next generation transparency · 2014 game changers participants: foundation officers & national...

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MONEY IN STATE POLITICS 833 N. Last Chance Gulch • Helena, MT 59601

406-449-2480 • [email protected] www.FollowTheMoney.org

MAY 28 – 31, 2015

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MONEY IN STATE POLITICS at Flathead Lake Lodge, Bigfork, Montana

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

2015: A MEASURE OF CHANGE Next Generation Transparency

2014 GAME CHANGERS

PARTICIPANTS: FOUNDATION OFFICERS & NATIONAL ADVISORS Peter Bale, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Public Integrity

Kathy Bonnifield, Program Officer, Piper Fund

Jean Bordewich, The Madison Initiative, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

Danielle Brian, Executive Director, Project on Government Oversight

Jared DeMarinis, Director, Candidacy & Campaign Finance, Maryland State Board of Elections

Conor Dowling, Assistant Professor, University of Mississippi

Chris Gates, President, Sunlight Foundation

Steven Gold, Trustee and Treasurer, David B. Gold Foundation

Nicole Gordon, NYC Campaign Finance Board

Viki Harrison, Executive Director, New Mexico Common Cause

Taylor Jo Isenberg, National Director, Campus Network, Roosevelt Institute

Trip Jennings, Executive Director, New Mexico In Depth

Sarah Knight, Program Officer, Democracy Fund, U.S. Programs, Open Society Foundations

John Kowal, Vice President for Programs, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law

Chuck Lewis, Professor & Executive Editor, Investigative Reporting Workshop

Carmen López, Policy Officer, Money in Politics, Thornburg Foundation

Leslie Lowe, Program Officer, Institutional Accountability & Individual Liberty, Rockefeller Family Fund

Denise Malan, Interim Executive Director, Institute for Nonprofit News

Geri Mannion, Director, U.S. Democracy Program & Special Opportunities Fund, Carnegie Corporation of New York

Megan McAllen, Associate Counsel, Campaign Legal Center

Jim McNair, Finance & Business Reporter, Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting

Peter Overby, Power, Money & Influence Correspondent, National Public Radio

Rebecca Petzel, Principal, RebeccaPetzel.com

Ilona Prucha, Program Associate, Civil Society Program, Wellspring Advisors

Ann Ravel, Chair & Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

Paul Ryan, Senior Counsel, Campaign Legal Center

Christine Reeves Strigaro, Associate Director of Foundation Programs, Alliance for Justice

Joanne Schwartz, Principal, Civitas Public Affairs

Melissa Spatz, Program Director, Proteus Fund

Ellen Weintraub, Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

Kytja Weir, Project Manager, Consider the Source, Center for Public Integrity

Lucas Welch, Director, The Pluribus Project

Abby K. Wood, Assistant Professor of Law, Political Science, and Public Policy, USC Gould School of Law

2015: A MEASURE OF CHANGE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MONEY IN STATE POLITICS

Edwin Bender, Executive Director, National Institute on Money in State Politics

Bert Brandenburg, Board President. Executive Director, Justice at Stake Campaign

Rosalind Gold, Senior Director, Policy Research and Advocacy, NALEO Educational Fund

Keith E. Hamm, Edwards Chair, American Government, Rice University

Adelaide Elm Kimball, Senior Advisor, Project Vote Smart

Jeff Malachowsky, Director, Civil Society Program, Wellspring Advisors

Michael Malbin, Executive Director/Co-Founder, Campaign Finance Institute

Geri Palast, Board Secretary. Managing Director, JFNA/JCPA Israel Action Network

Samantha Sanchez, Board Treasurer. Retired, Administrative Law Judge, Montana State Tax Appeal Board

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. Academic Partner, Corporate Reform Coalition

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MONEY IN STATE POLITICS

not p

ictu

red:

Ger

i Pal

ast

Edwin Bender, Executive Director

Barbara Bonifas, Development Director

Calder Burgam, Researcher

Eve Byron, Communications Specialist

Ken Feaster, Solutions Architect

Zach Holden, Researcher/Outreach Specialist

Maria Kurtz, Data Acquisition Director

Beverly Magley, Projects Director

Jenni McCrane, Researcher

Peter Quist, Research Director

Denise Roth Barber, Managing Director

Greg Schneider, Information Systems Director

J T Stepleton, Researcher Scott Wahl, Information Systems Specialist

2014 GAME CHANGERS

All summaries were written by NIMSP staff, based on notes taken during the presentations

INTRODUCTION Bert Brandenburg, Board President, National Institute on Money in State Politics, and Executive

Director, Justice at Stake Campaign Edwin Bender, Executive Director, National Institute on Money in State Politics

Bert Brandenburg welcomed participants to Montana and invited participant introductions.

