SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS - National Institute on Money in Politics at Flathead Lake Lodge, Bigfork, Montana - FollowTheMoney.org
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
National Institute on Money in Politics
at Flathead L ake L odge, Bigfor k, M ontana
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MONEY IN POLITICS
833 N. Last Chance Gulch • Helena, MT 59601
406-449-2480 • information@followthemoney.org
www.FollowTheMoney.org
Letter to Participants from Edwin Bender
First, thank you for traveling to Montana. We hope the effort will be well worth your while.
The 2018 elections promise to offer much for the history books. Their importance is
amplified by the redistricting plans that will define the next decade of elections.
Perhaps more important, the upcoming political races may signal a profound shift in the
evolution of our democracy. In 2016, we experienced an assault on our most fundamental of
democratic processes by a foreign government. Whether the attacks were effective or not,
the presidential election resulted in leadership that has further challenged the underpinnings
of our representative form of governing by attacking judges and the courts, by attacking
journalists and the media, by attacking specific individuals and entire ethnic populations of
our country. The upcoming
political races
Discontent with this leadership is widespread, as is a fundamental understanding that we
urgently need to update our electoral, public policy, and governing processes if our
democracy is to evolve in a healthy direction. The Institute’s verifiable facts support those
who are searching for democracy’s new terra firma. may signal a
A brand new Pew Research Center report, “The Public, The Political System and American profound shift
Democracy,” puts a fine point on these concerns: “...there is broad support for making
sweeping changes to the political system: 61% say ‘significant changes’ are needed in the in the
fundamental ‘design and structure’ of American government to make it work for current
times.”
evolution of
We believe the work of the Institute is foundational to such sweeping changes, by informing
policy debates with hard facts about: our
●
democracy.
the impact of contribution limits on electoral competitiveness
● the potential of small-dollar donor policies to enhance candidate-to-voter
interactions
● the impact of independent spending
● the value of transparency for building trust in candidates and elected lawmakers
While there are no simple solutions to correcting the current situation, we know that the
enduring changes that must be made for the health of our democracy and all its peoples
must be grounded in hard facts to flourish.
Thank you again for joining us these few days. We have much work to do. Together.
Searching for Terra Firma2018 Participants
Jennifer Ahearn, Policy Counselor, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington
Alicia Bannon, Senior Counsel Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice
Edwin Bender, Executive Director, National Institute on Money in Politics. NIMP Board of Directors
Kathy Bonnifield, Program Officer, Judicial Independence, Piper Fund
Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director, Action Center for Race & the Economy
Bert Brandenburg, Senior Advisor, Ward Circle Strategies. NIMP Board President
Amy Brown, Senior Program Officer, Civic Engagement & Government, Ford Foundation
Chandra Brown, Consultant, Georgia Water Coalition
Calder Burgam, Researcher, National Institute on Money in Politics
Kevin Connor, Director of Public Accountability Initiative, LittleSis
Charlie Cray, Interim Director, Political & Business Unit, Greenpeace
Tam Doan, Research & Policy Director, Every Voice Center
Joseph Donohue, Deputy Director, New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission
Liz Dupee, Director, Washington Democracy Hub
Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. NIMP Board of Directors
Alicia Garza, Strategy & Partnerships Director, National Domestic Workers Alliance
Keesha Gaskins-Nathan, Program Director, Democratic Practice, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Christopher T. Gates, Philanthropic and Nonprofit Advisor. NIMP Board of Directors
Brendan Glavin, Data & Systems Manager, Campaign Finance Institute
Rosalind Gold, Senior Director, Policy, Research & Advocacy, NALEO Educ’l Fund. NIMP Bd. Directors
Emma Greenman, Director of Voting Rights & Democracy, Center for Popular Democracy
Karen Hobert Flynn, President, Common Cause
Kristin Izumi-Nitao, Executive Director, Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission
Ruth Jones, Prof. of Politics & Global Studies, Arizona State Univ. Campaign Finance Institute Bd. Directors
Shannon Clark Kief, Legal Program Director, Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission
Chris Kromm, Executive Director & Publisher, Facing South/Institute for Southern Studies
Melissa Price Kromm, Coalition Director, North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections
Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director, Center for Responsible Politics
Maria Kurtz, Data Acquisition Director, National Institute on Money in Politics
Searching for Terra FirmaCarmen López-Wilson, Policy Officer, Good Government Reforms, Thornburg Foundation
