DOCSLIB.ORG

Under the Avalanche: Maine's $200 Million Senate Race

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Under the Avalanche: Maine's $200 Million Senate Race Under the Avalanche : MAINE’S $200 MILLION SENATE RACE Stand With Maine APRIL 2021 contents Introduction . 3 What Our Examination of the 2020 Election Spending in Maine Revealed . 4 Super PAC Controlled by New York Democrat Spends Millions in Maine . 6 Super PAC Controlled by Kentucky Republican Spends Millions in Maine . 10 The Impact of Big Money in Politics in Maine . .15 Mainers Are United to Fix Our Broken System . 19 Stand With Maine . 20 2 / Under the AVALANCHE Introduction No Maine voter needs reminding that and the Democratic side, we seek to offer our most recent Senate race was the Mainers clear, fair information about how most expensive – and quite possibly the money degrades debate, decreases the nastiest – in the state’s history . The useful information, smothers the voices intense partisanship, negative and divisive of voters and of more independent attacks belied Maine’s tradition of bucking candidates – the opposite of what free national fault lines, and of electing speech under the First Amendment is all independent-minded leaders more free about . of party bosses or moneyed interests . So how did Maine, a fiercely proud and free- The Maine Millions report drew thinking state, come to be embroiled in the same partisan warfare which has come to the following conclusions: characterize politics in Washington and Almost all of the money in the race around the country? came through Super PACs. The Super PACs in the Maine election “We were 20 feet under snow are closely entwined with the national in an avalanche, and no one Republican and Democratic Senate leadership and political operatives in could hear us.” Washington, D.C. - David Trahan, former Republican State Senator and A majority of the money that flowed in Executive Director of the Maine the Maine election came from wealthy Sportsman’s Alliance donors and interests outside of Maine. Outside money funded negative attacks This report from Maine’s chapter of the and disinformation. national, non-partisan organization, American Promise, seeks to shine a light All this money restricted free speech, into some of that $200 million that poured voter information and choice. into the avalanche of often misleading, Mainers support a Constitutional toxic and divisive campaign advertising amendment to end big money in in the state .1 With a focus on the largest politics. spenders on both the Republican side UNDER THE AVALAnche / 3 What Our examination of the 2020 Election Spending in Maine revealed: In Maine, Super PACs Provide and Washington, D.C. political the Majority of the Money. operatives. Most of the money spent in the 2020 In this report, we examined two Senate race in Maine did not come Super PACs: the Senate Majority through the candidates’ campaigns but Fund and the Senate Leadership through “Super PACs ”. A Super PAC is Fund . The Senate Majority PAC, while formed by those seeking to influence ostensibly “independent,” effectively the election with money that does not is an arm of the Democratic Party and go through the candidates’ campaigns . New York Senator Chuck Schumer, now Senate Majority Leader . The While campaign finance laws limit group is headed by top Democratic what an individual can contribute strategist J .B . Poersch, the former directly to a candidate’s campaign, executive director of the Democratic no limits apply to Super PACs since Senatorial Campaign Committee the Supreme Court struck down such and a “confidant” of Senator Chuck limits in 2010 . According to the Court, Schumer .3 Treasurer Rebecca Lambe because such groups are “outside” of and Director Susan McCue both and “independent” of the campaigns, served on the staff of former Senate the Court (over strong dissents) Majority Leader Harry Reid .4,5 maintained that limits on the money flowing through the Super PACs Similarly, the Senate Leadership Fund would violate the donors’ right to free is not “independent” but effectively is speech under the First Amendment .2 an arm of the Republican Party and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, In 2020, the Super PACs now Senate Minority Leader . The operating in Maine were Senate Leadership Fund spent over closely entwined with the $287 million to support Republicans national Republican and in key Senate races .6 Its president is Democratic Senate leadership Steven Law, the former chief of staff 4 / Under the AVALANCHE for then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch ads concentrated on personal attacks McConnell . and distorted voting records . Mainers are being left behind: Super PAC Spending Wealthy Donors and Interests Restricts Free Speech, Voter Outside of Maine Fund Super Information and Choice. PACs. The high levels of spending ultimately Most of the $200 million in the reduced access to fact-based voter Maine Senate race came from wealthy information, drowned out public Republican and Democratic donors debate, and stymied the goals of the outside of Maine, fighting a national ranked-choice voting system that battle for control of the US Senate . The Mainers worked hard to implement . Senate Majority PAC and the Senate Leadership Fund spent, respectively, Mainers Support