Edwin Bender provided a brief history of the Institute and discussed the need to actively help people care about data, because audiences do not generally understand how it can inform an issue. He demonstrated the Institute’s new My Legislature tool’s role in providing more accountability in policy debates, then outlined the next steps for NIMSP, highlighting new datasets and data collaborations (LegiScan, for example). Ed described Medicare data as an example of data informing debate: President Carter initially released Medicare data but the American Medical Association sued to hide that data. Many years later The Wall Street Journal got the Medicare data re-released and ran stories highlighting fraud, providing a perfect example of data informing a story about a program and about specific players. That story, and the availability of data that informed it, provided the opportunity to identify and build best practices for today’s Medicare program.

CHALLENGES TO DISCLOSURE Moderator: Danielle Brian, Executive Director, Project on Government Oversight Denise Roth Barber, Managing Director, National Institute on Money in State Politics Paul Ryan, Senior Counsel, Campaign Legal Center Danielle Brian discussed themes from a paper she co-authored, titled “Why Critics of Transparency are Wrong.” She argued that the goal of transparency advocates is to protect against undue corruption in order to improve the integrity of government.

The movement faces several challenges. First, the efforts of advocates in the political and policy realms are often disconnected. This conference may be the only time people from different pro-democracy spheres meaningfully engage. Second, a new narrative has emerged from opponents of transparency arguing that disclosure is to blame for current government gridlock. She cited Jonathan

Friday, May 29

Thursday, May 28


Rauch’s “Political Realism: How Hacks, Machines, Big Money, and Back-Room Deals Can Strengthen American Democracy” as an example.

Danielle argued that there are two steps necessary to overcome these obstacles to transparency: cooperation and messaging. Various factions within the pro-democracy movement must work harder to integrate their efforts and messaging—by simply assuming everyone agrees that improved disclosure is good and corruption is bad, transparency advocates have failed to adequately convince the public of the importance of transparency to the health of our democracy. Going forward, she believes we need to weave a narrative that demonstrates how transparency can improve the lives of everyday people.

Denise Roth Barber noted that people who focus on transparency at the federal level often do not realize that states maintain vastly different campaign finance disclosure regulations. For example, at the federal level, the concern is “dark money,” which is not knowing the source of the money spent independently. But in half of the states, the total amount of money spent independently is not even disclosed, let alone identifying where that money comes from. Denise summarized the state of disclosure in the states in three key areas of political spending: Independent Spending, Lobbying, and Contribution disclosure (see PowerPoint).

Paul Ryan focused on court challenges to transparency, saying donor disclosure is currently at the forefront of the campaign finance reform movement due to the proliferation of spending by corporations and 501(c) groups in the wake of Citizens United. Unlike 527 PACs, these incidental committees can often hide their donors because current federal law, and the laws of many states, do not effectively require disclosure of donors to groups that do not have a major purpose of influencing elections.

While efforts to enforce PAC disclosure rules have been stymied at the federal level by the FEC’s gridlock, some success has been found in the states, particularly states within the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. One policy solution is to pass legislation that simply ignores the “major purpose” standard and instead adopt a threshold for political spending that triggers disclosure. California adopted such a law last year. A second option is to create better expenditure-specific rules for donor disclosure by groups that do not have the primary purpose of affecting elections. However, efforts to pass such laws, like the federal DISCLOSE Act, have been unsuccessful so far.

Group Discussion Ellen Weintraub argued that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to campaign finance reform. With respect to disclosure, she suggested that raising thresholds so as to alleviate the burden of disclosing every small donor would be a worthwhile trade for getting meaningful disclosure of the large donors who are in a position to influence policy after the election. Paul Ryan agreed and said that thresholds


must be set based on the local political climate of the jurisdiction in which they are in place. They should also be adjusted over time.

When a state is drafting campaign finance legislation, the Campaign Legal Center should be consulted as early as possible. It is can be difficult to alter a poorly constructed bill and politically impossible to scrap one and start over.

Is there a best practice for 501(c)4 disclosure? Preferably we would not base disclosure requirements on tax status. One’s place in the tax code is self-determined. If we focus on one type of 501(c), money will simply migrate to another. Under the current system, the onus is on the FEC to create and enforce regulations for what each group can legally do. Additionally, the IRS must ensure groups engaging in political campaigning file as 527s.

