Lobbying Blop Post #2 - Federal Election Campaign Contribution Regulation

                Financial reform on election campaigns has been active since 1907. Over the years, different acts were passed in order to regulate and ban certain lobbyist contributions, and these were all consolidated into the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. However, between 2007 and 2010, there were three cases in which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was taken to court. On the last case, Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that banning contributions from corporations and lobbyists violated their Constitutional right to “political free speech.” This ruling then led to the DISCLOSURE Act. Now, the question is not whether to ban lobbyist contributions, but how should these contributions be regulated? I researched people in politics that directly represent me about their positions on finance reform and regulation on election campaign contributions. Living in Congressional District 1 of Pennsylvania, I am represented by Representative Robert Brady, Senator Robert Casey Jr., and Senator Patrick Toomey.

                Robert Brady was sworn into office for his 8^th term representing Pennsylvania’s First Congressional District on January 5, 2011. He is a Democrat, born and raised in Philadelphia, and graduated from St. Thomas High School. He currently serves as Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, helping to lead the Committee’s oversight of federal elections and budget authorizations for expenses of House committees. He has consistently advocated for legislation that supports the well-being of financially disadvantaged communities. So, how has he voted in the past on financial reform on election campaign contributions? Over the years, he has consistently voted in favor of regulation on lobbyist contributions and soft money. He voted yes on campaign reform banning soft-money contributions and on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations, helping to clear up some of secrecy that goes on with campaign contributions. He also supported criminalizing false or deceptive information about elections. This is helpful to me since it seems as though, despite having accepted contributions from several individuals along with corporations and lobbyist groups, Representative Brady is in favor of at least regulating these contributions and making sure they are fair and lawful.

                Robert Casey Jr. is  Democrat, born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and  joined the Senate in 2007. Since becoming a Senator, Senator Casey has definitely been focused on the people. He has consistently worked to help turn around the economic crisis, and voted on tax cuts to help businesses hire more employees. He has also worked on several areas of reform such as Health Care reform. And, such as with Rep. Brady, Senator Casey voted yes on requiring more public lobbyist financial disclosure. He has also accepted lobbyist contributions in past and was quoted as saying, “I’ve accepted money from lobbyists. The question is what impact does that money have on our vote. Everyone who knows me knows that I’m very independent. I’ll be focused on needs of Pennsylvanians – not special interests in D.C.” This statement and his vote for more lobbyist disclosure leads me to believe that his position is the same as Rep. Brady in the sense that supports regulation on lobbyist contributions. He believes that the money should not get in the way of what people in government vote and decide on.

                Patrick Toomey serves along side Senator Casey and is a Republican. Unlike Senator Casey and Rep. Brady, Senator Toomey was not born in Pennsylvania, but Rhode Island instead. He just joined the Senate this January, and I can actually remember his several campaign commercials that aired during his election process. He has taken a position in favor of restoring fiscal discipline to Washington and economic opportunity for all Americans and has worked for such position. However, his position of federal election campaign contribution reform has not been as consistent. In September of 1999, he was against banning soft money and issue ads. Then, in July of 2001, he voted yes of banning soft money donations to national political parties. But, voted against just that in February of 2002. So, it is a little hard to tell where Senator Toomey is coming from. He, too, has accepted contributions from corporations and lobbyists, along with my other representatives. Senator Toomey still requires a little more looking into.

                So, based off of this information I have gathered on my three representatives, Rep. Brady and Senator Casey seem to be the ones I should contact and discuss further on regulation on lobbyist contributions in government. Rep. Brady, being from Philadelphia, seems to have the background most in common with myself, though Senator Casey does not seem to be all that much different. I would probably only contact Senator Toomey just to understand his most current position on regulations, though I will not focus a little less on him. All in all, Representative Brady seems to be my closest bet in favor of my lobbying case.