What's The Deal With Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum?

[MikeOKC]

So, just for fun, let's pretend the SCOTUS ruling applied to ALL election laws nationwide: city, state, and federal. It STILL didn't allow corporations to give unlimited contributions to candidates or do so anonymously. That's a lie that's been perpetuated since the ruling came down.

Well, A) It does apply and B) You're right, corporations cannot give directly. But a 527 can be setup and funnel corporate executives money to the 527 group - all unaccounted for and anonymous.

Read the ruling.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner, okay, but so what? The point is that the SCOTUS ruling didn't do anything SoonerGuru (and others) claim it did. The fact that it applied only to a federal law (BCRA) is just icing on the cake. We ban corporate contributions to our state candidates in Oklahoma and the SCOTUS ruling doesn't affect that ban one bit.

So, just for fun, let's pretend the SCOTUS ruling applied to ALL election laws nationwide: city, state, and federal. It STILL didn't allow corporations to give unlimited contributions to candidates or do so anonymously. That's a lie that's been perpetuated since the ruling came down.

It seems that you are splitting hairs.

Donating to a PAC versus donating to a candidate, at least in this context, are not totally different things. And when you start splitting hairs to make your legal argument, most folks are smarter than you give them credit for.

[king183]

This stuff is all Greek to me. Can you give any citations or references? I'm just trying to understand.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

Federal campaign finance law bans corporate and union contributions to candidates. In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, with the aim to make the campaign financing more transparent. One of the provisions of the Act prohibited corporations from spending money from their treasury on electioneering communications that mention a candidate's name and when they could be aired: 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, such communications were banned.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that those restrictions violated the First Amendment. Lazy people then claimed the Supreme Court legalized unlimited and anonymous donations to candidates. In fact, it did no such thing. At issue specifically was a non-profit corporation (Citizens United) that wanted to air a documentary on On Demand cable about Hillary Clinton during her primary against Barack Obama. (Those same lazy people who claim it allows corporate contributions to candidate also think a corporation is only large, for-profit companies like ExXon Mobile. In fact, a corporation is simply a legal arrangement of a group of people. Sierra Club, for instance, is legally a corporation. Under the law, prior to the SCOTUS case, they would have been banned from running an ad, within 60 days of the general election, to support or oppose a candidate they thought was better or worse for the environment.)

More information at the link above.

[king183]

Post deleted by me.

I just decided it wasn't worth going over again. Oh well. People will apparently believe what they want to believe about the SCOTUS ruling.

[MikeOKC]

Because you're wrong. It DOES affect local and state elections.

Simple Google search. Read any of the pages returned and they all confirm this was a free speech issue and no local or state government can restrict the kind of "speech" cited in Citizens United. Period.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&h...l+campaign+law

[Doug Loudenback]

For further reading about OKC's situation, see Michael Bates' Shadowy 527 jumps into Oklahoma City election.

Among other things, he opines,

It's obvious enough that there's some project that someone wants pushed through. Perhaps they want to steer funding to a favored developer or general contractor. Control over the Core-to-Shore redevelopment area might be involved. Voters just gave city government a big pot of money to play with, so it would be worth investing money in a campaign to get control of it.

Perhaps they want to clear away urban design and historic preservation obstacles, the sort that slowed down the undevelopment of Sandridge Commons -- tearing down historic structures, like the India Temple building, which once housed the State Legislature, for a 1960s-style open plaza, the sort that has never worked as a public place. Historic preservation has played a key, but underappreciated, role in Oklahoma City's resurgence, while too many people believe that the city's momentum comes from magically transferring money from citizens to contractors and basketball team owners.

[Doug Loudenback]

As far as 527 reporting requirements is concerned, I find this at the Campaign Legal Center Blog as to federal elections ...

From a PDF file located there,

“Super-PACS” are registered federal political committees that make only independent expenditures and do not contribute to candidates or parties. Due to Citizens United and other judicial decisions, these “Super PACs” are now exempted from the federal contribution limits and from the restrictions on corporate and union contributions. Super-PACs remain subject to the federal political committee disclosure requirements, however.

Information about the Campaign Legal Center is located here. It reads as though the organization's information should be regarded as credible.

I've located nothing absolutely clear to me as to whether the above is equally applicable to state and political subdivision campaigns, but, logically, it would seem that it would be. If you want to read Title 26 USC §527, it is here.

[king183]

I had a nice, long reply written out and it got erased when I was automatically logged out and had to log back in. Oh well. All I care about is that you guys know that Citizens United did not legalize corporate or union contributions--unlimited or anonymous-- to candidates, despite the erroneous claims by some.

