemption. Competitive publicly financed elections will mean more incumbents challenged at the ballot box but fewer of them leaving in handcuffs. Competitive publicly financed elections will lead to housing policy formulated for tenants and not landlords. Competitive publicly financed elections will lead to gas drilling policies crafted by the people drinking our water and not those polluting it. New York can restore its standing as a progressive leader but we have to fix the way we finance campaigns first."

New York’s New Voting Machines Flawed, Suit Says by Jack Healy - NYTimes.com

Read original...

Electronic voting machines being deployed for the first time this year across New York City and the rest of the state contain a flaw that could lead to thousands of votes being thrown out, according to a lawsuit that advocacy groups will file Monday.

The problem, according to the legal complaint, revolves around voters who accidentally pick too many candidates for a particular race — an error known as “overvoting,” which invalidates the incorrect part of their ballot.

When a voter submits such a ballot, the new machines do not automatically return it to be corrected and recast. Instead, the machines that scan the new SAT-style ballots are programmed to start beeping and to offer a choice on their digital touch-screens: a green button for voters to confirm their choices and cast their ballot, or a red button to scrap their votes and start over.

Lawrence D. Norden, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which is representing the New York State conference of the N.A.A.C.P., the Working Families Party and other groups in the lawsuit, said that the setup was poorly worded and confusing, and that the design of the new machines could prompt thousands of voters to press the green button accidentally, casting parts of their ballots into oblivion.

The lawsuit, filed against the State Board of Elections, says voters who are minorities or non-native English speakers would lose their votes in disproportionate numbers.

“They have to make a fast decision,” Mr. Norden said. “There are people behind them, and they tend to press ‘cast,’ especially because there’s nothing there that says, ‘Your vote will not count.’ ”

The machines tell people they have “overvoted,” but do not explain what, exactly, overvoting is, or its consequences, Mr. Norden said. And many voters are just more likely to hit a button with a green check mark than a red X — even if it has the effect of quashing part of their vote, he added.

In 2000, thousands of voters in Florida made a similar mistake by accidentally choosing two candidates for president, invalidating their selections and helping plunge the razor-thin contest into a chaotic stalemate for weeks.

The new scanning machines offer improvements like the creation of paper records of votes, but Mr. Norden said the way they were programmed to handle mistaken votes put New York at risk of sowing confusion. “This completely ignores what happened in Florida in 2000,” he said.

The old lever-operated machines prevented overvoting by locking themselves up if a voter flipped too many switches for various candidates. But Douglas Kellner, co-chairman of the New York State Board of Elections, called the conflict “a very minor issue” and said the new voting machines had taken a trial run in some upstate counties in elections last year with no major problems.

Rather than reprogram thousands of voting machines a few months before the primaries in September, Mr. Kellner said the board had agreed to assess how the system performed after the elections in November, in which New Yorkers will select a governor and vote on both Senate seats, among other races.

“We have a completely new system,” Mr. Kellner said. “That’s why the consensus is, don’t do an emergency fix of this one little minor point right now.”

A spokesman for the elections board called the new machines “compliant and legally sufficient” and said that tweaking how they handle improperly completed ballots would take months of testing and layers of approval to recertify the changes.

The new machines, which replace the lever-operated antiques many election districts in New York had used for decades, sprang from the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which aimed to update voting machines to prevent another election marred by thousands of rejected ballots. Voters in New York will now fill out ovals on a paper ballot, feed the ballot into a scanning machine and drop it into a locked box.

Public-interest groups began raising concerns about the potential for invalidated ballots this winter, citing a study in June 2009 by the Florida Fair Elections Coalition that attributed high numbers of overvoting in Florida’s 2008 elections to flaws in some electronic voting systems.

A letter sent in February to the New York State Board of Elections from several groups, including the Brennan Center, said that as many as 40,000 votes could be lost in a heavy election year.

Mr. Kellner disputed that estimate, saying the number was “made up out of thin air.”

The lawsuit says the current setup violates the Voting Rights Act and asks that New York not use the new machines until more safeguards are put in place.

The complaint, which was given to The New York Times by the Brennan Center, says that Wisconsin developed its system to “return a ballot to the voter immediately” if the scanning machine noted an overvote.

Connecticut does the same thing, said its secretary of state, Susan Bysiewicz, adding that it gives voters a chance to fix the ballot or to send it through, errors and all.

“This can happen a lot,” Ms. Bysiewicz said. “It’s much better if the voter has the opportunity to ask a question of a poll worker and be given the opportunity to vote a fresh ballot.”