Amy Loprest, Executive Director, New York City Campaign Finance Board
Beverly Magley, Projects Director, National Institute on Money in Politics
Jeff Malachowsky, Director, Civil Society Program, Wellspring Philanthropic Fund. NIMP Board of Directors
Michael Malbin, Executive Director/Co-Founder, Campaign Finance Institute
Keely Monroe, Democracy Program Manager, Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation
Jodeen Olguín-Tayler, Program Officer, Civil Society, Wellspring Philanthropic Fund. NIMP Board Directors
Ciara O’Neill, Researcher, National Institute on Money in Politics
Jennifer Pae, Director, FairVote California
Geri D. Palast, Executive Director, JFNA/JCPA Israel Action Network. NIMP Board Secretary
Kristee Paschall, Owner, Paschall Strategies
Trevor Potter, Founder & President, Campaign Legal Center
Peter Quist, Research Director, National Institute on Money in Politics
Ann M. Ravel, Fellow, New America. Professor, UC Berkeley School of Law. NIMP Board of Directors
Kimberly Reed, Producer/director, “Dark Money” documentary
Christine E. Robertson, Co-Founder and Director, Digital Democracy. NIMP Board of Directors
Denise Roth Barber, Managing Director, National Institute on Money in Politics
Greg Schneider, Information Systems Director, National Institute on Money in Politics
J T Stepleton, Researcher, National Institute on Money in Politics
Trellis Stepter, Program Officer, Democratic Values, Mertz Gilmore Foundation
Scott Wahl, Data Scientist, National Institute on Money in Politics
Gordon Witkin, Executive Editor, Center for Public Integrity
NIMP Board of Directors, left to right:
Christopher Gates, Michael Malbin, Ann Ravel,
Christine Robertson, Edwin Bender, Jodeen
Olguín-Tayler, Bert Brandenburg, Geri Palast,
Caroline Fredrickson, Rosalind Gold.
Not pictured: Keith Hamm, Charles E.M. Kolb,
Jeff Malachowsky.
Searching for Terra FirmaPanels & Conversations
DARK MONEY film screening, Q & A with producer/director Kimberly Reed
NIMP & CFI: FORCE MULTIPLIER
Edwin Bender, Executive Director, National Institute on Money in Politics
Amy Loprest, Executive Director, New York City Campaign Finance Board
Michael Malbin, Executive Director, Campaign Finance Institute
Michael provided a brief synopsis of the work the CFI has done over the
years, noting that its research and analyses have been about half federal, and
Michael Malbin:
half state and local. Its unique work with federal data has been to put it into
historical perspective. CFI’s most recent report, CFI’s Guide to Money in The state
Federal Elections, 2016 in Historical Context, is a case in point. CFI also
creates tools to explore the data. Its goal is to highlight key aspects of current campaign finance
races via tools such as the Congressional Independent Spending Primary tool,
which provides real time information on spending in any given race. laws database
CFI also creates and maintains tools for state and local data analysis and
research. Its work on analyzing the impact of various policy scenarios around took four years
small donor programs, begun in 2003, continues to this day. CFI also recently
launched a groundbreaking historical database of state campaign finance laws
and 10,000 hours
that tracks and explains the laws in all of the 50 states since 1996. This
to complete.
database took 4 years and 10,000 hours of work to complete.
Amy discussed how the NYCCFB uses the data they compile to analyze the
city’s campaign finance program to inform their work, as required by law. Presentation.
Edwin completed the discussion with observations on how data and transparency are foundational to our
democracy.
Searching for Terra FirmaTHINKING BIG
Moderator: Jodeen Olguín-Tayler, Program Officer, Civil Society, Wellspring
Philanthropic Fund
Jennifer Ahearn, Policy Counsel, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington
Alicia Garza, Strategy & Partnerships Director, National Domestic Workers Alliance
Jennifer Pae, Director, FairVote California
Trevor Potter, Founder & President, Campaign Legal Center
Denise opened by illustrating how NIMP’s Competitiveness Index can inform redistricting. Presentation.
Jenn Pae discussed diversity in elected government and pointed to ranked-choice voting as a way to
enhance the representativeness of elected officials. It is cheaper administratively, reduces the importance of
fundraising, and results in more positive campaigns. Presentation.
Jennifer Ahearn discussed a new litigation approach CREW is taking
to get around lack of action by the FEC, pointing to a suit directly
against American Action Network (rather than against the FEC) based
Jenn Pae pointed to
on an obscure clause in federal campaign finance law. Later, she
ranked choice voting
discussed being proactively ready for certain likely developments in
the Russia probe rather than simply reactive to findings. as a way to enhance
Trevor discussed how elected officials holding a party majority are the representativeness
increasingly comfortable with using their lawmaking power to benefit
their own party, but there are good efforts happening in the states yet of elected officials.
that may push federal action. He emphasized the importance of
building information in the litigation records in the states in
preparation for SCOTUS being friendlier to campaign finance
regulations.