[jholstein]

Honestly, I cannot agree more with Doug.
I feel that there should be absolutely no campaign funding. When you bring in money, you bring corruption. I say, if you really want to win an election, you take your feet to the sidewalk and you start walking door to door and you win people over with your words, not money for signs, and pamphets. All the money that committees have spent could have been used for other things within the community, instead of lazy politicians using money. I want a politician who will come to my door and ask me what I am looking for in this city. I want someone who can be face to face, and honestly, OKC is too big of a city to go that. They are too big of a city with no money to invest in the things they need to do to protect the citizens, transportation for the citizens, etc. If they can't do their job, I'm willing to move. Protection is number one in this city, I have been broken into six different times while living in this OKC area for two years. This city needs to downgrade in order to serve the citizen's best interest, not these big corporations from out of state.

[betts]

I had a nice, long reply written out and it got erased when I was automatically logged out and had to log back in. Oh well. All I care about is that you guys know that Citizens United did not legalize corporate or union contributions--unlimited or anonymous-- to candidates, despite the erroneous claims by some.

The same thing has happened to me multiple times. Now, if I write a long post, I copy it before I hit "post quick reply".

To jholstein: I'm not sure if more police officers would really keep breaking in down. It would be nice if that were the case, but even in Nichols Hills where they've got a significant police presence there are a lot of breakins. And, I'm not sure what corporations from out of state you're referring to.

[MikeOKC]

I had a nice, long reply written out and it got erased when I was automatically logged out and had to log back in. Oh well. All I care about is that you guys know that Citizens United did not legalize corporate or union contributions--unlimited or anonymous-- to candidates, despite the erroneous claims by some.

And I said, several posts back, that you are right about that technically. But who knows about the 527 groups like the Committee for OKC Momentum? The fact is that millions of dollars can now be poured into those anonymously. That simply was NOT possible before. But, you were adamant that the CU decision didn't apply to any elections other than federal elections. That part is just not true.

[Midtowner]

king is doing better than most in that he's apparently read the case and can glean the holding from it. Huzzah for him, he can brief cases. The next step is to be able to apply that information to this meta-concept that a certain older lawyer used to try and explain to me in law school, which really didn't make much sense until the end of my second year--the "seamless web" of the law. Holdings don't exist in vacuums. One must be able to see not just the splash in the pond, but the ripples as well.

In this case, we have a narrow (as always) holding, which king is right, applied to federal election laws. But what he's missing is that the principle announced in the holding was announced as being birthed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the holding applies to any similar state or municipal election body anywhere in the United States or her territories--and it doesn't even matter if these campaign laws are enshrined in states' constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Now King does have some ground to cling to. This holding actually was about federal law, not state law. If he can give us a good reason to distinguish why the holding in CU shouldn't apply to states, and that reason is upheld by the SCOTUS, well, maybe he has an argument. At this time though, no one seems to think that's a viable direction to go.

[Doug Loudenback]

At the more mundane level, I'm pretty sure that the next Form C-1 filing deadline with the city clerk is this Friday, March 25. Should be interesting, one way or another.

[Doug Loudenback]

More on Push-Pull. As it turned out, a friend of mine of about 35 years (but whom I've probably not spoken with for 30) who lives in Ward 2 has informed me that he received two telephone calls relevant to this discussion. I interviewed him and this is what I got. The first call was from an unidentified young woman who indicated that she was taking a survey of residents in Ward 2, and it lasted about 8 to 12 minutes. My friend could hear other callers in the background during the conversation. The call was made during the evening of March 8 and was from telephone number 877-759-2780. A good bit of the conversation's detail he doesn't recall, but the substance of what he does is rather like the following:

The First Call.
R i n g.