a $27 .9 million and $12 .6 million on the Constitutional Amendment 2020 Maine Senate race .7 The largest That Ends This Systemic donations to both Super PACs were Corruption of the American from 501(c)(4) “dark money” groups, Political Process. followed by donations from wealthy In August 2020, a survey of Mainers individuals located in Chicago, New by American Promise and Citizen York, Las Vegas, and Palm Beach . Data showed three out four voters Not one of the 647 donations over in favor of passing and ratifying an $100,000 to either group came from amendment to the US Constitution to 8 Maine . enable Maine and the nation to have reasonable limits on contributions Super PACs Overwhelmingly and spending in elections . Maine, Spend on Negative Attacks in a 2013 vote of Republican, and Disinformation. Democratic, and independent Both Super PACs spent over 98% of legislators called on Congress to pass their Maine budgets on attack ads, such an amendment and return it to and less than two percent on ads the states for ratification . Since then, supporting their favored candidate .9,10 22 states have joined in this call, and As a result, Mainers faced a heavily the supermajority support shown negative campaign landscape in which by Mainers is shared by Americans UNDER THE AVALAnche / 5 across the nation . The American and secretive donors, would be heard Promise constitutional amendment most, and candidates and elected would ensure elections where money representatives would spend time and came in much smaller amounts, from solve problems with their constituents many more people . Voters, not big in their states and communities . Super PAC Controlled by New York Democrat Spends Millions in Maine The Senate Majority PAC is the largest Major donors to the group come left-leaning Super PAC in the country . from across the country – New York, At the time of writing, it has reported Chicago, Palo Alto, West Palm Beach spending just under $229 million on – but rarely from Maine .15 Most of the competitive Senate races nationwide, money in the Senate Majority PAC most heavily targeting Michigan, comes from a small group of very North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia, and large donors . Over 85% of the total Maine .11 The group is headed by top money raised by this Super PAC came Democratic strategist J .B . Poersch, from just 394 donors who contributed the former executive director of the $25,0000 or more . 58 donors gave Democratic Senatorial Campaign more than $1 million each, making Committee and a “confidant” of up just under 67% of the total . Four Senator Chuck Schumer 12. Treasurer donors – three dark money 501(c)(4) Rebecca Lambe and Director Susan groups and one other Super PAC – McCue both served on the staff of contributed over $10 million each . former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid .13,14 Given these connections to While the Senate Majority PAC spent the Democratic establishment, the $27 .9 million in Maine in 2020, notion that the Senate Majority PAC mostly on attack ads on Senator is “independent” of any candidate or Collins, Mainers had virtually no say party is misleading . in the matter . Of the 394 donors who contributed more than $25,000 to the Outside Money Dominates Senate Majority PAC, just a single one 16 Maine Elections was from Maine . In total, less than 6 / Under the AVALANCHE one-tenth of one percent of the group’s not required to publicly disclose its funding came from Mainers . donors; as such, the donations that it provides are commonly referred Many of the donors to the Senate to as “dark money” . While such Majority PAC are not people at all . groups are ostensibly prohibited from The largest donor is Majority Forward, participating in political campaigns, the dark money group created for they can still exert tremendous the purpose of funneling anonymous influence on elections through funds towards liberal causes – in this donations to Super PACs . They case, $47 .8 million to the Democrats’ 17 can also run their own “issue ads” largest Super PAC . which are legal so long as they do Majority Forward is a “social welfare” not expressly advocate for or against group governed by section 501(c)(4) a candidate . However, the resulting of the Internal Revenue Code, and is ads often appear nearly identical to typical attack ads (but notice that the linked video carefully shies away from AT A GLANCE: suggesting that Senator Collins be voted out of office) . DEMOCRAT SUPER PAC SPENDING IN 2020 ELECTIONS Although most of the donors to Majority Forward remain unknown, $229 MILLION we can paint an (albeit incomplete) Amount Spent Nationwide picture of the organization based on the few donors who have been $27.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HARD, SOFT and DARK MONEY Introduction Early Political Scandals
