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

[urbanity]

Show me the money

Two groups were behind nearly half of the cash flow in the contentious Oklahoma City Council election.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...the-money.html

[mbs]

Thanks for the link. So it looks like Momentum spent $486,041 on the city council races, and A Better Local Government spent $136,050. I would like to know how much they spent on each candidate, it doesn't look like they have to report that info.

[urbanity]

(Those entities don't have to report how much was spent on each race.)

New story:

‘Out of compliance’

Could some of Oklahoma’s laws regulating corporate donations be at odds with federal case law?

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...%E2%80%99.html

[urbanity]

Councilman claims Devon executive chairman was force behind contentious campaign

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

[MikeOKC]

From the Gazette article - I couldn't agree with this more:

Shadid said Nichols, who sits on multiple public boards and subcommittees, wields an enormous amount of power, and expressed concern that it was not good for a democracy that only a few high-powered individuals make decisions that affect everyone.

“Everyone indicates Larry Nichols is a very good man who deeply loves Oklahoma City, that he for me personally would be a tremendous ally for building density and walkability and a healthy city, but he and the people around him are engaging in policy making the way a surgeon does surgery: They’re telling everyone what to do and then executing,” said Shadid, a spinal surgeon. “It’s not particularly democratic. You can have a benevolent plutocracy, you could agree that what he is doing is best for the city, but it’s still a plutocracy and not a representative democracy.”

Absolutely right.

[Pete]

I don't think anyone is doubting the intentions of Nichols but he is one man and nowhere close to an expert on urban development and planning.

In fact, people forget he was the chair at OCURA for a number of years and under his leadership they made a ton of decisions that almost everyone agrees were very, very poor (The Hill, Legacy, etc.).


Might doesn't necessarily make right. Especially now that we have a very big group of stakeholders involved in trying to make the city a better place.

[soonerguru]

Shadid has a brass pair. These people spend money privately because they don't want people to know they're meddling. Nichols is great for OKC but he should knock this stuff off.

Also, the Chamber is ridiculously out of step with reality right now.

The irony is that the Momentum campaign has made Shadid far more powerful than he would have been had they not spent thousands crudely and creepily trying to beat him. Now he has survived all of their money onslaught and has become a hero to his ward.

Now he can say whatever he wants without fear of their money and influence, because he is virtually guaranteed reelection in Ward 2 as long as he wants to serve.

[Doug Loudenback]

Glad to see that progress has been made since I've been on vacation. Seriously.

[bornhere]

Well, I don't know if Shadid is right about the identity of his invisible opponent or opponents. But I will say ths: that person, whoever it is, does not love Oklahoma City. He may love himself so much that he thinks the city should be a monument to his tastes, opinions, etc., just as EK and EL Gaylord did, and maybe we all benefit to the extent that his narcissism is relatively benign in its expression. But no one who loves the city, and more importantly, good government and fair representation, engages in the kind of anonymous, high-dollar character assassination that was employed against Shadid, and Brian Walters as well.

[urbanity]

Ruling class

OKC councilman argues that the city is not functioning as a representative democracy.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...ing-class.html

[Doug Loudenback]

The Oklahoman is the only paper which has not written about this ... both the Gazette (2x) and the Journal Record have had articles but nada from the Oklahoman. As Jim Kyle said in an interview at http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/06...-reporter.html,

But, I also learned the seamy side of the newspaper business ... found out how often we had to compromise with our consciences things that might embarrass an advertiser frequently didn't get reported and if "important people" would be offended, again, the story would not see the light of day.
***
I'd been there [in Ardmore at the Ardmoreite] about a year when there was a showdown between my managing editor who I considered to be my boss and for that matter my mentor at that time, and the owner of the paper, and it ended up with the editor getting fired. Our city editor was promoted to the managing editor's spot. They offered me the city editor's spot, but being young and idealistic I decided I didn't really want to have any more to do with them. So I hightailed it up to Oklahoma City and visited the Oklahoman.

So, when is "news" not news at the Oklahoman? I think I smell a blog article coming on ...

[MikeOKC]

Double post. Sorry. Please delete.

[MikeOKC]

So, when is "news" not news at the Oklahoman?

When C.E. Gaylord, Clay Bennett, and others concerned decide it's not. PRAVDA On The Plains.

Never expect to see negative news of Nichols, McClendon, Records, Ward, Bennett (obviously) and a few others (including certain local elected and non-elected politicians). The "plutocracy" of Oklahoma City.

[Spartan]

Ruling class

OKC councilman argues that the city is not functioning as a representative democracy.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...ing-class.html

Does this qualify as shaking things up yet?

[Doug Loudenback]

Since a parallel thread has developed, I'll limit this comment to related to the Momentum committee matters ...

