The legislation, entitled the DISCLOSE Act (in what is perhaps an acronym over-reach, it stands for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections), would strengthen disclosure and disclaimer requirements for all election spending by independent entities (corporations, non-profits, 527s, unions, et al) and bar spending from foreign-held corporations and corporations holding government contracts (of $50,000 or more).

The provision barring spending by corporations with government contracts could affect tens of thousands of corporations, including 75% of Fortune 100 companies, according to one study by two professors at Yale Law School. And the disclosure piece would crucially include new requirements for independent groups receiving outside financing (e.g. Citizens for a Clean Energy Future with financing from Exxon-Mobile) to disclaim their top five donors in all sponsored advertisements.

While government reform advocates applauded the DISCLOSE Act today as an important first step, they also urged Congress to go much further, and pair the legislation with the Fair Elections Now Act, a bill that would create a small donor-driven public campaign financing option for all U.S. House and U.S. Senate candidates and create a viable way for candidates to run for office without any special interest or corporate-backed support.

“Now is the time for Congress to free itself from Wall Streets’ grip so Main Street can get a fair shake,” said Common Cause CEO and President Bob Edgar in a press release this afternoon. “The legislation introduced today is important, but to give Americans a voice in their democracy we need an alternative for candidates who don’t want to spend all their time courting special interests. The Fair Elections Now Act would do that, and must be part of Congress’ legislative response to the Citizens United decision.”

Susan Liss, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice echoed Edgar’s call for Congressional public financing. “We hope that Congress passes strong disclosure legislation. Another vital step for our democracy is for Congress to quickly move forward on small donor public financing, the Durbin-Larson bill,”

NC Voters for Clean Elections is urging the NC General Assembly to take a similar approach at the state level, and pass a combination of new disclosure laws and expanded public campaign financing programs this summer. Two public campaign financing bills are eligible to be considered during the short session, including a bill to make the Council of State pilot program permanent and applicable to additional offices (SB-20, SB-966) and a bill to authorize municipalities to create publicly financed Voter-Owned Elections programs in local elections (HB-120). Because of public financing program’s matching money provisions, they would provide some protection to candidates outspend by independent groups, including corporations.

States around the country have been considering dozens of different proposals to blunt the negative impact of Citizens United. The state of Iowa recently enacted a strong reform law, which includes stronger disclosure and disclaimer requirements, including a directive that corporate boards affirmatively and publicly approve political expenditures before they are made.

***On Monday, Durham’s city council unanimously approved a resolution asking for state permission to pursue local public campaign financing options. With its adoption, Durham joins the cities of Raleigh, Wilmington, and Greenville, who have all passed similar resolutions in recent months. The resolutions ask the General Assembly to pass legislation that would give permission to municipalities with more than 50,000 residents to explore public campaign financing options for non-partisan municipal elections. A bill passed by the state House in 2009, HB-120, grants this authorization, but it awaits approval in the state Senate. Read Durham blogger Nate Aspenson’s take.

***A new poll by the NC Center for Voter Education finds that North Carolinians overwhelmingly support a campaign finance reform overhaul. According to the survey, 71 percent of voters favor a major overhaul to the state’s campaign finance system. Just 6 percent favor the status quo.

***A report from Bob Hall at Democracy NC highlights the success of North Carolina’s judicial program. For the first time ever, 100% of candidates have declared their intent to participate in the program. (Meanwhile in states like Alabama, the judicial campaign money chase continues unabated).

***A new report from the Institute on Money and State Politics has found that the 2008 election cycle was the most expensive on record for state races. Nationwide, more than $3 billion was spent (including candidates, parties, 527′s, and ballot initiatives). And for the first time spending on state legislative races broken the $1 billion mark (a 26% increase from 2004). In North Carolina, total state spending was just under $100 million, including $42 million for the Governor’s race. The Institute predicts, that the 2010 election cycle could set an even higher record.

***Erik Ose has a great Op-Ed in the Chapel Hill News about Chapel Hill’s successful Voter-Owned Elections program.

Sunday’s forum will discuss the Constitutional and legal background of the ruling and current reform efforts that are being undertaken in response.

What: The Supreme Court Decision: A Disaster for Democracy

Where: Carrboro Century Center (100 N. Greensboro St., Carrboro)

When: Sunday, April 11: 4-5:30

Who: Gene Nichol, UNC Law Professor and Director of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity; Chase Foster, Director of NC Voters for Clean Elections

For more information email jacksanders@nc.rr.com.

***You can view a video from NC Policy Watch’s forum on the ruling at the beginning of March. Brenda Wright, Director of the Democracy Program at Demos and national election law expert, was the featured speaker.

Last week the West Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill 67-30 that would establish a public campaign financing pilot for elections to the state’s Supreme Court. This reform victory comes in the aftermath of several recent elections in West Virginia that were plagued by massive special interest spending. The perception of integrity in the state’s judiciary was widely seen as being compromised when several judges who benefited from this special interest election spending made rulings that financially benefited these same groups. (You may remember last year’s high profile U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. Massey requiring a West Virginia Judge to recuse himself from a case involving one of his largest campaign supporters).