    HARD, SOFT AND DARK MONEY Introduction Early political scandals involved money used for bribery or buying votes. Modern day scandals involve the appearances of corruption depending where gifts and campaign money came from. The U.S. Supreme Court has made a number of controversial decisions expanding the amounts of money in politics by characterizing political donations and expenditures to be exercises of freedom of speech. Among other results, those decisions have created a large and growing category of election related donations and contributions called “dark money.” Important Terms Defined Terms relating to money in politics that are used in this paper have definitions more exactly set out by law. These terms are fully addressed in the MIP paper Definitions for Money in Politics, Disclosure Requirements for PACs The relationships of PACs to their disclosure requirements are shown in the chart below. May Funding Disclosure Donations coordinate Corporations Sources required limited with can donate candidate Political parties PAC’s Super Pac’s 527’s 501(c)’s Dark Money Twenty-nine types of corporations are listed in §501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as qualified for nonprofit status. Social Welfare Organizations under §501(c) (4), Labor Unions under §501(c)(5), and Trade Associations under §501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code are not required to report from whom they get their donations. Hence these donations are referred to as dark money. Since social welfare or business interests often intersect with political issues, these groups are allowed to use funds to influence elections, but there is otherwise no dollar limit on how much that can be, and they only need to report the majority of their expenditures in general terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Mystery Money
    MYSTERY MONEY How a loophole could allow foreign money to flow into super PACs through secretive shell companies ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was written by Research Director Michael Beckel and Research Associate Amisa Ratliff. Design by Communications Associate Sydney Richards. Cover image credit: bioraven/Shutterstock.com ABOUT ISSUE ONE Issue One is the leading crosspartisan political reform group in Washington. We unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to increase transparency, strengthen ethics and accountability, and reduce the influence of big money in politics. Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus of more than 200 former members of Congress, governors, and Cabinet officials is the largest bipartisan coalition of its kind ever assembled to advocate for solutions to fix our broken political system. Issue One 1401 K Street NW, Ste. 350 Washington, D.C. 20005 © 2020 Issue One MEDIA CONTACT Michael Beckel [email protected] | 202-888-6770 issueone.org | facebook.com/issueonereform | @issueonereform [ 2 — Mystery Money ] Issue One MYSTERY MONEY BY MICHAEL BECKEL & AMISA RATLIFF INTRODUCTION oney laundering schemes to illegally funnel foreign money into super PACs M through shell companies threaten the integrity of our political system. Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 paved the way for the super PAC era, there has been a proliferation of corporate super PAC donors — including scores of opaque and obscure companies that allow the people behind them to remain hidden. Such secretive entities provide especially ideal cover for foreigners wishing to evade the existing prohibition on their involvement in U.S. elections. A new Issue One analysis shows why this loophole needs to be closed.
    [Show full text]
  • Parting the Dark Money Sea: Exposing Politically Active Tax- Exempt Groups Through FEC-IRS Hybrid Enforcement
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 57 (2015-2016) Issue 1 Article 7 10-2015 Parting the Dark Money Sea: Exposing Politically Active Tax- Exempt Groups Through FEC-IRS Hybrid Enforcement Carrie E. Miller Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Election Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Repository Citation Carrie E. Miller, Parting the Dark Money Sea: Exposing Politically Active Tax-Exempt Groups Through FEC-IRS Hybrid Enforcement, 57 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 341 (2015), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol57/iss1/7 Copyright c 2015 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr PARTING THE DARK MONEY SEA: EXPOSING POLITICALLY ACTIVE TAX-EXEMPT GROUPS THROUGH FEC-IRS HYBRID ENFORCEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................... 343 I. TAX LAW AND ELECTION LAW FOUNDATIONS ............. 346 A. Internal Revenue Code Provisions ................... 347 1. Section 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations ...... 347 2. Section 527 Political Organizations ............... 349 B. Campaign Finance Doctrinal Framework ............ 350 1. Statutory Basis and Underlying Values ............ 350 2. Evolving Case Law ............................. 351 II. ESCALATING POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF TAX -E XEMPT SOCIAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS : WHERE TAX LAW AND ELECTION LAW INTERSECT ........................... 354 A. IRS Treatment of Political Activity .................. 355 1. Conflicting Threshold Standards ................. 355 2. Vague Definitional Problem ...................... 357 B. Section 501(c)(4) Organizations Have Emerged as the Preferred Campaign Finance Vehicle ................ 359 1. Increased Independent Expenditures .............. 360 2. Relaxed Reporting Provisions .................... 363 3. The Coordination Problem ....................... 367 C. Deregulation’s Impact on Values that Support Campaign Finance Restrictions ...................
