1. The Underlying Context: Access to Political/Legal Remedies
1.1. Power in the System
1.1.1. Problem of Power in the System
l Government is passive and responsive to power
l Replacement of a vertical society with a horizontal one (e.g., based on professional associations)
l Active attempts to take away leverage (e.g. Limitations placed on LSC advocacy)
1.1.2. Remedies for Systemic Power Problems
1.1.2.1. Increase Access to Decision Making
l Campaign finance reform
l Incentives for balanced advocacy
l Increasing independence of agencies
l Enhancing access to the courts
l Exposing governmental decisions to public examination
1.1.2.2. Maximize Influence In Existing System
l Report cards
l Direct lobbying
l Combining forces
1.2. Gaining Access to the System
1.2.1. The Importance of Campaign Contributions to Access
1.2.1.1. Problem of Campaign Contributions
l Direct impact of contribution on desired outcome is not proven, but there is still a clear advantage based on access
l Power organized around
¡ Defense of existing capital investment
¡ Advantage to those organized around their financial stake
¡ Focus on immediate economic consequences and not long-term goals
1.2.1.2. Remedies for Campaign Contribution Issues
1.2.1.2.1. Surrogate Giving as an Incomplete Remedy
l Advocates poor and unorganized
l Political giving by charitable interests is legally barred
l Service providers do not always place the interests of children above their own
1.2.1.2.2. Campaign Contribution Regulation
1.2.1.2.2.1.Initial Attempt at Regulation of Campaign Contributions
l Contribution-side approach was to limit amount and identify donor
l Circumvention by PACS and soft money (i.e. money raised by national and state parties that is not regulated by federal campaign finance law because, it is for generic “party building” activities)
Buckley v. Valeo
424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Campaign contributions may be regulated in amount because the state has an interest in combating corruption.
Campaign expenditures can’t be limited because there is no compelling state interest.
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
528 U.S. 377 (2000).
Money is not speech, so contributions can be limited.
1.2.1.2.2.2.Responses to Circumvention of Campaign Contribution Restraints
l Majority approach is stillcontribution limitations + disclosure
l Minority approaches
¡ Clean Money campaign reform
¡ Matching funds
¡ Refundable tax credits
¡ Pa
with profit/stake interest
l External info dominated by profit/stake interest
1.2.2.1.2. Remedies for Executive Branch Advocacy
l Statutes
¡ Administrative procedure acts govern how agencies adopt rules and generally require a public process, including notice, opportunity for public comment and public hearings
¡ Sunshine statutes = open meetings + advance agenda
l Board members
¡ Disclose holdings in industry regulated
¡ Recuse themselves where there is a material interest
¡ Refrain from employment as a lobbyist
1.2.2.2. Access to State Legislatures
1.2.2.2.1. Problems with State Legislatures
1.2.2.2.1.1.Legal Passivity
l Drafting of legislation is done by private interests
l No lobbying for children
¡ Minimal independent lobbying presence
¡ Lobbyingconducted by horizontally organized service providers
n Minimal assets
n Rights of children aren’t the priority
¡ Commercial and organized interests at odds (even if not consciously hostile)
