Author: Sheila Krumholz

Although two campaign finance-related court rulings issued today are not as surprising as the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, they both have profound implications for the upcoming elections — and beyond.

First, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission that the government may not limit donations to groups established to make independent political expenditures.

Second, a special three-judge panel issued a ruling against the Republican National Committee in its quest to bring back “soft money” fund-raising on behalf of state and local parties, ruling unanimously to uphold the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. The RNC’s lawyer, Jim Bopp, has already announced the committee’s intent to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

Deep-pocketed interest groups certainly gained political advantage through the recent Citizens United decision. The deeper those pockets are, the more influence corporations, unions and other organizations may now directly wield over politics — and even policy, through the threat of big independent expenditures and electioneering advertising buys.

Today’s en banc decision in the SpeechNow case, though widely anticipated, strengthens that advantage by allowing interests to spend bigger and more freely by using a new tactic — “independent expenditure groups.” Going forward, there will be no limits placed on contributions to these new entities. The positive — and important — news is that the court also ruled that continued registration and disclosure will be required. This isn’t enough to stem the influx of political money that’s headed our way, but it’s critical protection for the public to know who is bankrolling a political expenditure. We citizens need this information to judge for ourselves the motivations and credibility of a political interest.

While this may not be the stunner that was the Citizens United decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in late January, make no mistake about it: This is a big deal. More avenues for more entities and individuals to send big money into electioneering campaigns means more money for the rest of us — more money to investigate, that is.

And given that the Center for Responsive Politics has estimated that the 2010 elections would cost at least $3.7 billion even without the additional spending now expected because of the Citizens United and SpeechNow cases, today’s ruling means that the sums expended, the political stakes and the investigative burden will all be that much higher.

Good thing, then, that CRP has trained eyes on all that data.

In fact, just the other day, CRP researcher Carolyn Sharpe saw a huge contribution far in excess of federal limits — $175,700 — while pouring over FEC data. Given that soft money has been banned for years, this anomaly is the kind of thing that our dogged researchers are accustomed to pouncing on. Carolyn contacted the FEC to ask about the contribution that she thought was probably a mistake.

It isn’t.

In fact, she had stumbled upon a contribution to a new federally registered committee, EMILY’s List Women Vote — a committee like the one considered in the SpeechNow case.

Only EMILY’s List Women Vote is an independent expenditure committee with a twist: It is independent expenditure group that’s affiliated with the EMILY’s List political action committee that makes direct contributions to federal candidates. And EMILY’s List Women Vote received a $175,700 contribution from a single individual — media mogul Fred Eychaner.

Is there a firewall between the two EMILY’s List entities? Does it really matter if there is? How many other operations have taken note and set up shop to replicate the EMILY’s List Women Vote variation (including PAC affiliation) on the SpeechNow theme? Only time — and presumably new court challenges and FEC complaints and rulings — will tell.

What is certain: Change has been visited upon our campaign finance laws — and not the kind proposed by Barack Obama’s administration. Now is not the time to “wait and see what happens in November.” We need our best investigators trained on where the money is coming from, going to and how. Disclosure must be protected. Democracy hangs in the balance, as always.

That, and hang onto your seats, because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Sheila Krumholz is the Center for Responsive Politics’ executive director

In honor of Ada Lovelace Day — Lovelace being the world’s first programmer (HT Ellen Miller!) — I want to kick things off by introducing our talented women on staff who help bring you OpenSecrets.org.

Each of them is contributing to our Capital Eye blog today, including researchers Carolyn Sharpe and Erin Williams, and intern Cassandra LaRussa. And I want to take a moment to pay special tribute to two “CRP women in technology” that I admire: IT Director Susi Alger and Research Director Jihan Andoni.

Susi has been at the Center nearly 11 years and keeps our data and systems humming — an admirable feat given the complexity and depth of our data. Her work is even more of a challenge considering she’s charged with obtaining adequate software and necessary equipment on a shoestring budget. Susi has kept this data shop up and running, seemingly with spit and duct tape. Susi is one of the hardest working women I know. (She’s always online! Does she ever sleep? That is, when she’s not conducting the — literally — round-the-clock processing that presidential cycle data demand.)

Jihan is the heart of a research staff that is the core of the Center’s work. Originally hired as CRP’s database manager in 1999, Jihan was appointed research director in 2007. The data and information that Jihan and her staff produce is the fundamental work of our organization, and Jihan’s work ethic and positive, encouraging nature provide the glue that binds her hard-working team. The tech-smarts, political finance expertise and commitment to excellence of these two women are part of the reason why CRP is widely viewed as the premier group tracking money in federal politics.

We encourage you to honor Ada Lovelace by reading today’s entries and please comment, retweet (using the #ALD10 tag) or post the ideas that these talented women will be presenting to your Facebook page. Or better yet, if you have a blog or would like to start one, join us in posting a blog item of your own!

Sheila Krumholz is the Center for Responsive Politics’ executive director

It’s with great sadness that the Center for Responsive Politics today learned of the death of former Sen. Charles “Mac” Mathias.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Mike Mansfield once dubbed Sen. Mathias, a Republican from Maryland, the “conscience of the Senate.” Such a title is fitting for a man who eagerly worked for and with people from across the political spectrum while advocating for issues such as increased government transparency and accountability.

After retiring from the Senate in 1987, Sen. Mathias employed his passion for open government during the 1990s as a member of the Center for Responsive Politics’ board of directors.

The expertise and experience he offered proved invaluable as the Center fought to shine light into the dark corners of government, particularly during the early years of the Internet.

The Center’s thoughts today are with Sen. Mathias’ family.