Alicia discussed how BFL is working on a big data project, essentially a questionnaire of 200,000 black
citizens to better understand what agendas may be effective at improving lives and inspiring more
participation in democratic processes, and exploring new systems to better represent people.
Searching for Terra FirmaEVOLUTION OF SOLUTIONS
Moderator: Christopher T. Gates, Philanthropic & Nonprofit Advisor
Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director, Action Center for Race & the Economy
Courtney Hight, Director, Democracy Program, Sierra Club
Karen Hobert Flynn, President, Common Cause
Chris emphasized the importance of being adaptable to the circumstances in front of us. We all need to
listen to the constituencies we serve to find solutions that work for them.
Maurice offered the perspectives of an organizer who has used campaign finance information in a different
way. He was not normally a “money in politics” user but has found connections he can use in his work. As
an economic justice organizer he sees a direct path from racism and capitalism to the disproportionate
extraction of wealth from communities of color. That direct correlation can make people in power more
vulnerable. This vulnerability was used to facilitate policy change in California using these steps: 1. Use
the knowledge that most of the population does not like corporate power because it does not share our
interests. 2. Identified those in power who received money from particular special interests that wanted to
enact legislation that would adversely affect communities. 3. Used that information to help organizers in
those communities find creative ways to show people that their legislators were not always voting for bills
that would help these communities but instead to help the special interests who gave them money. The
takeaway was that there are other ways to build/exert power other than money.
Groups can make corporate money toxic by showing where it does not share
community interests. Presentation. Karen Hobert-
Karen explained how Common Cause is working to ensure that democracy and Flynn: Connect
money-in-politics reforms do not have a disparate impact on communities of
color. She emphasized: 1. Identify what you want to accomplish and the need to the issues
recognize that there are no “one size fits all” ways to accomplish the reforms
being sought. Experiment and be creative. 2. Find ways to engage local groups
people care
instead of relying on national organizations and using top-down measures to
about to the
accomplish the reforms sought. These top-down solutions often fail; the
wisdom on the ground is usually better than a national consultant. 3. Connect money spent on
the issues people care about to the money spent on campaigns and influencing
elected officials. Reforms are a means to an end. Presentation. campaigns and
Chris described the Democracy Initiative’s work on state and local campaigns, influencing
leadership development, and connecting issues people care about to democracy
reform. He pointed out the importance of sharing information about what other elected officials.
groups in other areas are working on and the solutions that are bringing success.
Searching for Terra FirmaDATA & POWER MAPPING
Moderator: Trellis Stepter, Program Officer, Democratic Values, Mertz Gilmore Foundation
Chandra Brown, Consultant, Georgia Water Coalition
Kevin Connor, Director of Public Accountability Initiative, Little Sis
Liz Dupee, Director, Washington Democracy Hub
Greg Schneider, Information Systems Director, NIMP
Greg Schneider presented a prototype Institute tool that will help users compare the relative power of
special interests in their state.
Greg showed that by integrating multiple data sets -- including contributions, lobbying expenditures,
independent spending, and legislative voting records -- we can gain a deeper understanding of how special
interests influence outcomes. Using the example of a 2016 firearm restraining order bill in California (AB
2607), Greg demonstrated how a coalition that included the NRA and the ACLU was able to defeat the
California Teachers Union, one of the state’s most powerful groups. Presentation.
The integration of all these data sets allows us to see our democracy in new ways and further study aspects
such as monetary influence, monetary party alignment, geographic distribution of power, and donor
efficiency. Greg asked the group three questions to think about going forward:
1. What other data would you like to see connected?
2. What happens if we can answer the questions about money in politics?
3. Who controls those answers?
Chandra provided a case study on how to find environmental allies in a conservative state. Although
Georgia has flipped from Democratic to Republican control, many of the members simply changed their
party affiliation. This has allowed the Georgia Clean Water Coalition to engage members based on issue
rather than party, while crafting a mission that appeals across the ideological spectrum.
The coalition had lost on a string of bills until they started building relationships with community
influencers. Using data from FollowTheMoney.org, they were able to identify major players and engage
citizens. They also used arguments around the importance of clean water for economic development and
property values to bring Tea Party members into the fold. In these ways, they were able to create a network
of influencers that is sustainable over multiple years and policy efforts. Presentation.