This July 19 video clip is presented in my blog post ...



For more, see http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/07...rting-why.html

[Doug Loudenback]

Maybe something will come of this: http://newsok.com/article/3596167

Corporations, unions should disclose independent campaign contributions, two Oklahoma City Council members say

Two OKC council members say a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that allows corporations and unions to independently spend whatever it wants on a campaign changed the character of this year's Oklahoma City city council elections.

BY MICHAEL MCNUTT
Published: August 20, 2011

Two Oklahoma City Council members, having seen an unprecedented amount of money spent in this year's municipal elections, asked the state Ethics Commission on Friday to require corporations and labor unions to disclose how much they spend on state, legislative and county campaigns.

The Ethics Commission staff proposed a rule that was available for the first time Friday for public comment. It would require itemized disclosure of all independent expenditures that support the election or defeat of a candidate or ballot measure by any committee or individual.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that allows corporations and unions to independently spend whatever they want on a campaign changed the character of this year's Oklahoma City city council elections, Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said. This spring's elections were the first held in Oklahoma City since the high court's ruling.

White said special interests earlier this year spent more than $630,000 on Oklahoma City Council election races. Many are questioning the process because so much money has been spent, and it's hard to determine the identities of those behind the spending.

“What happened in the Oklahoma City city council elections this spring was legal,” White said.

“To not require disclosure ... will throw us back into the dark ages of campaigns when I first started running for office 30 years ago,” he said. “I would urge you to do whatever you can to require disclosure.

“It's absolutely a travesty for as much money as was invested in the Oklahoma City Council races to come in without knowing who gave the money,” White said. “It came in for different candidates on both sides of the issues. Somebody ought to be able to stand up and say, ‘I put the money in.' ... We ought to require that at the minimum. It just goes to the heart of what our election process is all about.”

Thirteen candidates, vying for four open seats, along with the groups running independent campaigns in support of candidates, raised about $1.2 million and have spent more than $1 million on the Oklahoma City Council races. The city council post pays $12,000 a year.

“It is not fair. It has changed the playing field to the point where there is no equity in the playing field without disclosure,” White said. “If you're going to play, you ought to tell us who you are.”

Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid, who won in a runoff election this year, said he is concerned what happened in Oklahoma City could occur in other cities.

“It's the lack of disclosure that invites tremendous influx of funds,” he said.

Panel will decide

Commissioners will decide in January whether to propose the rule to legislators. Lawmakers may accept rules proposed by the commission or veto them; the governor can override their veto.

The proposed rule is a response to the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows a corporation or labor union to independently spend whatever it wants on a campaign as long as it doesn't coordinate the expenditures with a candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

The Federal Election Commission since has issued an advisory opinion that corporations and unions cannot be prohibited from giving to political action committees that are formed to pay independent campaign expenses or ads. The amount they give cannot be limited, but state ethics agencies may require that the donors be disclosed.

The Ethics Commission oversees state and county elections. Municipal and school board elections are regulated by state laws.

Commissioners, however, were asked to make an interpretation on questions dealing with this year's Oklahoma City elections.

The Ethics Commission appeared ready Friday to tackle the issue but backed off after its executive director, Marilyn Hughes, checked before the meeting with the state attorney general's office.

She said she called for advice after Commission Chairman Bob McKinney and Commissioner Karen Long questioned whether the commission could take up the request when its responsibilities don't cover municipal elections.

Hughes said the attorney general's office told her the commission could take up the question because it involves candidates, which fall under the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction. But because the request for the interpretation came from the media and not from someone involved in the election, it could not be considered, according to the attorney general's office.

Sounds to me like someone at the AG's office doesn't have his/her screwed on right.

[MustangGT]

It sounds like locals are trying to promulgate rules that run afoul of the SCOTUS decision and will if they do inevitably be fought and ultimately probably be overturned. At least that is how I am reading you post Doug. As far as loose heads at the AG's office it would not be the first nor the last time we will see that.

[Doug Loudenback]

The part of McNutt's article that gave me some hope that notwithstanding the SCt decision, some elbow room may be left to the states, where he says,

The Federal Election Commission since has issued an advisory opinion that corporations and unions cannot be prohibited from giving to political action committees that are formed to pay independent campaign expenses or ads. The amount they give cannot be limited, but state ethics agencies may require that the donors be disclosed.

Now, whether McNutt knows come here from sick 'em about such things, I don't know. I'll see if I can find anything on the FEC advisory opinion (unless someone else already knows ...).

[Steve]

I wonder if there's a need for a Jerry Fent type attorney to wage litigation on these municipal matters (Fent won't do it because he's contracted time to time by the city).