The state of Washington is expected to vote on a judicial public financing program of its own sometime this week. Hopefully, we’ll have good news to report soon!

Eleven of twelve candidates have declared their intent to participate in the state’s Voter-Owned Elections program during the 2010 cycle. These include both candidates for state Supreme Court and nine candidates for four Court of Appeals seats. The only candidate who has not yet filed their intent is current Court of Appeals judge Ann Marie Calabria. (Note: One of the declared candidates, Court of Appeals judge Sanford Steelman, has declared his intent, but will not qualify to receive public money because he faces no opposition).

Under the program which was created in 2002, candidates must raise around $40,000 in small donations (between $10 and $500) from at least 350 registered voters, agree to strict fund-raising and spending limits, and be listed on the general election ballot (i.e. make it past the primary). In exchange, candidates receive a public grant that allows them to avoid being financially dependent on lawyers and litigation-interest groups who have vested interests in court outcomes (these groups were the primary funders of judicial races before NC’s program was created). During the 2010 cycle, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court candidates who qualify will receive $164,400 and $240,100 grants, respectively.

The case, Citizens United v. FEC, dealt with a challenge to an FEC ruling barring the airing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during the 2008 primary elections. The lower court had said the McCain-Feingold law of 2002 prohibited the planned broadcasts because they would be aired during the 30 day period before a presidential primary and were paid for with corporate money.

The Supreme Court was faced with determining whether the lower court’s ruling was Constitutional. They were originally expected to rule narrowly on the particular merits and circumstances of this unusual case, but instead, the Court issued a sweeping and expansive ruling that undermines 100 years of precedent and law.

Here’s how the Campaign Legal Center describes it:

Today’s decision from the Supreme Court is an extreme example of judicial overreach that arbitrarily overturns decades of precedent and undercuts the powers of the legislative branch. What the Supreme Court majority did today was empower corporations to use their enormous wealth and urge the election or defeat of federal candidates, and in doing so, buy even more power over the legislative process and government decision making. As a result of this decision, for profit corporations and industries will be able to threaten members of Congress with negative ads if they vote against corporate interests, and to spend tens of millions on campaign ads to “punish” those who do not knuckle under to their lobbying threats.

Experts predict that this ruling will not only have implications for federal campaign finance law, but will require a change in North Carolina law as well. They also predict that this could be one more step in the court’s march toward a place where traditional campaign finance regulations are rendered meaningless. In four other cases since Roberts became Chief Justice, the Court has circumscribed campaign finance law, and there is no reason to think they will stop now.

Given this context, the only viable reform option is to create a comprehensive system of public campaign financing that encourages small donor giving and allows candidates to run special interest free. The small donor incentives and competitive funding stream present in most Voter-Owned, public financing systems would give candidates the capacity to compete with outside corporate money in a post-Citizens United fundraising world. And since public campaign financing is voluntary, it should not face any Constitutional troubles, even from an activist right-wing Court.

If one good thing can come out of today’s decision, it would be a new realization at the federal, state, and local levels, that fundamental campaign reform is needed to safeguard our democracy. By enacting public campaign financing systems, our leaders can create a way out of the campaign money chase and set our system of government up to withstand the worst of the damage that today’s ruling will bring.

NC Voters for Clean Elections has released its 2009 Scorecard on Campaign Reform, highlighting the state’s progress on campaign finance reform. The scorecard hones in on legislative efforts to expand Voter-Owned Elections, a public campaign financing system that reduces candidates’ reliance on special interest fundraising. Under the system—which is available in North Carolina for appellate judges and some Council of State races—candidates who prove vast community support and agree to strict spending and fundraising limits can receive a public grant to run their campaign.

The 2009 scorecard reflects on a legislative session when Voter-Owned Elections gained significant traction in North Carolina. A bill to expand the state’s successful Council of State program was approved by the state Senate and a bill to authorize additional municipalities to invest in local public financing programs was passed by the House. Both initiatives will be considered again next year when the legislature reconvenes in May.

Overall, scores were higher than in past legislative sessions, demonstrating growing support for campaign finance reform in both chambers. 45% of House members and 34% of Senators had perfect 2009 scores, and nearly half of House members co-sponsored at least one of the Voter-Owned Elections bills.

Other highlights:

* The average 2009 score was 72% in the House and 70% in the Senate.

* A new lifetime score evaluated legislator’s votes on two dozen initiatives considered between 2005-2009. Perfect lifetime scores were earned by 19 House members and 11 Senators.

* The lowest scorers in the House were Reps. Ric Killian and James Langdon with 29% scores each. The lowest scorer in the Senate was Sen. Austin Allran with a 14% score for 2009.

* The lowest scoring Democrats were Reps. Jim Crawford and Timothy Spear with 43% scores in 2009.

To download and view the full scorecard click here.

Chapel Hill doesn’t have a problem with big money in elections.

There aren’t enough people using the program for it to have any impact.

All of these myths were shattered Tuesday night, when Voter-Owned Elections candidates Mark Kleinschmidt and Penny Rich were swept into office.