Liz discussed the tools the Democracy Hub uses to achieve success in Washington. Democracy Hub has
been a part of a recent string of victories, including passing Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program. Their
coalition includes a diverse group of interests, including labor, environmental, and fair housing. To fill in
Searching for Terra Firmagaps in the movement, Democracy Hub employs power mapping
Liz Dupee: The
and works with others groups on qualitative and quantitative
research. Liz specifically said that the Competitiveness Index tool
at FollowTheMoney.org helped them understand how a lack of
Competitiveness Index tool
turnover and competitiveness is preventing underrepresented
groups from gaining a foothold in state government. at FollowTheMoney helped
In the future, Democracy Hub will continue working in three key them understand how a
areas: building trust in government, protecting the courts, and
training quality candidates for elected office who truly represent lack of competitiveness is
their communities, with a focus on recruiting more women and
people of color. preventing under-
Kevin demonstrated how LittleSis (opposite of Big Brother) represented groups from
provides research and tools to understand power structures that are
shaping policy. LittleSis includes network maps that connect the gaining a foothold in state
dots between influential individuals and organizations. Kevin
described it as an involuntary Facebook for the rich and powerful. government.
Though it started with members of the Fortune 500, it has
expanded to cover political players as well. Since everything is
sourced, it is a reliable place for information. Kevin walked through how the Oligrapher tool can provide
compelling narratives about decision-makers, influencers, and policy. In one example, LittleSis research
showed now-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer supporting the 2014 merger of Time Warner Cable
and Comcast at the same time his brother pushed for the merger as an industry lobbyist. That story led to
Senator Schumer recusing himself from deliberations on the deal in the Senate’s Antitrust Committee.
DATA & POWER MAPPING Q&A
Bert Brandenburg asked how LittleSis’ wiki model worked and how others can contribute. Kevin
Connor responded that anyone can manually upload data or use a Google Chrome extension to easily add
and cite new information.
Rosalind Gold and Emma Greenman asked about how we broaden our understanding of relationships to
include informal connections as well as moving from a local understanding of issues to getting the full
picture of nationwide networks pushing policy change. Chandra Brown pointed out that the Georgia
Clean Water Coalition tracks keeps every piece of information pertaining to relationships between
decision-makers and influencers that they can, but that such information is not something they can make
public. Edwin Bender acknowledged that NIMP cannot capture local knowledge the same way state-
specific organization do, but that he hopes NIMP can create state-specific FollowTheMoney sites that will
allow people on the ground to integrate their data into the NIMP national database. He also mentioned that
Searching for Terra FirmaNIMP hopes to add a national voter file to the database. Pete Quist added
that NIMP is always available to help in mashing data sets together or Pete Quist:
provide assistance identifying opponents and allies using the Similarity
Analysis tool. NIMP can help
Kristee Paschall asked about how we move from research to putting power you mash data
analyses into practice. Chandra Brown responded that she used
FollowTheMoney.org to see who is giving money to candidates and then sets or identify
disseminated that information to local coalition partners for personal contact.
Once those networks are known and relationships are established, they do opponents and
not change much, so relationships just need to be maintained.
allies.
ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM
Moderator: Ann M. Ravel, Fellow, New America. Professor, UC Berkeley School of Law
Chris Kromm, Executive Director & Publisher, Facing South/Institute for Southern Studies
Christine Robertson, Co-founder and Director, Digital Democracy
Gordon Witkin, Executive Editor, Center for Public Integrity
Ann emphasized that the landscape for journalism is a wildly important topic. One investigative journalist
suggested Internet platforms pay “reparations” to traditional news outlets. Ann’s advice: “Those of you
who get your news online: pay for it!” An American Economic Review report found greater corruption in
states where the capital is farther away from the population centers. They surmise that isolation reduces
accountability because newspapers in the population centers were more likely to cover topics close to
home. Conclusion: accountability via the media stops corruption.
Chris provided an overview of the Institute for Southern Studies (ISS). The philosophy of the organization
is to get the info into the hands of the “change makers.” They cover 13 southern states and produce two
major publications: Southern Exposure & the Facing South website. Accountability journalism has always
been a core part of the ISS (e.g. it exposed the subprime lending controversy in 2004, years before the
financial crisis). In another example, nobody knew who Art Pope was in 2008, despite him funding a major
political machine in North Carolina that included advocacy centers, polling firms, media consultants, and
on-the-ground political operations. ISS’s investigative series explored the ecosystem of his political
network; the goal was to “grow the circle.” These stories attracted attention of news shows that took it to
the national level.