THE FRUITS OF DISCLOSURE: DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? Moderator: Michael Malbin, Executive Director/Co-Founder, Campaign Finance Institute Conor Dowling, Assistant Professor, University of Mississippi, co-author “The Advantages of

Anonymity and the Effects of Increased Campaign Finance Disclosure” Nicole Gordon, NYC Campaign Finance Board, “Policing the Politicians: Models for Effective

Enforcement” Abby K. Wood, Assistant Professor of Law, Political Science, and Public Policy, USC Gould School

of Law, co-author, “In the Shadows of Sunlight: An Empirical Study of Campaign Finance Transparency”

Michael Malbin: Long story short: Academics tell a different side of this story, getting beyond the examples. At the same time, this conference helps overcome some of the shortcomings in academia by bringing together academics, practitioners, and journalists. He gave a nod to NIMSP’s Best Practices project, and suggested we look at other nationwide/comparative analyses on campaign finance disclosure laws/practices (e.g. Campaign Legal Center).


Conor Dowling: In the Citizens United ruling, Justice Roberts defended disclosure of campaign finance data as a means to increase voter sophistication and assign proper weight to speakers in the public discourse. Advantages of anonymity (existing research): Anonymous ads are more persuasive, unknown groups are rated as more credible, and ads sponsored by unknown groups help candidates escape backlash.

The question is: Does information about donors change things? An experiment was conducted in which all participants were shown political advertisements but a random sample later received information on the groups responsible for the advertisements. Ads that disclose a candidate as the sponsor received a backlash from voters of the opposite party. Anonymous ads allow candidates to avoid this backlash. On the whole, this seems to just reinforce voters’ preexisting opinions.

Does more information matter? Yes. Participants who only see the advertisement react more strongly than those who see the advertisement and then absorb information on the groups running the advertisement. Voters’ attitudes were largely unaffected when told generic information about sponsors of the advertisements; likewise, they were not particularly sensitive to information on wealthy donors. However, they react negatively to out-of-state spending.

Ultimately, studies show that information about donors can be useful and people can process it. An important question remains: Is this information that people want or seek out?

Nicole Gordon: New York City has a matching funds program and a strong disclosure regime, including independent expenditures. The NYC Campaign Finance Board is required to get detailed disclosure from candidates running for office, make that information public, and make violations of the law public. The Board has other various roles, including voter education and assistance, and implementation of debates for city-wide candidates.

The Board exercises its authority to audit campaign finance records. The campaigns are alerted that they will be audited before, during, and after the campaign, and the Board publishes an audit report on each campaign. A promise is made to the candidates: You will be audited!

The burden is on the candidate to show he/she is in compliance. The Board has significant enforcement power. For example, it has subpoena power, can assess penalties, and can withhold the matching funds if the candidate is not in compliance.

The press is “our most vital ally.” The NYC campaign finance program would not exist in its current form without media support. The candidates (especially opposing candidates) and the media use and to a degree can ultimately enhance disclosure by reporting violations and filing complaints.


Disclosure has evolved over time, primarily driven by technology. Computers and the internet changed everything, mostly for the good. Disclosure allows us to see violations and patterns (which can point to violations), especially with respect to nominee contributions and unusual/suspicious contributions. Over time, we have developed candidate profiles that help us see what an average campaign looks like within its district or borough, as applicable, which in turn allows the Board to spot and question anomalies.

Data allows the agency to research questions such as: Is the matching amount appropriate? Are the penalties appropriate for the violations?

Future goal: It would be good to see all information in one place, including lobbying and candidate personal financial disclosure, and guarantee that all independent expenditures are fully disclosed to identify the ultimate donor. New York City currently has a strong disclosure regime in place for independent expenditures, but after some experience with it, the Board may find that additional changes need to be made.

Abby K. Wood provided an overview of her working paper co-authored with Doug Spencer (Univ. Connecticut), “In the Shadows of Sunlight: The Effects of Transparency on State Political Campaigns.”

Does disclosure chill participation? To answer this question, a cost-benefit analysis was employed using NIMSP data (about $1.7 billion) to explore in-state contributions over time (2000–2008). Ultimately, it was determined that disclosure has a slight chilling effect, but that the effect occurs largely among people who are ideologically moderate.

The study looked at contributors in states that recently enhanced disclosure and compared them to contributors in states that did not enhance disclosure over the same time period. The researchers asked whether contributors were less likely to contribute on average, less likely to contribute small amounts, and less likely to contribute if they are ideologically distant from their neighbors.

Findings: Among all contributors in the states in the sample, on average there is very little opting out. They did see a slightly smaller retention in treatment states (about 3% dropping out). All of the “slopes” for treatment states are steeper than the control states, but most differences in this version of the paper lacked statistical significance. This means that, on average, disclosure chills some participation, but the effects are small. Nevertheless, the policy question remains: are we willing to absorb those costs?