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Dark Money
    Your Citizen Tool Kit: Fighting Dark Money Help Bring Transparency to Campaign Giving and Spending Table of Contents: Issue Brief 3 A Model of Success 8 Progress Report 12 Additional Readings 25 Other Helpful Organizations 27 !2 Brought to you by: ReclaimTheAmericanDream.org Issue Brief: Fighting Dark Money How Dark Money Haunts U.S. Elections In modern American politics, the first omen that “dark money” was corrupting American democracy were revelations that bundles of cash and checks were being delivered in brown paper bags and suitcases to President Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign in 1972. In a few short weeks, CREEP, as the Committee for the Re-Election of the President was called, hauled in roughly $20 million – $100 million in today’s dollars – half of it from a handful of super donors. That river of money all moved in secret, rushed to campaign operatives to beat the imminent deadline for disclosure of campaign contributions set by the new Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. After the secret Nixon slush fund was exposed, Congress tightened campaign laws again in 1974, setting spending limits and providing public funding for presidential campaigns. Disclosure as the Disinfectant for Tainted Money But the foundation stone of campaign reform, then as now, was disclosure – transparent openness about the sources of political money. Full disclosure was the disinfectant prescribed in the Nixon era to kill the epidemic of tainted money and to cleanse the nation’s political system. In the decades since then, disclosure has been the one campaign reform that has won general endorsement from conservatives as well as liberals and moderates.
    [Show full text]
  • Money in Politics
    CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY 1 FALL 2020 ISSUE 2020 - 003 CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL Money in Politics Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities in the U.S. 2 CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities in the United States: Voting Rights Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University November 18, 2020 John Shattuck Carr Center Senior Fellow; Former US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Professor of Practice, Fletcher School, Tufts University Mathias Risse Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Administration; Director for the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy The authors’ institutional affiliations are provided for purposes of author identification, not as indications of institutional endorsement of the report. This report is part of a Carr Center project on Reimagining Rights and Responsibilities in the United States, directed by John Shattuck. The project has been overseen by a faculty committee chaired by Mathias Risse, with the collaboration of Executive Director Sushma Raman, and the support of the Carr Center staff. This research paper was drafted by Kate Williams (RA). The authors are grateful to Michael Blanding and Mayumi Cornejo for editing, and Alexandra Geller for editorial and design. CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY 1 Table of Contents 2. Introduction 3. Early Efforts to Regulate Campaign Finance 5. Campaign Finance, Freedom of Speech, and the Rise of Soft Money 6. Enhanced Disclosure and Transparency 7. Challenges to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 9. Citizens United and Subsequent Rulings 10. Money in Politics Today: Undermining the Democratic Process 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Dark Money Matters
    Dark Money Matters Dark money—that is, election-related spending whose donors are kept secret from voters—continues to play a major and troubling role in U.S. elections, thanks to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions and weak rules and enforcement by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Most Dark Money Spending Is Never Reported In the years since Citizens United, at least $800 million in dark money has been reported to the FEC. But even that number is an underestimate. FEC data omits a huge chunk of secret funds, because most dark money spending is never “Most dark money is reported to the FEC. Candidate-focused ads that stop short of expressly telling spent outside FEC viewers to vote for or against a candidate are only reported to the FEC if they reporting windows.” air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of the general election. Most dark money is spent outside of these FEC reporting windows. For example, Karl Rove’s dark money group One Nation spent $40 million on advertising during the 2016 election cycle supporting vulnerable Republican Senators. Yet, because most of that spending was for ads outside of FEC reporting windows, One Nation reported spending only $3.4 million to the FEC. One Nation Spending, 2016 Election Cycle 3.4 million, 8% Spending Reported to the FEC Spending not Reported to the FEC 36.6 million, 92% CAMPAIGNLEGALCENTER.ORG What’s more, recent election cycles have seen the rise of what might be called “grey money,” where groups that don’t disclose their donors make “The actual sources of pass-through contributions to entities that do, like super PACs.