Community engagement was a big part of the series: ISS hosted community forums and teach-ins and
attended rallies. This resulted in educators calling for a boycott of Art Pope’s businesses. The arc of the
Searching for Terra Firmastory (over 4 to 5 years) eventually led to him resigning as state budget director. A series on rebuilding the
Gulf Coast applied the same tactics listed above (go national, community engagement, etc.). The
Deepwater Horizon spill motivated ISS to look at Governor McCrory’s push for offshore drilling and his
office’s relationship with lobbyists and political committees. The South Carolina Ethics Commission
provided email exchanges that allowed them to connect the dots. ISS gave this information to advocacy
groups along the coast; Oceana published a report, distributed far and wide. This report contributed to
offshore drilling prohibitions.
ISS serves as a good training ground for investigative journalists. “We train
Gordon Witkin:
bloggers on investigative reporting techniques. We promote and nurture
nonprofit journalism. We created a fellowship to fund investigative journalists CPI focuses on
and their projects.”
special-interest
Gordon introduced CPI, a nonprofit group that focuses on special-interest power
and influence and the way it perverts the policymaking process. There are a lot power and
of great local reporting outlets using this model (e.g. Montana Free Press,
Vermont Digger, Facing South, Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism). influence and
They all operate on a shoestring budget. If you can help, make a contribution.
Coverage of state government has been crippled by the decline of traditional
the way it
media -- most outlets have one or two statehouse reporters. There was a time
perverts the
when it wasn’t uncommon for major publications to have 20 or more.
policymaking
CFI’s State Integrity Investigation remains the most comprehensive nationwide
overview of ethics laws at the state level ever compiled. Each state is assigned a process.
grade and it’s the gift that keeps on giving: it’s always being cited. CPI worked
with partners, which published these reports on other platforms to nationalize the story. Presentation.
An Associated Press collaboration produced the Politics of Pain series on the opioid epidemic and Big
Pharma’s campaign to undermine state regulations. AP was a good fit because they have statehouse
reporters in every state. CPI investigated pharma contributions and lobbying activity at the state level to
block legislation dealing with the opioid epidemic.
The State Insurance Commissioners investigation revealed it’s a revolving door -- most of them become
executives or lobbyists for insurers after they leave that post. You can review your state regulator’s
financial ties. CPI collected 41 of the most recent disclosure reports for insurance commissioners to detail
conflicts of interest and employed a strategy of seeding statehouse reporting by making all of this
information available -- helping them create their own localized version of their stories.
Searching for Terra FirmaThe “Model Legislation” tracker allows you to search for key identifiers in the language to locate “model
legislation” promoted by groups like ALEC. John Oliver used one of CPI’s stories in a widely distributed
clip. That demonstrates how these stories can take off -- it’s a force multiplier effect.
Christine told of the origins of Digital Democracy: “We discovered the California State Legislature did not
provide a transcripts of hearings. There was no record despite being one of the most professional
legislatures in the country and California being the 5th largest economy in the world. How do we bridge
these gaps and empower reporters? We started a California State University project to bring this
information to the people. It searches for keywords in transcripts; uses voice and face identification to
identify the speakers; created a relational database with speaker
profile pages that includes contributions, gifts, behests, bill data, and
outcome of discussions.” Christine Robertson:
How do we bridge the
Digital Democracy is always creating partnerships (“localized
accountability”) and reaching out to community advocates and beat gaps and empower
reporters who are already following statehouse news. Duke
University + Digital Democracy + Politifact partnership created an reporters?
automated fact-checking feed. You can sort by issue type, geography,
and more (e.g. “I want to fact check California legislators talking
about energy”). In progress is a 21st Century Wire Service, an automated solution to the collapse of
statehouse reporting. How do we go from data creator to content creator? Local outlets don’t have the
resources to dig through the data, and the officials are incentivized to avoid coverage.
Digital Democracy creates triggers (bills, interest groups, issues, etc) and provides the summaries (text and
video). Think of it as a “tip sheet” for reporters. Regarding its distribution strategy: “We’re in talks with the
AP, nonprofit outlets (e.g. CalMatters, Texas Tribune). We aim to engage, inform, and empower citizens in
ways they never have before.”
ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM Q&A
Edwin Bender: This technology is the future, and it can work hand-in-hand with our data and others.
Carmen Lopez-Wilson: CPI’s data was used in New Mexico to promote a good government bill and
ethics commission ballot measure. Groups and journalists looked to CPI’s scorecard to determine what
facets of state government are in need of reform.
Gordon: We’ve heard this before. Nothing motivates a state more than getting an “F” on a scorecard. The
project was a “monster” -- we had a reporter on the ground in each state, and they probably got seven cents
an hour once all time was quantified.