Additionally, contributors who are relatively moderate compared to their neighbors are the ones most likely to drop out. That is, this is likely not a story on ideologically polarized or more extreme contributors dropping out, as some might assume is the case.

Voters who are relatively moderate compared to their neighbors are the ones most likely to drop out.


Group Discussion Q: What about the benefits side of this research?

Abby: Several scholars have looked at informational and anti-corruption benefits, with mixed results. It is very hard to observe “in the field” and probably easier in an experimental context. I am designing an experiment to isolate the informational benefits, and my coauthor has an experiment on the anti-corruption benefits. I also have an ongoing project on the benefits of audits, to see whether they reveal a corrupt “type” of public official.

Q: How do candidates break down on the spectrum separating minor/insignificant oversights and seriously illegal behavior.

Nicole: We see a lot of insignificant mistakes. Only a small percentage of candidates engage in serious criminal behavior. What is most concerning is that candidates know they are going to be audited, but they still transgress. This makes one question the accuracy of data collected in jurisdictions that do not conduct sufficient audits or, in some places, no audits at all.

Q: Citizens United ensured that groups can run these ads instead of just individuals. It used to be that voters didn’t care what an individual said about a candidate, but what about those hiding behind a group name?

Conor: It’s difficult to say. However, studies have asked voters “Do you know who that is?” On the whole, voters don’t know who these groups are.

Q: Is the chilling effect always bad? Is it a natural part of democracy? Is there something to be said for group solidarity?

Abby: Nicholas Stephanopoulos explores the notion that if people who fund extreme candidates are chilled, that’s a good thing, because it reduces polarization and gridlock. However, my research says it is moderates who are more likely to be chilled.

Q: How do we pass the “So what?” test? Can the academic world answer this question? This is, can academics tell the individual stories that point to a quid pro quo?

Michael: Scholars don’t necessarily speak to that question about individuals. They engage in a different side of the debate. But these conferences help bridge the gap.


THE FRUITS OF TRANSPARENCY: INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING Moderator: Bert Brandenburg, Executive Director, Justice at Stake Campaign Jim McNair, Finance & Business Reporter, Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting Peter Overby, Power, Money & Influence Correspondent, National Public Radio Kytja Weir, Project Manager, Consider the Source, Center for Public Integrity Bert Brandenburg: Democracy needs strong investigative journalism if government is going to be properly accountable. It’s important to encourage collaboration between these journalists and the other participants at this conference.

Jim McNair: Terry Forcht, owner of a series of nursing homes (and other entities), is a low-profile but influential businessman in Kentucky. The story commences with cases of abuse alleged to have happened at some of Forcht’s nursing homes. These cases compelled him to look into political contributions from Forcht and his associates.

NIMSP data allowed Jim to identify all contributors associated with Forcht and his company. Favorable legislation for the nursing home industry was introduced in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Those voting “yea” averaged significantly larger totals from Forcht and his allies than those voting against the bill. Eventually more than $190,000 went to candidates to pass this bill. While legislators insisted they had never met Forcht and he didn’t “buy their vote,” it’s important to lay it out there for the public to decide.

The story didn’t incite a riot, but it was well received by some including nursing home advocates and campaign finance activists.

Q: How does data impact this kind of story?

Jim: The biggest challenge is visibility, not necessarily the data. The Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting relies heavily on partners and pickups. Also, Facebook and other forms of social media are the most important tool for promoting these stories.


Peter Overby wanted to do a story on 501(c)(4)s because it was known they were moving money around for political purposes. Fundamental question: What happens to that money when it arrives at these organizations? Specifically, what happens when 501(c)(4)s give to other 501(c)(4)s? They don’t disclose their donors, but they have to disclose the spending. With that, you can create a roadmap.

Peter looked at Wellspring Committee due to their involvement in a Michigan judicial race, where a recently elected judge had been attacked by American Justice Partnership. Wellspring Committee, which had given money to American Justice Partnership, disclosed only two of its donors: Rosebush Corporation & American Democracy Alliance. All of its other donors were other 501(c) groups. The story that emerged was that Wellspring was a test run for the Koch Brothers’ network for how to move money around.

Kytja Weir: “Who is calling the shots in state politics?” Ad Wars bought a database from Kantar Media to track political TV ads in order to create a web app that tells you who is spending the most in each state, who is spending the most on advertising and, using NIMSP data, who their biggest contributors are. Overall, more was spent on gubernatorial races than on U.S. Senate races, which underscores the importance of state politics.

The winner usually outspent opponents in advertising. Outside groups made up about 20 percent of spending. About $25 million came from dark money groups.

