- Social:
Center for Competitive Politics
Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics; Professor of Law at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio and at West Virginia University; former chairman of the Federal Election Commission;
PROFILE
Bradley Smith
Guest
FROM Bradley Smith
To the Point
Sugar Daddies, Super PAC's and Winning the White House The US Supreme Court has taken the lid off political spending, so presidential candidates are lining up billionaires to finance next year's campaigns. It's not just the South Carolina and New Hampshire primaries any more. There's the "Adelson primary" and the "Koch primary" facetiously named for Republican mega-donors. Hillary Clinton is cozying up to super-rich Democrats. That's giving enormous power to a tiny group of billionaires – a Florida car dealer , a New York hedge fund operator and others . What do they want — what will they get -- for their money?
To the Point
Without Limits, Will Campaign Contributions Dominate Politics? There’s just nine weeks left before the mid-term elections—and there’s more money than ever for Senate and House campaigns. In April, Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon gave his name to a US Supreme Court decision to eliminate legal restrictions on how much an individual can give in total to candidates and committees. McCutcheon says it’s great to have more money in politics—putting it this way: “we’re just spreading speech.” What’s the likely impact of more money in politics—this year and in years to come?
Which Way, L.A.?
To Vote or Not to Vote: Debate over Photo ID Laws Heats Up Voter ID laws vary all across the United States. Some states require photos, while others do not. Last week, the Justice Department blocked a new law in South Carolina, requiring a photo ID, saying it would disproportionately affect minorities. Proponents say that ID requirements help prevent election fraud. Is voter fraud really a problem? What role does partisan politics play in these laws? What's wrong with having to prove who you are in order to vote? What impact do photo ID requirements have on who votes or doesn't? Do such laws interfere with one of the most basic rights of American citizenship?
To the Point
To Vote or Not to Vote: Debate over Photo ID Laws Heats Up Voter ID laws vary all across the United States. Some states require photos, while others do not. Last week, the Justice Department blocked a new law in South Carolina, requiring a photo ID, saying it would disproportionately affect minorities. Proponents say that ID requirements help prevent election fraud. Is voter fraud really a problem? What role does partisan politics play in these laws? What's wrong with having to prove who you are in order to vote? What impact do photo ID requirements have on who votes or doesn't? Do such laws interfere with one of the most basic rights of American citizenship?
Which Way, L.A.?
The US Supreme Court and Partisan Politics Last week, by a vote of five to four, the US Supreme Court overturned two of its own precedents and a 63-year-old limit on corporate spending in political campaigns. The majority said it was lifting the burden of "censorship." The dissenters said it was opening the door wider than ever to corporate corruption.
To the Point
The US Supreme Court and Partisan Politics Corporations are individuals with First Amendment rights, and they can spend whatever they want to in political campaigns. So said the US Supreme Court last week in a 5-to-4 ruling that overturned two of its own precedents and a 63-year-old limit on corporate spending in political campaigns. The majority said it was lifting the burden of "censorship." The dissenters said it was opening the door wider than ever to corporate corruption. Is the decision a victory for free speech or will it drown out "the voice of the people." Will there be more money in politics than ever before? Will Republicans get a big, new advantage? Will there be all that much of a difference? We look at the ruling, the controversy and the possible impact in this year's elections and beyond.
Which Way, L.A.?
Big Money, Political Influence and the Right to Free Speech Three weeks before its next session is scheduled to open -- with Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the bench for the first time, the US Supreme Court today heard a case that could change 100 years of campaign finance laws. Last year, the Federal Elections Commission banned the broadcast of Hillary: The Movie , because it was funded by a corporation. Today's unusual hearing was called for arguments on whether the ban on corporate contributions violates the constitutional right to free speech.
To the Point
Big Money and the Right to Free Speech In 1907, trust-busting President Teddy Roosevelt persuaded Congress to ban corporations from contributing to political campaigns. Today, three weeks before its next session is scheduled to open -- with Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the bench for the first time, the US Supreme Court heard a case that could reverse more than 100 years of finance laws that now cover unions as well as corporations. Last year, the Federal Elections Commission banned the broadcast of the video Hillary: The Movie because it was funded by a corporation. Today's unusual meeting was called for arguments on whether the ban on corporate contributions violates the constitutional right to free speech. The ACLU and the National Rifle Association advocate letting them spend, in the interests of unlimited free speech. Democrat Russ Feingold and Republican John McCain warn that a flood of money will drown the voices of ordinary citizens.
To the Point
Money, the Campaign and Voting Integrity In 2004, George Bush and John Kerry raised $700 million combined for their presidential campaigns. That was a record. A year ago, Barack Obama promised to limit himself to public financing, but changed his mind. This year, he alone has raised $650 million, and is outspending John McCain on TV in battleground states by a margin of four to one. Tonight, Obama will address the nation for 30 minutes in prime time on CBS, NBC, Fox, MSNBC, Univision and BET, all paid for by his campaign. But big money's not the only big story of this campaign. There are massive problems with early voting, especially in southern states. There are also questions about the integrity of the electoral system, like those in the 2004 elections, in which many states' official results did not coincide with surveys taken of voters as they were leaving the polls.
Recommended
To the Point
Replacing Obamacare: Now you see it… now you don’t As the Senate deliberates replacing Obmacare, health coverage for millions of people is at stake. There've been no public hearings, and a draft measure won't be made public. Is the House version so unpopular that that Senate is hiding a version that looks much the same?
Left, Right & Center
The week that wouldn't quit Will next week get even weirder? (Special one-hour episode)
To the Point
Who's to blame for the opioid crisis? Some of the lawyers who took on Big Tobacco are now going after Big Pharma. It’s all about the deadly epidemic of opioid use. Are the drug companies to blame? What about the users? Later, on today’s Talking Point: making sense of Britain’s upset election.
To the Point
The Trump agenda: where's the beef? President Trump says big things are happening. After celebrating a House bill on health care, he doesn’t yet have Senate agreement. With James Comey’s public testimony scheduled tomorrow, the President today tweeted his selection of a new FBI Director. Is the Chief Executive all style and no substance? Later, terror attacks in Iran and conflicting claims about who’s behind them.