Searching for Terra FirmaRosalind Gold: We’re in need of a pipeline -- how’s that going? How do we attract people to these stories
when there are so many unsavory stories out there?
Christine: Right now it’s about opportunity rather than strategy. We’re looking for places most in need of
statehouse reporting. We’re not journalists, but we’re equippers of journalists. That’s why we need to work
with the AP and CalMatters and others who have a distribution network.
Chris: There’s data, which you use to create a story, which you use to create buzz, which you use to create
engagement. The research and data shops are important -- think about each piece of the chain. Take NIMP
data, create a story, put it in the hands of attention getters. There can be a
trickle-down effect: local outlets were finally willing to report on Art Pope Edwin Bender:
after we did. We also train journalists.
The power of
Sheila Krumholz: Is Digital Democracy’s data monetized?
Christine: No, it’s free. If I created something that would help lobbyists, I transparency is
would quit. Right now, we want to make sure everything is free but ensure
there is premium value. mindblowing.
Edwin Bender: Imagine being able to go to a state, find the lobbyist for
Exxon, and watch all of his testimony. The power of that transparency is mindblowing.
Christine: Case in point: we advised advocates of an at-home care bill to first watch the testimony of their
opponents, and build a strategy from there. How do you bring that “in the room insight” to the public?
Learn the key issues that are moving, find the right local distributors, and form a partnership.
Joe Donohue: Are you extending that to committee hearings? Can you go back in time?
Christine: Yes. We pull from archives all the time.
Carmen Lopez-Wilson: What is your strategy for expanding your audience?
Chris: Publication alone is not the goal. Turn it into a national story and use that coverage to strengthen the
local coverage. Try to understand the media ecosystems. It’s a good idea to sponsor and/or attend town hall
forums. We know the journalism is strong, and we know the community engagement strategy is strong.
Gordon: One challenge all investigative journalists have is presenting what we learn to a younger
generation in a visual/mobile format. How do we attract people who won’t read an extended article? A
good data visualization team helps. We can also go directly to citizens with good data tools.
Ann: How do you deal with “clickbait” issues and people’s tendency to pursue polarizing stories?
Gordon: First, establish and take care of your own credibility as journalists (not as advocates). We don’t
speak to anyone about our stories until they are published -- giving someone a heads up demonstrates you
Searching for Terra Firmahave an agenda. We are at a moment where the big distributors (e.g. Facebook, Google) who are
exacerbating this problem are being scrutinized. We may have a brief window to address these problems,
helping distributors optimize their algorithms for trust.
Chris Kromm: Everyone is producing “content.” As long as we’re transparent, maintain the quality of our
stories, and be creative in distribution, we can build an audience and maintain our credibility.
Keesha Nathan-Gaskins: How do we manage and transmit news on social media? How can we use the
trusted content but find ways to get the information into shared spaces where we can settle on the facts?
Gordon: We strive to attract new readers through search engine optimization, modifying headlines, and
picking different quotes to highlight.
Christine: There’s always a dispute over what happened in the legislature. People will differ on how they
interpret a bill. We’re building an algorithm that gives the end user the ability to control the length of an
article, relevance, etc. We need to push the “bias problem” back onto the local media -- the users want to
know the primary source itself.
FRONTLINE REFORM STORIES
Moderator: Kathy Bonnifield, Program Officer, Judicial Independence, Piper Fund
Alicia Bannon, Senior Counsel Democracy Program, Brennan Center for
Justice
Alicia Bannon:
Tam Doan, Research & Policy Director, Every Voice Center
Melissa Price Kromm, Coalition Director, North Carolina Voters for Clean Judicial policies
Elections
have not caught up
Alicia discussed the Brennan Center for Justice’s Fair Courts Project, which
promotes measures to protect judicial independence. She pointed out that with the recent
judicial policies have not caught up with the recent increase in outside
spending; most states do not have adequate rules on ethics, recusal, and increase in outside
spending; most
disclosure. In defending the courts, it is important to focus on reaffirming the
norm that courts are different than the rest of politics –they should be
independent and not a political pawn of parties or the legislature. Alicia said states do not have
that this is a moment where, as we grapple with these elections in a post-
Citizens United world, we can consider fundamental changes. In debates over adequate rules on
judicial selection, we tend to focus only on how judges reach the bench for the
first time but not on the pressure that holding onto one’s job can exert – maybe ethics, recusal, and
we should consider replacing regular elections with a more lengthy single
term. Or, if moving away from elections entirely, be sure to have a strong disclosure.
affirmative vision of what a good appointment system looks like. Presentation.