CPI did about a dozen different stories using this data and published with their partners, as well as shared them with the Associated Press. This attracted the attention of a lot of reporters. The Center chose to buy the data, even though similar data became publicly available from the FCC in 2014, because the FCC data is difficult to access and doesn’t contain information about the content of ads. FCC data may also not be complete (e.g. some are not reported to FCC because they claim it’s not a race of “national importance”).

In state supreme court races they found 35 examples of judges having conflicts of interest, meaning the judge or his/her spouse had a financial interest in companies with a vested interest in the rulings being handed down. This does not comply with federal law. They encountered numerous problems in accessing the data. In fact, in a few states you have to go there in person to obtain the records. Some judges only reported the industry, not the company. There is also bad information on the forms.

Lobbying data is very difficult because a lot of states don’t even disclose lobbying data, despite the fact that this is where most of the money is being spent. The big question is how we get this data, which may be the next major challenge in campaign finance transparency.


Q and A

Kytja: How do you show causality? How do you show a vote has been bought? A contribution is not enough. Finding a way to convey that to the reader is difficult.

Peter: It’s important to describe the relationships, rather than simply saying one necessarily caused the other.

Jim: Let the data speak for itself. You often have to leave that up to the reader. Peter: Public’s perception of corruption is markedly different from that of a legislator.

Kytja: Exploring the human element is important for people to understand these relationships. This gets to the “So What?” question. Give one example so people can track it.

Q: When looking at recipients of money, are there any differences in amounts, frequency, leadership positions?

Jim: Not by much. Majority/Speaker types get more. But the difference was $500-$1000 at the low end to $10,000 on high end. They spread the money out. Access buys time. Time buys compassion. Compassion turns legislators into stewards of the industry or, at worst, one captured by industry. It is really the slow purchases of the legislative process. Speaking about it in terms of representatives of the industry. Research should look at the process rather than just the vote.

Kytja: Don’t immediately assume a small contribution doesn’t influence lawmakers. Campaign finance laws are a prophylactic, not a “gotcha” procedure. Explore the networks surrounding the lobbyists as best you can. Those relationships are so important.

Bert: Covering these relationships is not as sexy as “smoking gun” stories. How do you overcome that?

Q: Is transparency good in itself? Is it now more difficult for TV to be transparent?

Peter: Journalists almost always err on the side of transparency.

Kytja: There is no such thing as too much transparency. Do we need to explain why corruption is a problem? I don’t think so. Readers assume that it’s a problem. Fewer journalists following politics now makes it harder and harder to uncover these problems. It’s critical that journalists outsource some of the work, which is where NIMSP comes in.

Q: What are the best practices?

Jim: Get the stories to us! He never has a problem taking cold calls from someone with a hot story.


Peter: Strive for a comprehensive overview. Try to connect the dots

Kytja: Documentation is key. Tips get thrown out all the time. Be sure to give them something to verify the claims in the potential story.

Bert: Both the Institute and CRP can help with these projects.

CUTTING-EDGE DATA SOLUTIONS Greg Schneider, Information Systems Director, National Institute on Money in State Politics Ken Feaster, Senior Information Systems Specialist, NIMSP Scott Wahl, Information Systems Specialist, NIMSP

Greg Schneider noted the new technology introduced by the Institute is meant to facilitate the great work everyone in the room is doing. Gathering and displaying the data effectively is important because in essence “data is us.” It’s a representation of the things we do. Combining data sets has increased our understanding of the world around us and yielded many benefits, not least increased accountability. In that effort, NIMSP data is only one piece in a larger puzzle. Greg stressed the collaborative nature of the transparency movement’s work. Not only are we building off past work to improve our data, we need investigation and research to fill out the puzzle and provide context to that data. When all these components come together, we can create a “science fiction democracy” with better outcomes in government, health, and overall prosperity.

Ken Feaster thanked everyone for the work they do and their attention to detail in such important areas. He then asked everyone to imagine a world without transparency. Without data, how do we look back and evaluate decisions? We only know the impacts of decisions through data. The Institute wants

Saturday, May 30


to make sure anybody can access and use the data, which has driven its recent efforts. The Institute has launched its new website and uploaded as much data in a year and a half as it had in the last 20 years. In addition, the My Legislature tool was created, allowing the public to see bills, bill sponsors, and money to policymakers that might affect legislation. Ken also rolled out the new parent-child contribution tool, which allows one to find contributions by companies and all their identified subsidiaries in one simple search.