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Sen. Angus S. King Ten Comparisons, Then &
    4. Sen. Angus S. King Ten Comparisons, Then & Now October 17, 2013 Introduction ngus King’s career richly reflects Maine’s long tradition of civic leaders who combine a suc- cessful business career with major contributions toA public service. In the 1980s and early ’90s, we re- member him as host of MaineWatch, a weekly public television program that probed political and policy matters in Augusta and Washington. After the shutdown of Maine State government in 1991 and the hardening of partisanship in Augusta, he ran and won the gover- norship as an independent, pledging to work for bipar- tisan solutions to public issues. In eight years as the State’s Chief Executive, he succeeded in a broad range of areas. His administration oversaw the largest acquisition of conservation easements on private lands of any state in the nation. Maine became a leader in the use of the Internet to provide citizens with new ways to access State agencies for services and assistance. His successful effort to provide laptops for all middle school students placed Maine at the forefront nationally in integrating computers into public school instruction. During part of this period, the Maine Senate was Republican-controlled while the House was led by Democrats. The two chambers had widely differing ideas about the role of government and, especially, the content of the State budget. Still, Governor King was able to work successfully across party lines. As Michael Michaud, one of the two Senate leaders at that time and now Maine’s 2nd District Congressman said, “Governor King was one who could bring both sides together effectively.” The message of his time in Augusta seems to have in Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance
    Maine Policy Review Volume 29 Issue 2 Maine's Bicentennial 2020 Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance Don Nicoll [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr Part of the American Politics Commons Recommended Citation Nicoll, Don. "Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance." Maine Policy Review 29.2 (2020) : 34 -38, https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol29/iss2/5. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. ART OF GOVERNANCE Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance by Don Nicoll creating parties, recreating them, dumping Abstract some and building others, and struggling In its 200-year history as a state, Maine has gone through three major political for power continues today, with credible realignments and is now in the midst of a fourth. The Jefferson Democratic Re- fears about the viability of our representa- publicans supplanted the Federalists to achieve statehood. The Republican Par- tive democracy. ty dominated state politics from the eve of the Civil War until 1954. The Maine The year 2020, the bicentennial of Democratic Party, under the leadership of Edmund S. Muskie and Frank Coffin, the creation of the state of Maine, may be transformed it into a competitive two-party state. Now the goals of open, re- another seminal year in the political life of sponsive, and responsible governance that Muskie and Coffin sought through the United States and the survival of healthy competition and civil discourse are threatened by bitter, dysfunctional representative democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • GRATWICK DISTRICT 9 Proudly Representing Bangor and Hermon in the Maine Senate
    2020 LEGISLATIVE REPORT Senator Geoff GRATWICK DISTRICT 9 Proudly representing Bangor and Hermon in the Maine Senate Dear friends, • Support Maine seniors — With many assisted-living facilities and nursing homes running out of money, When I returned to Augusta in January, I had a we passed legislation increasing reimbursement long list of goals – but instead I have had to learn rates. Our seniors deserve good, comprehensive, and to live with the unexpected. I had read an article compassionate care. in December about an obscure disease outbreak somewhere in China but hadn’t focused on it. I had • Grow the Rainy-Day Fund to $258 million, a never heard of COVID-19. How rapidly life changes. historic high. For the past eight months COVID-19 has dominated our world with its health, economic and social This is my last term in the Maine Senate. Term