Tag Archives: elections

Campaign finance, then and now

1 Reply

Today’s Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance reform will allow corporations to give as much money as they want to support candidates, overturning a ruling that had been in effect for the past 20 years. But what was the scenario before 1990?

NPR takes a look at campaign finance through the years in a timeline of legislation from 1900 to the present. The timeline include events such as the 1907 ban on corporate contributions to Congressional and Presidential campaigns, the start of Political Action Committees in 1943, and the start of modern campaign finance in 1971.

Watchdog organizations like Open Secrets and the Sunlight Foundation will clearly play a larger role as this decision takes effect. The Obama campaign was defined by the numerous smaller donations from individuals – will the new rules take away the importance these types of donors play in elections? The non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute provides reports on campaign finance in the 2008 election.

Not surprisingly, President Obama was not satisfied with the court’s ruling. Two notes on the President’s Twitter feed discussed the issue this afternoon:

@BarackObama: Today’s Supreme Court ruling gives special interests more power, and undermines the influence of average Americans. http://bit.ly/7-a

The @WhiteHouse will work immediately w/ bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision http://bit.ly/-I

Public Media Texas gives an overview of NPR’s coverage of today’s proceeds and what their effects may be.
Political Junkie reported:

Today’s decision overturns a 20-year ruling — Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce — that prohibited corporations or labor unions from paying for campaign ads. The decision removes spending limits for independent expenditure groups. It threatens to remove spending limits already established in 24 states. And it struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that bars issue ads paid for by corporations or unions in the closing days of a campaign.

Questions about campaign finance and what the ruling means? Ask Congressman Steve Scalise (R-La.) on this week’s Ask Your Lawmaker podcast, or submit a question to any Congressperson on Ask Your Lawmaker.

After Mass

Leave a reply
Special Election in Mass./Credit: Flickr user Rob Weir

Special Election in Mass./Credit: Flickr user Rob Weir

The special election victory by Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley to fill late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts yesterday left a torrent of speculation and accusation in its wake.

Will the healthcare bill be put in jeopardy? What does this mean for the Democrats in 2010 and even 2012? Does the public trust the president to lead the country out of recession?

Patchwork Nation looks at what fueled Brown’s win, in economic terms:

Compared with candidate Obama, Coakley did worst in the six counties where unemployment rose by more than 3 percentage points in the last year. In each of those counties, she got 16 percentage points less than Obama did in 2008.

That suggests that Tuesday’s vote was a “change” vote motivated perhaps by disgruntlement. Voters may be punishing Coakley for what they perceive as a lack of focus on jobs and the economy on Obama and the Democrats’ part and overemphasis on healthcare reform.

Coakley lost votes in every county in the state compared with Obama in 2008. Unemployment is up in every county as well. That can’t be a comfort to the Democrats.

For 2010, some signs of recovery need to be apparent before voters retain their support for or swing towards the Democrats. Patchwork Nation’s Dante Chinni writes “Right now the state of the national economy is fragile. What we hear repeatedly from people we talk to in different Patchwork Nation communities around the country is: ‘We have not seen a recovery here, yet.’”

WBUR in Boston took an in-depth analysis of the election results from Tuesday night and took into account who was voting, compared with previous races.

Even in many communities where Obama had a narrow victory over McCain, Brown blew Coakley away. In Weymouth, for example, Obama got 53 percent of the vote in 2008. On Tuesday, Weymouth went red, giving Brown 61 percent to Coakley’s 38 percent.

EconomyBeat pulls from blogs around the web, on both the left and right, to assess response to the special election. Reader comments from beyond Massachusetts on sites including The New York Times and FiveThirtyEight brought out opinions on the democratic party, health care, and spending.

Focus on Afghanistan

Leave a reply

In the lead up to the Afghan presidential election, there’s been a growing number of stories about whether the vote will be fair, as well coverage about how the ongoing U.S. involvement in conflicts abroad affects our own economy.

When it comes to the impact the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are having on the U.S. economy, Paul Solman at The NewsHour’s Business Desk astutely argues both sides of the coin:

“The wars have certainly hurt the economy of the moment by running up both oil prices and the deficit. A higher deficit arguably drove long-term interest rates higher than they otherwise would have gone. … But once the economy tanked, military spending was a source of consumption at a time when both families and businesses had cut back drastically. Who’s to say the economic crisis mightn’t have been worse without our current wars?”

But will those investments continue? World Focus takes a closer look at the U.S.’ continuing involvement in Afghanistan.

NewsTrust.net has been asking readers to analyze coverage of Afghanistan and pick out the most trustworthy reports from the region, in coordination with Thirteen/WNET‘s WorldFocus.

For more news from Afghanistan, you can follow the coverage from Kabul with NPR Morning Edition host Renee Montagne, who’s been in Afghanistan for weeks following the election story.