Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Spring 2014, Vol. 40, No. 1 | Page 24

Restoring Citizen Representation

ing description is drawn from that article.
The bill specifies that when politicians receive donations of $150 or less, that money
would be matched at a six-to-one ratio. In
addition, individual contributors would also
be eligible for a $25 tax credit. The matching fund would be paid for by closing tax
loopholes affecting industries that currently have great influence. Sarbanes believes
this approach would underwrite a system
like this for fifty years. To qualify, candidates
must agree to accept no more than $1,000
per donor and raise at least 50% of their
donations from in-state contributors. (The
plan would not match any portion of donations larger than $150.) Furthermore, if
a candidate agrees to fund his or her campaign exclusively with donations of $150 or
less, contributions would be matched at a
nine-to-one ratio.
Candidates could also receive an additional $500,000 matching gift in the final
sixty-day home stretch of a campaign if
they raise at least $50,000 from small-dollar givers during that period. In addition,
candidates who take political action committee money can only receive matching
funds if the PAC limits the contributions it
receives to $150 per individual per year.
At a forum in Concord, N.H., on January
22, 2014, in response to a question I asked,
Sarbanes said that the Government By the
People Act has been carefully drawn based
on related cases to pass U.S. Supreme
Court review. However, despite Sarbane’s
assurances, at least one other constitutional scholar present placed the odds of successful review at much closer to fifty-fifty.
The problems with any proposed statutory approach by Congress are several.
First, given the inability of Republicans and
Democrats to reach consensus on so many
issues, and given that the present system
tends to advantage politicians of both parties as well as their wealthy contributors,
it’s unlikely they can agree to any statutory improvement involving public financing.
Second, even if they did, it’s quite possible that any resulting legislation could be
reversed in subsequent sessions. Third, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions appear
to be moving closer to a stricter interpretation of our First Amendment’s right of free
speech. It’s unclear to what extent HR20, or
parts of it, would survive review.
The American Anti-Corruption Act
Another, quite different approach is taken by The American Anti-Corruption Act,
which is not planned to be introduced in
Congress until is has obtained at least one
million “citizen co-sponsors.” It was drafted 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.

24

The Act would transform how elections
are financed, how lobbyists influence politics, and how political money is disclosed.
It’s a sweeping proposal that would reshape the rules of American politics, and
restore ordinary Americans as the most important stakeholders instead of major donors. The Act enjoys support from progressives and conservatives alike.
A summary of its provisions is set forth
below. However, these summary provisions, together with an analysis of each as
to why it should pass constitutional muster, together with a copy of the entire Act,
can be viewed and printed by going to The
American Anti-Corruption Act website12
and clicking on the pertinent links. While
there you can also sign up to become a citizen co-sponsor of the Act.
A. Conflicts of Interest
The American Anti-Corruption Act will
prohibit members of Congress from raising
funds from the special interests that they
regulate. Under the Act, if an organization
lobbies a member of Congress, the member may not solicit contributions from that
organization, its lobbyists, or persons in the
organization that lobby or supervise lobbying efforts, for two years unless the member recuses himself from taking actions at
the committee or subcommittee level to
benefit that organization. Additionally, if an
organization and its lobbyists and persons
who engage in or supervise lobbying efforts have, in the aggregate, directly or indirectly contributed $50,000 to a member
or spent more than $100,000 on electioneering communications or independent expenditures benefitting the member’s campaign, the member also must recuse himself from taking actions at the committee
or subcommittee level to benefit the organization. This provision includes a two-year
look-back.
The Act limits the amount that lobbyists,
clients of lobbyists, and employees of lobbyists or clients that either engage in lobbying or supervise lobbying activities may
contribute to a federal candidate, political
party, or political committee to $500 per
calendar year. Additionally, these individuals are prohibited from fundraising for federal candidates, political parties, and political committees. This provision also includes a one year cooling-off period: individuals who make contributions in excess
of $500 in a calendar year to a federal candidate, political party, or political committee, or engage in fundraising activities to
benefit federal elected officials or candidates are prohibited for one year thereafter from becoming a lobbyist. Finally, individuals involved in lobbying activities are
prohibited from making contributions in
excess of $500 or engaging in fundraising
activities to benefit federal candidates for
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • SPRING 2014

one year after terminating their status as a
lobbyist.
Currently, members of the House and
employees of the House who are paid at
least 75% of a member’s salary are prohibited from lobbying Congress for one year.
This restriction also applies to former senators for two years; to Senate empl