American Anti-Corruption Act
The American Anti-Corruption Act (commonly referred to as the "AACA" or "Anti-Corruption Act") is a piece of model legislation designed to limit the influence of money in American politics by overhauling lobbying, transparency, and campaign finance laws. It was crafted in 2011 "by former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter in consultation with dozens of strategists, democracy reform leaders and constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum,"[1] and is supported by reform organizations such as Represent.Us, which advocate for the passage of local, state, and federal laws modeled after the AACA.[2] It is designed to limit or outlaw practices perceived to be major contributors to political corruption.[3]
Its provisions cover three areas:[3][4]
- Stop political bribery by overhauling lobbying and ethics laws
- End secret money by dramatically increasing transparency
- Give every voter a voice by creating citizen-funded elections
The AACA's authors state that its provisions are based on existing laws that have withstood court challenges, and are therefore likely constitutional.[5]
Contents
Authors
The American Anti-Corruption Act was written "in consultation with political strategists, democracy reform leaders, and constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum." Co-authors include former Republican FEC commissioner Trevor Potter, Harvard professor and activist Lawrence Lessig, Theodore Roosevelt IV, and Represent.Us director Josh Silver. The Act was unveiled in 2012.[1]
Laws based on the AACA
The stated goal of the Anti-Corruption Act is to serve as "model legislation that sets a standard for city, state and federal laws that prevent money from corrupting American government."[3] Organizations such as Represent.Us advocate for state and local laws that reflect the provisions of the AACA, often using the ballot initiative process.[6] Since the provisions of the AACA are likely to be found constitutional,[5] this differs from the approach taken by other electoral reform groups such as Move to Amend, which advocate for a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo.
Tallahassee Anti-Corruption Act
In 2014, voters in Tallahassee, Florida approved a city charter amendment modeled after the AACA. The referendum, which passed with 67 percent of the vote, established a city ethics commission, imposed stricter contribution limits on candidates for city office, and created a voluntary rebate system for small political contributions. The initiative passed with the support of a politically diverse coalition of local advocates including the Chair of the Florida Tea Party Network, the former President of the Florida League of Women Voters, and the Chairman of Florida Common Cause.[7]
Honest Elections Seattle
In 2015, voters in Seattle, Washington approved Initiative 122, the "Honest Elections Seattle" initiative. Initiative I-122 implemented several reforms including new contribution limits on contractors that lobby the city, revolving door restrictions for city officials, and electronic disclosure requirements.[8] The initiative's backers cite the AACA as "the single most influential model we drew from" when crafting I-122.[9]
Statewide Anti-Corruption Acts
Represent.Us, a nonpartisan advocacy organization, has announced plans to pursue two statewide anti-corruption ballot initiatives in 2016, although their target states have yet to be announced.[6]
Anti-Corruption Resolutions
Anti-Corruption Resolutions are public mandates calling for Anti-Corruption legislation at the state and federal level. On July 14, 2014, Princeton, NJ, "became the first municipality in the country to adopt an Anti-Corruption Resolution sponsored by Represent.Us".[10] The Princeton resolution mentions six of the eleven provisions in the original AACA draft[11] (see table below).
Anti-Corruption Resolutions have been passed in the following locales:[12]
- Princeton, New Jersey
- Genoa, Illinois
- Massachusetts State House District 2
- Massachusetts State Senate District 19
- Ewing Township, New Jersey
- DeKalb County, Illinois
- Winnebago County, Illinois
- Roanoke, Virginia
Survey results
An opinion poll commissioned by Represent.Us found that 90 percent of respondents support tighter limits on campaign finance, and 97 percent would support stronger anti-corruption measures. "The poll also tested the popularity of some potential reforms, giving respondents a menu of 11 options and asking them to pick three. Forty-seven percent picked barring politicians from taking money from industries they regulate ... . Thirty-seven percent picked dramatically reducing the amount of money lobbyists can give to candidates and parties, while 31% picked putting tough limits on super PACs", according to the MSNBC summary of the survey.[13]
Comparing anti-corruption measures
The following table compares the anti-corruption measures adopted by Princeton, NJ, and Tallahassee, mentioned above, with the official text of the American Anti-Corruption Act, 9-point summary, and the three reform areas mentioned above:
| The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA)
(Nov. 13, 2012)[14] |
Area(*) | AACA Summary[15] | Princeton, NJ, Resolution, July 14, 2014[16] | Tallahassee Anti-Corruption Referendum, Nov. 4, 2014[17] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Prohibit politicians from raising funds from interests they regulate and from taking actions to benefit interests that spend heavily to influence their elections. | b | 1a | yes | ?[18] |
| 2. Limit campaign contributions and fundraising activities by lobbyists. | b | 5a | no | max $250 contribution from anyone[19] |
| 3. Close the revolving door. | b | 3 | yes | ?[20] |
| 4. Prohibit campaign contributions from government contractors and primary associates. | b | 5b | no | ?[20] |
| 5. Extend contribution limits on PACs to Super PACs. | b | 2a | yes | ?[20] |
| 6. Give each registered voter a $100 tax rebate every other year that they may contribute to qualifying political candidates, parties and committees. | v | 7 | yes | Registered voters can get a refund of $25 each year for a campaign contribution.[21] |
| 7. Revise the FEC's coordination regulations to restrict coordination between candidates and "independent expenditures." | s | 2b | ? | ?[20] |
| 8. Prohibit politicians from fundraising during normal working hours and require disclosure of fundraising by legislators during legislative sessions. | b | 1b | no | ?[22] |
| 9. Everyone who lobbies or helps lobbyists is a lobbyist. | b | 4 | no | ?[20] |
| 10. Increase transparency of fundraising and spending including disclosing bundlers. | s | 6, 8 | yes | 2. The Ethic Board shall ... recommend … ordinances [re.] disclosure ... |
| 11. Improve enforcement. | b, s | 9 | yes | sect. 2 |
(*) Three areas (see above): Limit bribery (b) and campaign secrecy (s) while empowering voters (v).
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Section 2 of the referendum says, "The Ethics Board shall" recommend ordinances to cover a variety of issues. The issues mentioned are essentially those with question marks in this column of this table. The City Commission may then take action it deems appropriate.
- ↑ Section 4a of the referendum.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Section 4a
- ↑ Sections 4b, c, d.
- ↑ Section 4a