Searching for Terra FirmaMelissa gave a report of on-the-ground activist work in North Carolina, where the state courts have been
targeted with repeated attempts to undermine judicial independence, including elimination of public
funding for judicial elections, attempts to change elections to partisan races, court-packing, and, most
recently, judicial gerrymandering and an attempt to move toward “merit selection” a.k.a. legislative
appointment of judges. She brought us through the process by which North Carolina Voters for Clean
Elections brought together 35 coalition partners to hold marches, rallies, and “empty chair” town halls.
Through this capacity-building, they were able to gain traction and media attention and endorsements, and
in the week before this Flathead convening, the architect of judicial gerrymandering lost his seat in the
primary election. Presentation. Handout.
Tam described the work that Every Voice Center is doing with analyzing
data from Seattle’s new democracy voucher program. The program was Tam Doan: Seattle
approved by Seattle voters in 2015 and provides every resident in Seattle
with four $25 vouchers. In 2017, more Seattle residents participated as
voucher users were
campaign donors than did in 2013 – 1.4 percent of the voting age
significantly more
population were donors in 2013 and more than 4.2 percent were donors in
2017. When comparing the population that gave via voucher to those who likely to vote.
gave cash in the mayoral race, Every Voice found that the voucher donors
were more evenly distributed throughout the city and more representative
of the city at large in terms of age, color, and gender. Voucher users were
slightly more likely to come from poor neighborhoods and slightly less likely to come from wealthy areas
than cash donors. Voucher users were also substantially more likely to vote in 2017, and Every Voice
found significant impact in terms of organizational outreach. Presentation.
FRONTLINE REFORM Q&A
Melissa was asked about what kind of messaging her group did to reach out and gain the support of
conservative news outlets. She said the key was to go around the state and talk to people on the ground – in
North Carolina, the issue is all about “local control.” For example, going to all-Republican county
commissioners with the talking point that people deciding policy in Raleigh don’t represent the county was
very effective.
Tam was asked what sort of kinks they had found with the voucher program. She explained that some
candidates found the qualifying process to be a challenge, especially those who primarily campaigned
online. Another issue was Washington state’s anti-bundling rules, i.e. a volunteer cannot knock on a door
and help that person get a voucher. A candidate can do so personally, but others cannot act on behalf of the
candidate.
Searching for Terra FirmaWhen asked what they saw as the most important reform for judicial elections, Alicia agreed that public
financing can alleviate problems with judicial pressures – most judges don’t like being put in the position
of having to “dial for dollars.” She said it was also good for expanding the pipeline of candidates. Melissa
added that in North Carolina, 65 percent of voters supported public financing and were not happy in the
first election (2014) without it. She said there is a bill to restore public financing.
Alicia answered a question about what an optimal judicial selection system would look like by talking
about a long-term research project the Brennan Center will soon be releasing. It involves urging states to
look at reframing the debate, i.e. looking at what happens to judges once they’re on the bench and what
impacts they have on the justice system more broadly.
AGENCIES TAKE ACTION
Moderator: Carmen López-Wilson, Policy Officer, Good Government Reforms, Thornburg Ftn.
Joseph Donohue, Deputy Director, New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission
Kristin Izumi-Nitao, Executive Director, Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission
Shannon Kief, Legal Program Director, Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission
Pete Quist noted that in the past year, NIMP has had dozens of conversations with state agencies
concerning data access, transparency, and disclosure, and in some cases NIMP even sends data back to
state agencies or legislative offices to aid in their analyses. This data also goes out to academics and
advocates. Municipalities have contacted NIMP for assistance in setting up their own databases and filing
systems in order to better understand how they can set up a functional campaign finance disclosure system.
In California, large donors must file their own disclosures and NIMP has assisted in identifying those large
donors in order to help the state agency find those entities.
Carmen noted that there is no question about the public will and interest in enforcement. People believe in
fairness and equal application of the law.
Kristin said that Hawaii data is electronically filed by 300 candidates. All of the data is uploaded via an
API to 6 datasets on Socrata. The goal is to have this data digestible in order to have informed voters. The
data is only as good as the input; to increase transparency, they have developed three primary goals:
o Data sets can be searched, filtered, visualized, and downloaded.
o Candidate Data Visualization App - 12 visualizations pulled from the data.
o Election Summary -- how much candidates raise and spend -- info such as cost per vote.
Searching for Terra FirmaThe agency maintains 11 years of data and 132,000 records, all dynamic and updated as candidates amend
reports. The data visualization set is designed to help digest information since data in tables and
spreadsheets are difficult to use. In the candidate data visualization app, it is possible to type in a
candidate's name and a year range to get graphs of their contributions. One of these displays shows
contributions by source, such as individual or PAC. In-state and out-of-state is one other display.
