WebProNews

Tag: campaign finance

  • The Colbert Report Informs More Viewers Than Others

    When Stephen Colbert started The Colbert Report on Comedy Central, he stated that his goal was to “feel the news” at his audience, purporting that anyone could read the news to them. According to a new study released by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, Colbert’s show has done much more than his initial process.

    Upon analyzing the results of a telephone survey conducted with 1,232 adults from December 13, 2012 to December 23, 2012, The Colbert Report proved to be the most informative media outlet when it came to educating the people about political campaign financing.

    “It’s the first study actually showing that Colbert is doing a better job than other news sources at teaching people about campaign financing,” stated Bruce Hardy, the lead author of the study. “Consistently, we found that Colbert did better than every other news source we included in our model.”

    Why was Colbert so effective in informing his audience, you ask? “There were two reasons. First was the narrative structure. He walked us through creating a super PAC and every episode was a continuation of that story. And second was the use of humor and satire,” explained Hardy.

    The specific segments the research study highlights were aired following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case in which it was decided that money is a form of free speech and that it could not restrict campaign contributions from corporations.

    In order to explore the extent of such a ruling, Colbert decided to form his own Super PAC (with motto “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow), along with a shell corporation from which Colbert could receive anonymous donations and then transfer those funds to his Super PAC, acting as if the corporation was actually the source of the money.

    “What’s the difference between that and money laundering?” Colbert asked Federal Election Chairman Trevor Potter. “It’s hard to say,” Potter responded.

    And for all of you doubters out there, this study is consistent with several other studies which have touted the positive effects of “soft news”, the most popular of such studies being one released in 2012 which reported that viewers who watched The Daily Show with Jon Stewart were more knowledgeable about current affairs than those who watched any other form of news media, along with those who read or listened to NPR and Sunday morning talk shows.

    So how did Stephen Colbert take the news that he was more informative than all the other media outlets on television? Exactly as one would expect him to – as a challenge.

    “Clearly, I must work harder at informing you less. And to do that, I humbly bow myself before the masters,” stated Colbert before showing a montage of poor news reports.

    “Wow. The bar of lowness has been set very high.”

    Let’s hope that a dearth of knowledge does not occur after Colbert moves to his new spot at the The Late Show in 2015.

    Image via YouTube

  • Dinesh D’Souza Indicted For Campaign Finance Fraud

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York this week filed charges against Dinesh D’Souza for allegedly violating federal campaign finance laws. D’Souza is a conservative author and filmmaker well-known for his stance against the current presidential administration. Most recently D’Souza is best known for writing and directing the 2012 movie 2016: Obama’s America, a documentary that follows the early life of Barack Obama.

    D’Souza is accused of having several other people make donations to a U.S. Senate campaign, then later reimbursing them for the contributions, which totaled $20,000. The act circumvents election laws that prevent individuals from donating over $5,000 to a single candidate. He has also been charged with causing false statements to be made to the FEC. That charge stems from the donation scheme by proxy causing the campaign committee to falsely report donations to the FEC.

    “Trying to influence elections through bogus campaign contributions is a serious crime,” said George Venizelos, assistant director-in-charge of the FBI. “Today, Mr. D’Souza finds himself on the wrong side of the law. The Federal Election Campaign Act was written to limit the influence of money in elections; the FBI is fiercely committed to enforcing those laws to maintain the integrity of our democratic process.”

    D’Souza’s donation’s were uncovered by the FBI during a review of 2012 campaign committee filings.

    According to TPM, D’Souza’s lawyer has issued a statement emphasizing that D’Souza never had a “corrupt relationship” with the Senate candidate. The lawyer also stated that D’Souza “did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever.”

    “As we have long said, this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process,” said Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for Manhattan. “If, as alleged, the defendant directed others to make contributions to a Senate campaign and reimbursed them, that is a serious violation of federal campaign finance laws.”

    Image via @DineshDSouza

  • The Next Election May Be Funded By Bitcoin

    The Next Election May Be Funded By Bitcoin

    Bitcoin is the currency of the future, or at least that’s what crypt-anarchists and futurist would have you believe. On the other hand, the government seems like it doesn’t know what to do with the digital currency. Well, at least most of the government that is.

    The Hill reports that the Federal Election Commission has proposed that election campaigns be allowed to accept bitcoin donations. The proposal was made after the Commission received a request to use bitcoins in elections from the Conservative Action Fund.

    While this is great news for bitcoin proponents, the FEC does have one caveat for the currency’s usage. Under its proposal, campaigns will be able to accept bitcoin donations, but they won’t be able to spend them. Instead, campaigns will have to sell the bitcoins and then deposit the money into their accounts. Since bitcoin transactions are anonymous, you can see why the Commission would want to prevent campaigns from being able to use the currency.

    While the decision is sure to receive some criticism from those opposed to the untraceable currency, other lawmakers see it as a first step towards the government embracing new currencies. Sen. Tom Carper said that he “applaud[s] the FEC for acting quickly to recognize [bitcoin] and develop a thoughtful policy that gives donors and committees rules of the road to utilize this emerging technology.”

    The next major election, set to take place in 2014, is likely to be the first time that bitcoins will be used extensively in elections. It remains to be seen what impact the digital currency will have on campaign finances, but it will prove interesting. After all, donors could send bitcoin donations to campaigns anonymously, especially with the emergence of technologies like Dark Wallet. While we’ll know how much the campaign received thanks to FEC rules, we won’t know who sent the money. That alone is likely to ruffle the feathers of those seeking campaign finance reform even more.

    [Image: weusecoins/YouTube]

  • DOMA Ruling May Alter Campaign Finance Laws

    On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the high-profile case U.S. v. Windsor, overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While the long-term ramifications of this decision are still being sifted through, and will not likely become apparent until people start claiming benefits and other things they are now entitled to, one surprising effect has surfaced. The repeal of DOMA will have an effect on campaign finance.

    Earlier this year, members of one firm, Caplin & Drysdale’s Political Law Group, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the DOMA case for a bipartisan group of former Federal Election Commission officials. Trevor Potter, who leads the firm’s Political Law Group and signed the Amicus Brief as a former FEC Chair, remarked:

    “This is a landmark moment for the rights of all Americans, and we congratulate Edith Windsor and marriage-equality advocates on their Supreme Court victory. Presumably, the Federal Election Commission will now interpret the word ‘spouse’ to include all legally married couples where it appears in federal campaign finance law. This would end DOMA’s discriminatory impact in this area.”

    As the Amicus Brief filed by Caplin & Drysdale noted, DOMA legally barred married gays and lesbians from political expression and association opportunities afforded to other married citizens. Specifically, while still in effect, DOMA had two main effects on the rights of gay couples regarding campaign finance. One was that married gay and lesbian candidates who ran for federal office could not fund their campaigns using personal resources that were available to other married candidates. This was important to same-sex political candidates, since over 40% of the 3,061 congressional candidates during the 2012 election cycle relied on personal resources to fund their campaigns.

    But also, individuals in same-sex marriages could not attend certain political meetings or interact with certain political groups that were open to other married citizens, simply because they were not recognized legally as “married”.

    The repeal of DOMA changed that. We will see how that trickles down into an actual election cycle, and whether it has any noticeable effect, as the upcoming races draw nearer