[Doug Loudenback]

In a preliminary review of Federal Election Commission advisory opinions post-Citizens United, I didn't find anything particularly helpful. But, for the first time, I did take a cursory look at the Citizens United v. FEC decision itself, after listening to this 4-minute NPR audio/text discussion as to the effects of the Citizens United decision upon donor disclosure, which suggests if it doesn't state that donor disclosure requirements were not impacted by the decision, if my eyes and ears were seeing and hearing correctly.

That's when I decided to have a look at the Citizens United decision and see what I could see for myself. As shown by the summary, the Supreme Court's decision was 5-4, with Justice Kennedy writing for the 5-member majority.

I still haven't read Kennedy's opinion closely, and I haven't looked at the 4 separate opinions at all, but I did find these interesting tidbits as relates to disclosure in Kennedy's majority opinion (the emphasis added, like this, is mine, and is not in the opinion):

[In the introduction]
The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us.

[In section IV.A]
Disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, and “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” McConnell, supra , at 201 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The Court has subjected these requirements to “exacting scrutiny,” which requires a “substantial relation” between the disclosure requirement and a “sufficiently important” governmental interest. Buckley, supra, at 64, 66 (internal quotation marks omitted); see McConnell, supra, at 231–232.

In Buckley, the Court explained that disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in “provid[ing] the electorate with information” about the sources of election-related spending.
* * *
Although both provisions were facially upheld, the Court acknowledged that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a “ ‘reasonable probability’ ” that disclosure of its contributors’ names “ ‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.’ ”

[In section IV.B]
As a final point, Citizens United claims that, in any event, the disclosure requirements in §201 must be confined to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The principal opinion in WRTL limited 2 U. S. C. §441b’s restrictions on independent expenditures to express advocacy and its functional equivalent. 551 U. S., at 469–476 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.). Citizens United seeks to import a similar distinction into BCRA’s disclosure requirements. We reject this contention.

The Court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech. See, e.g., MCFL , 479 U. S., at 262. In Buckley, the Court upheld a disclosure requirement for independent expenditures even though it invalidated a provision that imposed a ceiling on those expenditures.
* * *
Citizens United also disputes that an informational interest justifies the application of §201 to its ads, which only attempt to persuade viewers to see the film. Even if it disclosed the funding sources for the ads, Citizens United says, the information would not help viewers make informed choices in the political marketplace. This is similar to the argument rejected above with respect to disclaimers. Even if the ads only pertain to a commercial transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election. Because the informational interest alone is sufficient to justify application of §201 to these ads, it is not necessary to consider the Government’s other asserted interests.

Now, I'm just beginning my looking into this topic as a lawyer, but, at first blush, it doesn't sound as though contributor disclosure requirements would necessarily run afoul with federal law, as decided in Citizens United. In fact, it may be that donor disclosure requirements received favorable discussion in the decision.

But, as I said, I'm just beginning to study this topic as a lawyer. Before I'm done, I may find that the preliminary observation which I've stated above is incorrect.

And, yes, Steve, someone with more legal knowledge than I have on this topic than should step up, chime in, and do whatever. This isn't something I'm presently familiar with, but I can still learn. My 2nd impression, after doing this preliminary research, is that an FEC advisory opinion which relates to states being able to set disclosure rules (post-Citizens United) doesn't exist as at least stated or inferred in the McNutt article ... at least, I've not found such an advisory opinion. Again, I'm not done with my research.

[urbanity]

‘In the shadows’

After receiving last-minute advice, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission denied giving an interpretation on municipal elections.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...%E2%80%99.html

[soonerguru]

‘In the shadows’

After receiving last-minute advice, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission denied giving an interpretation on municipal elections.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...%E2%80%99.html

I'm so glad we have a GOP stooge in the AG's office. What a joke.

[Midtowner]

I'm so glad we have a GOP stooge in the AG's office. What a joke.

The AG is probably the biggest concentration of power in state government. Having someone like Pruitt is simply dangerous. He's a career politician, not an attorney. The AG is supposed to be the chief defender of the state's constitution and state laws. When he picks and chooses according to the whims of his political benefactors, we the people aren't getting a good deal. Unfortunately, I don't trust the electorate to set this straight.

[MustangGT]

True to a point. However Edmonson's political bullying and failing to perform were legendary and thankfully he is gone forever.

[Midtowner]

True to a point. However Edmonson's political bullying and failing to perform were legendary and thankfully he is gone forever.

On his worst day, Edmondson wasn't anything nearly as bad as Pruitt. Edmondson's office did offer opinions from time to time which were inconvenient for his party, or members thereof. Pruitt seems to be determined to wield the power of his office to increase his political standing and to reward his patrons. We haven't had a good AG in a long time. Probably around 30 years.