Geomapping is also provided, to show where contributions came from.
PACs have a similar issue with data overload; the data visualization
app for non-candidates provides 14 different displays to help analyze Shannon Kief:
the data. Presentation.
Connecticut went
Shannon explained that Connecticut’s full public finance program
provides grants for statewide candidates and the general assembly, from the bottom of
providing $40 million dollars over a few years. Fully 98 percent of
the filers provide data electronically. The rest raise little and provide the competitive side
information by paper. It took years to get a mandatory electronic
filing law enacted. People are choosing the independent expenditure-
to one of the top
only committee specifically to insulate the donors. Disclosure must
three competitive
happen if an expenditure happens or is obligated. They have
automatic email notification to alert disclosures. elections since the
The lack of layered disclosure is a significant problem since it public finance
becomes difficult to track sources. $18.7 million in independent
expenditures was disclosed; two-thirds of that came from the DGA program began.
and RGA. They found that 84 percent of the donors had DC
addresses; only a small percentage of the donors came from
addresses in Connecticut.
Nearly all statewide and most of the other candidates participated in the public finance program. The
candidates who aren't participating in the public funding program typically are unopposed and do not feel
the need to use that program to aid in their election. As a result of the program, 99 percent of the money
comes from smaller donors. However, there have been a number of attacks on the public funding program.
A budget bill attempted to allow staff to push money to incumbents and not to challengers.
Searching for Terra FirmaThree reasons to eliminate the program were cited:
o No money in the accounts.
o Artificially raises the amount spent in elections.
o Does not have an impact anyway.
Using data, it was possible to prove that the funding existed. Also using data sources (thanks to NIMP),
average costs for running races in the country could be found and then would show that the amount spent
was not artificially high compared to the rest of the country. Connecticut went from the bottom of the
competitive side to one of the top three competitive elections since the program started, showing the exact
opposite of the claim. This data completely changed the conversation. "Public financing is the worst form
of democracy except for all other forms that have been tried." There is a need to educate citizens about the
system.
Joe said he considered it a miracle that the commission was formed, which may have been spurred by
Watergate and New Jersey's own corruption cases that occurred around the same time. New Jersey had one
of the first gubernatorial public finance systems. There has been a push to make more data digital and
available online. All minutes, advisory opinions, and annual reports dating back to the agency's creation
can now be retrieved online. The agency intends to strengthen its data visualizations. They are on the verge
of being all electronic and continue to push for improvements. Candidate expenditures should also be
searchable soon. The agency regulates everything from the governor to local fire districts. This gives data
on local races, which makes New Jersey one of the few states with more comprehensive local data .It is
possible to search the quarterly lobbyist reports in order to get information on which lobbyists have been
working around specific issues.
Independent spending was up 11,000 percent over the course of a few years. Thankfully many groups
coming in to New Jersey are voluntarily disclosing. However, that could transition to dark money.
Presentation.
AGENCIES TAKE ACTION Q&A
Denise Roth Barber asked how Hawaii created the website and whether it was possible to provide this
architecture to other states. Kristin answered that it was all created in-house with a small extra amount
spent for the visualizations. Ideally they want the data to be provided to journalists to send to the public.
Michael Malbin: Do you have enough staff to keep up with data and enforcement? Can you handle
pushback from other sources and deal with compliance?
Searching for Terra FirmaJoe responded that the budget hasn’t changed in New Jersey, but staff changes and digital streamlining
have helped keep up with enforcement. Staffing will have to be improved if the state moves to 24/7
disclosure.
Shannon said that Connecticut cut 40 percent of funding and staffing. It took a lot of time to regain
independence for the commission. At this time, there is not enough staff to properly handle their
responsibilities. This is especially a problem if it isn't possible to get mandatory electronic filing for
municipalities. Investigations are also difficult.
Jennifer Pae: What kind of resources or open-sourcing platform - is there a way to share those resources
with other jurisdictions?
As shown already, California's creation of some of their disclosure systems cut the cost of creating
something in New Mexico by over $1 million. Although New York City's system is not open source, they
have shared some of their resources for other jurisdictions already. Overall, the short answer is that there do
exist some systems for this, but a larger system would be beneficial.
J T Stepleton asked why public funding in Hawaii isn't used. Kristin said the system needs to be updated.
A trust fund was set up and mostly used for administrative purposes. Recent reforms may improve the
public finance system.
Searching for Terra FirmaYou can also read