Scott Wahl is creating artificial intelligence that can identify previously unseen patterns in the Institute’s data. To do this, he looks at the relationships between candidates and their donors. For example, he looked at New York state Senator Skelos and state Representative Silver, the focus of recent scandals. He found that out of all the other New York state legislators, Silver had the most donors in common with Skelos, despite belonging to different parties and chambers. Scott also showed how artificial intelligence could uncover donor strategies, demonstrating how contributors fell into either ideological or pragmatic categories on both sides of the political spectrum. As more data sets become available, Scott will be able to create a richer picture of relationships between donors and politicians that will increase the potential of this artificial intelligence.

MAJOR NEW DEMOCRACY INITIATIVES Moderator: Jeff Malachowsky, Director, Civil Society Program, Wellspring Advisors Jean Bordewich, The Madison Initiative, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation Lucas Welch, Director, The Pluribus Project

Jeff Malachowsky: It’s remarkable how the internet has allowed us to have a staff that does great national data work headquartered on “Last Chance Gulch.”

We have major new democracy initiatives. Funders have particular roles in our democratic system, and particular powers and levers to help make it more effective. At the best, they do a lot more than merely write checks. Their political independence, their long time frames and wide-ranging perspectives, and their financial independence provide them unique abilities to do deep thinking about large issues, without worrying about losing an election or going bankrupt.

Lucas Welch: The Pluribus Project was spawned by Stephen Heintz’s (president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund) concern that democracy was skewing toward special interests, and that the skew was actually affecting almost every issue the foundation was working on. The project has financial


independence but doesn’t make grants, and makes an effort to not cannibalize the money-in-politics funding.

Candidates are actors motivated to win office. What they need to win influences their actions in office. Who they need, they heed. Right now there is very much a set “best practice” to run a successful campaign, but changes in society/technology/demographics could change this. The Pluribus Project wants to help identify innovations that will help candidates win, relying more on human capital than financial capital. Rather than focusing on policy, we hope to cultivate a viable, people-powered playbook so that candidates can win without relying so much on special interests. This is unlikely to have major systemic impact until 2018 or later, and would not on its own address the full scope of the problem, but it could change how campaigns are run and, with it, whom they feel beholden to. What’s important is to have candidates win using these methods, and people will start copying—if currently underrepresented groups see how people-power campaigns can win, they might climb into the arena.

Struck by the rapid change in society—the changes in technology, social organization, and demographics—this flux presents a chance to tackle problems. The project will capitalize on this flux to fix two focal areas: reduce candidate reliance on special interests and dispel the cynicism created by that reliance.

How would this work? Capitalize on changes. For example, are TV ads actually important, especially as Millennials come into the voting population? Influential people on social networks who can share media with friends will come to be much more effective than money to buy ads.

Thus, they want to bring new money into money in politics. How do we harness the organized creativity of the new economy? How do we convince the emerging blocs in society to see money in politics as a major issue?

What is the ecosystem of innovation in the private sector? How can we mimic it in the public sector? Also, bring in new investors and entrepreneurs who know how to be disruptive. That will be a big focus over the next couple of months.


Jean Bordewich gave a brief overview of the Madison Initiative at the Hewlett Foundation. The new president of Hewlett believes that polarization and gridlock are major threats to our democracy. In March 2014, the board authorized the Madison Initiative to make grants in relation to these issues.

The focus of the Madison Initiative is Congress. A major problem is the transition from the Reagan- O’Neill collaboration to the Obama-Boehner freeze-out. The Madison Initiative has the goal of helping Congress govern better by creating conditions for Congress and its members to deliberate, negotiate, and compromise in ways that work for most Americans. It is making grants in three main program areas: Congress, campaigns and elections, and citizen engagement through better voter information and media coverage.

How do you measure success? In this work, timelines are unclear, systems are complex, and outcomes are qualitative. But there are vital signs to watch, including ideological distribution of Congress, bipartisan co-sponsorship rates, timeliness of budgets and appropriations, party unity voting patterns, and public confidence in Congress.

Campaign finance is clearly a part of the crisis. On the federal level, change is blocked now in Congress, which is unable to address the problems created by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Some states and cities are enacting their own campaign finance systems, which New York City has had for years. Disclosure is key, but not the end of the conversation. How does technology change money in politics? Nobody has the answer, but this is an important question.

The Madison Initiative also is funding thought leadership to inject new ideas in the debates over reform of Congress, the political system, and campaign finance. It is trying to create support for reform across a wider ideological spectrum, not limited to progressives alone.


Q and A

Q: Do you see tension between new focus on technology and disruption versus the very old-school precinct-walking tactics some insurgents use successfully?

Q: New technology isn’t fighting polarization—it might actually be building it. Could increased tech/social networks in campaigns actually further polarization?

Q: How do we really embrace new citizens/new demographic blocks in the process?