• Friend: Hello.
• Surveyor: Hi. I'm calling you tonight to participate in a survey concerning the Ward 2 council race in Oklahoma City. Is that OK with you?
• Friend: Sure.
• Surveyor: For whom would you vote if the vote were today?
• Friend: Dr. Ed Shadid.
• Surveyor: Why?
• Friend: I've just returned to Oklahoma City after living away for 12 years and two of my closest friends are supporting him.
• Surveyor: [My friend doesn't recall the detail, but he was asked to rate several matters about MAPS 3 on a scale of 1 to 5.]
• Surveyor: Chose your highest priority from a list of eight priorities: paying police and fire more; adding new police and fire; more parks and recreation; better streets; lower taxes; neighborhood development and safety; two others.
• Friend: Well, I'm always in favor of neighborhood safety.
• Surveyor: What are your thoughts about the fire union's support of two Tea Party candidates? (This wasn't exactly the way the question was asked.)
• Friend: One of those candidates was railing about neighborhood potholes when a billion was being spent downtown ignoring the fact that downtown money is mostly private which wouldn't have been spent in the neighborhoods anyway.
• Surveyor: If you knew that Ed Shadid supported abortion rights, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?
• Friend: Well, I personally believe that abortion is wrong (interrupted: "You're right about that!") so I have made a sacred vow that I will never have one - but what a woman decides to do is none of my personal business.
• Surveyor: If you knew that Ed Shadid supported marriage for gays, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?
• Friend: That doesn't affect me.
• Surveyor: Did you know that Ed Shadid had supported a Green Party position to reduce military spending by 75%?
• Friend: No, but I agree with that idea.
• Surveyor: Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by Mick Cornett?
• Friend: It wouldn't make any difference.
• Surveyor: Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by Brad Henry?
• Friend: It wouldn't make any difference.
• Surveyor: Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by the Tea Party?
• Friend: I couldn't support a TPer.
• Surveyor: If the election were today, for whom would you vote?
• Friend: Ed Shadid (emphatically).

The Second Call. My friend received the second call on March 11, it being a recorded message from Charlie Swinton saying "someone" was using his name to make negative calls and he just wants everyone to know how mad he is about it and how he's telling everyone to "play nice." (Not his literal words.)

[Midtowner]

Clearly, Swinton thinks the voters are morons.

[Mikemarsh51]

Actually, I heard we are going to start relabeling the city vehicles with a logo that reads "City of Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce"

Oddly enough in a lunch meeting one of our firefighters made a comment to Pete White about the Chamber running the city now. He was livid, saying that wasn't the case. I guess he hasn't figured out what's going on yet!

[urbanity]

'Mo' money: A group running candidate attack ads is receiving indirect funding from the OKC Chamber
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...%99-money.html

[ljbab728]

'Mo' money: A group running candidate attack ads is receiving indirect funding from the OKC Chamber
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...%99-money.html

There certainly isn't much information in that article. Maybe more to follow?

[soonerguru]

This stuff is all Greek to me. Can you give any citations or references? I'm just trying to understand.

Doug, I believe the word is sophistry.

[urbanity]

Losing Momentum: New Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid won with a grassroots campaign, despite efforts by a well-funded political machine.

(WITH DIRECT-MAIL FLOWCHART AND SIMILAR MAILERS FROM TULSA'S MAYORAL RACE)

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...-momentum.html

[Snowman]

Losing Momentum: New Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid won with a grassroots campaign, despite efforts by a well-funded political machine.

(WITH DIRECT-MAIL FLOWCHART AND SIMILAR MAILERS FROM TULSA'S MAYORAL RACE)

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...-momentum.html

The well funded machine could not even manage to put together a decent website or remember not to use the chamber of commerces address so not to give themselves away

[soonerguru]

Everyone should read the latest Gazette article. The funniest part to me is AH Campaigns or Strategies or whatever they call themselves trying to run away from their own work. Priceless. I'm sure King183 knows who they are, given his involvement in similar efforts in the past. No one at the firm will take credit for their $hit advertising and disastrous strategy. They got totally smoked by Ed's people and were clueless about messaging in Ward 2.

It was hilarious, but there was a woman who is associated with Chesapeake who showed up at Shadid's watch party and she admitted to a friend of mine she supported Shadid because she was a vegetarian and was so appalled by AH's ham-fisted advertising strategy. I don't know the players involved with the firm other than Trebor Worthen, a GOP house member or former house member. Still, it must have been UGLY over there when the big suits called the day after the election, bitching at them about their crappy advertising and all of the money they wasted on things like digital billboards.

More on point, will the Chamber come out and clarify its role in this election? They have really stained their reputation with a lot of people.

[Hunt4Mayor]

I went and looked at some of momentum's ad buys in public files of Citadel and Channel 9 the other day. Didn't find out too much other than that they used an agency out of Ohio to do their tv spots... They use to be a LOT more open in the past. Just look at this "Big League City" ad buy



and this with the Chambers Credit Card number AND pin number showing!...



I'll figure all this stuff out soon...will be fun.

[urbanity]

Explanation point

At least 16 organizations that participated in the recent Oklahoma City Council election may not have complied with state reporting laws and the city charter.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...ion-point.html

[mbs]

Was it ever reported anywhere how much the Commettee for Oklahoma City Momentum spent on each individual campaign?