consequences. It has slowed down a number of our limits prevent me from running for re-election. very important initiatives but rest assured it has not It has been a great honor to serve you and our derailed them. Our work isn’t over. It’s why I voted state. The lofty grandeur of the State House and twice to reconvene the Legislature so we could finish all it stands for — a government of, by and for delivering for you. the people — has become part of me. I appreciate more than ever the truth in Winston Churchill’s statement: “democracy is the worst form of It has been a great honor government there is... except for all the others.” I can now tell you in detail about both the major to serve you and our state.” successes of our democracy here in Maine as well “ as its shortcomings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Enduring Environmental Law Legacy of Edmond S. Muskie of Maine
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 24 (2000) Issue 2 Article 3 April 2000 Nature's Statesman: The Enduring Environmental Law Legacy of Edmond S. Muskie of Maine Robert F. Blomquist Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Environmental Law Commons Repository Citation Robert F. Blomquist, Nature's Statesman: The Enduring Environmental Law Legacy of Edmond S. Muskie of Maine, 24 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 233 (2000), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol24/iss2/3 Copyright c 2000 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr NATuRE'S STATESMAN: THE ENDURING ENVIRONMENTAL LAw LEGACY OF'EDMUND S. MUSKIE OF MAINE Some Persona1 Skehae and Notes Fran a Law Prciessor'sEnm ewal Biogrpby-In-Pnyess ROBERT F. BLOMQUIST* I. INTRODUCTION II. EARLY PUBLIC YEARS, 1945-54 III. GUBERNATORIAL YEARS, 1955-58 A. Governor Muskie's First Term, 1955-56 B. Governor Muskie 's Second Term, 1957-58 IV. UNITED STATES SENATE YEARS, 1959-80 A. Senator Muskie's First Term, 1959-64 B. Senator Muskie's Second Term, 1965-70 C. Senator Muskie's Third Term, 19 71-76 1. Clean Water Legislation 2. Clean Air Legislation 3. Solid Waste Legislation D. Senator Muskie's Fourth Term, 1977-80 1. Clean Water Legislation 2. Clean Air Legislation 3. Solid Waste Legislation 4. Abandoned Hazardous Substances Legislation V. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE, 1980-81 VI. SOME HEROIC DIMENSIONS OF MUSKIE'S ENVIRONMENTAL LAW LEGACY VII.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Corporate Political Contributions Report
    Visa Inc. makes political contributions in strict compliance with applicable laws and the Visa Inc. Political Participation, Lobbying, and Contributions Policy. While corporations are not permitted to contribute to U.S. federal political campaigns or to national political parties, they can contribute to state and local candidates in many jurisdictions. Political contributions will not be given in anticipation of, in recognition of, or in return for any official act and corporate funds may not be used for any unlawful, improper or unethical purpose. The following is a list of political contributions Visa made during calendar 2015. The Company makes reasonable efforts to obtain from U.S. trade associations whose annual membership dues exceed $25,000 the portion of such dues that are used for political contributions. None of the organizations surveyed in 2015 reported that any portion of Visa’s dues were used for political expenditures. The political contributions listed are aggregated on a yearly basis and may reflect contributions to multiple campaign committees associated with a single legislator, and also may reflect primary and/or general election contributions. 2015 CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS REPORT 2015 U.S. STATE & LOCAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Recipient Office Sought Jurisdiction Party Amount Dave Kerner Florida House Candidate District 87 FL House FL D $ 1,000.00 Kelli Stargel Campaign FL Senate FL R $ 1,000.00 John Legg Senate Campaign FL Senate FL R $ 1,000.00 Campaign of Joseph Abruzzo FL Senate FL D $ 1,000.00 Tom Lee Campaign FL Senate FL R $ 5,000.00 Citizens United for Liberty and Freedom FL House FL R $ 5,000.00 Re-Election of Cary Pigman FL House FL R $ 1,000.00 Matt Caldwell Campaign FL House FL R $ 1,000.00 Ross Spano Campaign FL House FL R $ 1,000.00 David Santiago FL House FL R $ 1,000.00 George R.
    [Show full text]