Lucas: Tech jargon/centrism can be shortsighted. He doesn’t believe that the Pluribus Project falls into “the new app I made will fix democracy” category. He sees interesting tension between old and new, but also between the sort of conventional wisdom of political professionals versus empirically effective tactics. Some of the most exciting things are using tech to do old-school things, such as face-to-face conversations. With regards to polarization, Lucas thinks it’s a real risk and acknowledges they will have to keep a close eye on that.

Q: A key goal is bringing in new demographics and overcoming the money hurdles they face (ie Latinos are going to need people power to punch their weight).

Jean: We are looking at how demographic change is affecting issues such as polarization. Hewlett is working at finding ways to mitigate tech-based polarization. A lot can be done by combining personal campaigning with new tools.

Q: There’s a big digital divide, in terms of low income and rural voters. How do these programs address this?

Q: In terms of money and politics, how can we look 5-10 years ahead and look for ways to make changes based on the need to prepare for opportunities to turn the tide as scandals pop out?

Q: Is our work feeding cynicism by elucidating the problems? How can we be less sad?

Jean: Right now, we don’t have grants specifically addressing the digital divide, but engaging unengaged citizens is important. Some organizing institutions such as parties or unions are weaker than before. But engaging more people in the democratic process is key, and Hewlett funded research into the changing demographics of the American electorate, which was released earlier this year. Cynicism is an obstacle to change, and part of the problem is the attitude, which has grown since the 1970s, that government is the problem, not an institution that can solve problems and help people.

Lucas: To bridge the digital divide, we must look at context. And once again, this isn’t an app problem. It might be empirically testing the best radio strategy in rural areas. Also, we have to move past blame.


If the problem is indifference (i.e. they don’t think it’s a big problem), talking about how bad stuff is might get people involved. If the core problem is cynicism, harping on corruption won’t help mobilize people. Finding means of providing people a sense of agency is likely to be more successful. Find ways to show impact.

Jean: We try to not be negative. Constituents do matter, and candidates hate fundraising. Describing everything as corruption hurts efforts for reform, because it increases distrust.

Q: How will citizens organize themselves in the future? How will this change? Old institutions are being replaced as new voters are joining new networks instead of those institutions.

Q: There’s a new book about why young folks don’t like politics yet love philanthropic stuff, in part because there aren’t a lot of politics in homes. Should we target parents instead? We tell parents to model good practices at family meals, not drinking, etc. Why not politics?

Q: People don’t have information that makes them want to engage. We have weak sources of factual information. Are people interested in funding basic voter information?

Jean: We fund lot of voter information projects using new technology. There are more than 30 internet-based voter information sites. How do we get this information to people who might not vote at all, instead of people who are going to vote but want more info? Voting is a habit. Should we allow 16-year-old voting, so that schools can actually get the habit started? Institutions and congressional districts are place-based, but social networks are often dispersed. That mismatch challenges our electoral system.

Lucas: We can’t focus on everything, so we are not planning to do much with voter information. The networks question is a complex challenge. Networks are best when there are issues that are ready to tip, with a lot of groundwork already laid. Figuring out how we can leverage the potential for broader social change is a key question for us to grapple with.

MOVING AHEAD: INNOVATIVE CASE STUDIES Moderator: Carmen López, Policy Officer, Money in Politics, Thornburg Foundation Viki Harrison, Executive Director, New Mexico Common Cause Trip Jennings, Executive Director, New Mexico In Depth

Carmen López Partnering with Common Cause New Mexico and New Mexico In Depth, the Thornburg Foundation launched a public education campaign in Fall 2014, organized around the New Mexico Pledge, which focuses on three policy areas:


• Everyone deserves to know – improving disclosure and transparency in New Mexican campaign and lobbying activity.

• Everyone is held accountable – form an ethics and campaign practices authority to uphold compliance and enforcement.

• Everyone can participate – expand public campaign financing availability for New Mexican candidates to promote accountability to constituents rather than contributors.

Carmen emphasized the importance of reaching out to all sectors in a community. Transparency is a concern for many small and mid-sized business owners; they want a fair playing field with effective competition, especially with local and state contracts.

Viki Harrison spearheaded the campaign to pass a disclosure bill through New Mexico’s legislature. She emphasized the importance of a positive campaign by focusing criticism on the political system, rather than individual politicians. Common Cause New Mexico, with help from the Thornburg Foundation, was able to finance public polling among New Mexicans for campaign finance reforms. The results

indicated strong support for all measures, including the establishment of independent redistricting and ethics commissions, independent spending disclosure, and public campaign financing. Reaching out to editorial boards of papers across the state, they generated strong public support and 3,000+ calls to legislators advocating these reforms. Common Cause New Mexico is also pushing for public financing and transparency reforms in New Mexico’s three largest cities.