Kleinschmidt, who won the mayor’s race, was the only mayoral candidate who participated in the program. To qualify, he raised over 150 $10 and $20 contributions from Chapel Hill voters and agreed to strict spending and fundraising limits. In exchange he received a $9,000 grant to run his campaign. “The voter-owned fund played a crucial role in making sure that I could get my message out to voters,” Kleinschmidt said in a Common Cause press release today. “This was one of the most substantive campaigns I’ve ever been a part of, and a lot of that is because participating in the public financing program took the focus off of money and put it on issues.”

In contrast, the second place finisher Matt Czaijkowski raised tens of thousands of dollars ($28,000 as of 10/19/2009), an unprecedented figure for Chapel Hill, where campaigns are generally low cost. In many places, this kind of asymmetrical spending would guarantee victory (the top spender wins 9 times out of 10), but because Kleinschmidt was part of the program, he was able to stay competitive. In the final weeks of the election, he received $4,000 in rescue money that helped level the playing field and provided a key check on Czajkowski’s campaign spending.

Rich, in her second run for office, proved the merits of the program in a different way. She was the top vote getter on Tuesday night, receiving more votes than seven other candidates, including three incumbents. Rich designed her campaign around the Voter-Owned Elections program, using it as a tool to engage average citizens throughout the town. She far exceeded the minimum 75 contributions necessary to participate, and even got one qualifying donation from the person who regularly bags her groceries. Rich said in the News & Observer that the program had worked exactly the way it was supposed to: engaging more voters in the democratic process. “It feels like the voter-owned election program really worked,” said Rich. “We engaged the citizens, and they gave it back.”

All in all, the program was a success. Far from being turned off by Voter-Owned Elections, voters were enlivened by it, thrilled to see that their small contribution and participation could make a real difference. In the mayoral race the program served as an important check on big spending campaigns. And in the council race, the top vote getter was the one Voter-Owned candidate. Even though only two candidates participated in the program, Voter-Owned Elections still had a positive impact on the political process. Next time around, candidates would be wise to follow Rich’s and Kleinschmidt’s winning strategy and run the Voter-Owned way.

Raleigh-Durham was chosen as one of ten “hard-hit” cities to get a free preview screening. Moore’s new film chronicles the loss of the American middle class, offering a scathing critique of an economic system that allows the top 1% to have more financial wealth than the bottom 95%.

Those who have “lost their jobs or are in foreclosure,” may attend the film for free, though no one is required to present any proof that they have fallen on hard times.

Its perhaps surprising that the film is being shown in North Hills, in the heart of “Midtown,” which serves as one of the affluent new hip hubs of urbane Raleigh, full of expensive boutiques, spas, and restaurants. But in a way is is also appropriate. Underneath the veneer of North Hills upper middle class prosperity lies the reality of today’s precarious economy: thousands of hard-working families who are just one step (or one hospital visit) away from losing their mini-American dream because of a lay-off, foreclosure, or bankruptcy.

The reality of today’s economic system is that even the educated and successful are now vulnerable to Wall Street’s capricious whims.

See more info. here.

The court heard continued oral arguments this morning in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, which addresses whether a group should have been able to use corporate money to distribute an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary in the middle of last year’s primary election. Citing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Acts ban on corporate money, the FEC said no; appellate courts agreed, and the case made its way to the Supremes. The Supreme Court had an initial hearing in April, but scheduled another hearing outside of their regular term to specifically address the question of whether the long-standing ban on corporate and union money in elections was constitutional.

Reform advocates had hoped that the court would avoid making a decision with sweeping constitutional (and precedent overturning) implications. If they had to rule in favor of Citizens United they could rule more narrowly: that video-on-demand constitutes a different kind of expenditure than commercials or that Citizens United was a unique kind of corporation that should be subjected to different rules.

But based on this morning’s hearing, a sweeping decision could be in store, and the corporate floodgates could soon be unleashed. This, from the Supreme Court blog:

Despite the best efforts of four other Justices to argue for restraint, the strongest impression was that they had not convinced the two members of the Court thought to be still open to an exercise in modesty. At least the immediate prospect was for a sweeping declaration of independence in politics for companies and advocacy groups formed as corporations.

If this does in fact happen—and the ruling is as sweeping as predicted—federal and state law would be overturned, and corporations could start writing checks directly to candidates. This infusion of money could flood television, radio, and internet with political ads in unprecedented ways.

The good news is that voluntary public campaign financing systems would remain viable even in the event of a sweeping ruling that overturns the corporate money ban entirely. Participating Voter-Owned Elections candidates could agree to only accept small contributions and refuse corporate money as a condition for receiving public funds. Indeed, the only way to counterbalance corporate expenditures might be to infuse more public money into the system so that candidates have a way to run without relying on these entrenched interests. But the change would no doubt have a deleterious impact on our democracy, making it much easier for beholden candidates to win through sheer dollar power.

As the New York Times wrote in an editorial published yesterday (and reprinted in today’s N&O), we will all be worse off for it. They write :

If the court races to overturn federal and state laws, and its well-established precedents, to free up corporations to drown elections in money, it will be swinging for the fences. The American public will be the losers.