Trip Jennings has a long history with investigative journalism, working on state political issues across the country. Moving to New Mexico, Jennings was struck by the state’s anemic ethics and disclosure laws. At New Mexico In Depth (NMID), Trip strives to balance advocacy and journalism in his work, arguing that reporters should be advocates for transparency and accountability. Two days before New Mexico’s 2015 legislative session, NMID published a comprehensive legislative guide, highlighting ethical and disclosure issues and areas of concern. NMID’s data journalist created a searchable database of New Mexico’s contribution and lobbying data. NMID is is planning to host community meetings around the state and to train fellow journalists in data journalism. Journalists should be working to present information in a meaningful way to the public, using the new tools and technology available.


BEST EFFORTS TO SCALE IT OUT! Moderator: Chris Gates, President, Sunlight Foundation Jared DeMarinis, Director, Candidacy & Campaign-Finance, Maryland State Board of Elections Megan McAllen, Associate Counsel, Campaign Legal Center Ann Ravel, Chair & Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

All of the panelists said they want to focus on the positive this year.

Jared DeMarinis is hoping to make 2015 a positive year to ward off all the negativity in the campaign finance arena. In Maryland, the governor was elected using public financing. The only initiative of the governor that passed intact was to restore public financing. Maryland has a Republican who believes in public financing and Maryland should build off that.

Jared noted that, while Citizens United was a “horrible” decision, the positive impact across the nation is that average people now are aware of dark money and super PACs. That makes it easier for lawmakers to pass bills. He added that recent gerrymandering can have a positive impact on disclosure too, because more and more often elections are decided in the primaries, which took a partisan issue and moved it into a nonpartisan fight. “So those things that were negative we’re trying to spin positive for the disclosure element.”

Maryland now includes independent expenditures in reporting for corporate contributions, and he wants to increase the penalties and fines for not reporting political expenditures and contributions. He’d also like to see faster turnaround of campaign finance information, and thinks that’s possible due to technology and “real time” reporting. “We just have to refocus ourselves. Get a new set of eyes to give a fresh perspective and we can move forward and have a positive impact.”

Megan McAllen agreed that disclosure issues seem to have become more resonant to the general public thanks to Citizens United and the rise of dark money. The decision’s strong support for disclosure has also enabled litigators to defend state disclosure laws successfully against a broad array of challenges and, as a result, disclosure remains fertile ground for legislative innovation at the state level. However, court cases challenging disclosure show no signs of abating, so Megan emphasized the need for careful drafting. She was also mindful that the way we talk about CU and McCutcheon might alienate ordinary people because of the focus on corruption, and she cautioned against focusing on the negativity.

Ann Ravel said that, while the FEC continues to be deadlocked on a number of significant issues, she is focusing on the positive: how to provide greater disclosure to the public in a user-friendly way, and how to be generally more responsive to the public. She noted that the FEC has 30 million annual transactions on their website, so they are doing a really good job of providing important information to the public. However, it is difficult for the average person to wade through the data and access the

Faster turnaround of campaign finance information is possible through technology and “real time” reporting.


information that they need. "We have embarked on an ambitious project that may be a couple of weeks out, " Ravel said, adding that right now they are beta testing a new website. "We are doing new API open sourcing that anybody can build on to get the information they want. Ultimately, disclosure will be better." Yet, there are still problems with the data itself, Ann said. The FEC cannot ensure that donors give the same name and address when filing reports. Also, some reports are missing information and the automatic filing process does not reject those reports. These are matters that the FEC will continue to work on to provide the most complete campaign finance information possible.

Ann noted that she is working on making what has been an insular agency into one that is receptive to public input. As one example, there was a public hearing on the McCutcheon Supreme Court case where 32,000 members of the public commented about campaign finance issues, and many members of the public, as well as academics and representatives of the campaign finance community, testified before the commission. The commission is now considering how to make more information, and documents, about the business of the agency readily available to the public.

Q and A

A hearty discussion ensued among the group regarding disclosure and public distrust of the process, including a suggestion to create a clearinghouse that shows good examples of public successes that positively affect people’s lives, like raising the minimum wage and affordable health care, to show the public that the public policy news isn’t all bad. One participant suggested that NIMSP could be the repository, and when journalists are working on a story the staff can connect them with a real person so it’s not just data but a human face that tells the story. An example is a group in Colorado who puts together brief vignettes with contact information to give to reporters.

next generation transparency · 2014 game changers participants: foundation officers & national...

Documents