Gavin Aronsen

Reporter

Gavin is a Mother Jones reporter in the DC bureau.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @garonsen

Gavin is an Iowa native, and covered the 2008 first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses for the Ames Tribune. He has also contributed to the Agence France-Presse, Daily Beast, Iowa Independent, Manhattan Media, and Village Voice.

Dear SCOTUS: We ❤ Citizens United!

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Wed May. 23, 2012 2:10 PM PDT

Since the US Supreme Court stayed a Citizens-United-defying ruling by Montana's Supreme Court in February, politicians and advocacy groups have lined up to take sides, filing amicus briefs urging the high court to let stand, reverse, or review the decision. The majority of the briefs, like the one submitted by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), come from petitioners upset by the unlimited outside spending triggered by Citizens United.

Yet those calling on the Supreme Court to let the Montana ruling stand (including one group with a rather unorthodox argument) or use it as an opportunity to roll back Citizens United face an uphill battle. The court's conservative majority is likely to be more sympathetic to those friends of the court calling upon it to summarily reverse (i.e., overturn without hearing) the Montana ruling. Their main arguments:

Why mess with a good thing?
In his amicus brief, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argues (PDF) that the Montana Supreme Court's decision to uphold the state's strict campaign finance laws should be summarily reversed since it contradicts Citizens United. "Nothing that has occurred since that ruling warrants its reconsideration," his brief reads. It goes further, noting that the majority of super-PAC contributions come from individuals, not corporations, and therefore concerns about the ruling are greatly exaggerated. The brief also approvingly cites a column in the New York Post by Reason's Jacob Sullum that claims that "independent groups, funded mainly by wealthy individuals, have increased competitiveness, which is usually considered good for democracy."

Corruption? Sorry, can't hear you.
The US Chamber of Commerce, which has spent upwards of $3 million against Democrats in this election cycle and has vowed not to disclose its donors, argues (PDF) that in light of Citizens United "it is settled law that independent expenditures do not create the appearance of corruption" because they aren't donated directly to candidates. As Lee Fang notes, it's pretty clear that evidence of actual corruption does exist, pointing to a multitude of evidence filed by a judge in McConnell v. FEC, the 2003 case that upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance limits (which Citizens United partly reversed). Nevertheless, the Chamber says that even if such evidence of corruption should come to light, the Supreme Court should not use "empirical data" to reconsider its previous ruling.

Don't know much about history…
Citizens United, the group behind the case of the same name, has also weighed in. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock argued that his state's unique history of political corruption, dating back to the political stranglehold held by the Anaconda Copper Mining Company in the late 1800s, was reason enough to disprove the Supreme Court's contention that independent expenditures "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." However, Citizens United says that the Montana ruling violates a 2009 Supreme Court decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, in which "this Court confirmed that history alone is an insufficient ground for sustaining a constitutionally suspect statute."

CU's brief also argues that Citizens United is not a "factbound" ruling and that any claims otherwise are disingenuous efforts to create an unconstitutional state-level exemption to free-speech rights. Meanwhile, Montana AG Bullock may have inadvertently strengthened his argument against Citizens United: After leaving his seat open to run for governor, an unprecedented amount of money has been poured into the Republican primary for attorney general, much of it from out-of-state PACs.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Could Citizens United Be Toast in Just Two Months?

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Mon May. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

The 11th Amendment: The key to stymieing super-PACs?

Last December, the Montana Supreme Court defied Citizens United by upholding the state's century-old campaign finance laws. That decision could well be overturned when it comes before the Supreme Court, which stayed the Montana high court's decision in February. But never fear, reformers: The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM), an obscure group based in Hawaii, claims that Citizens United could be effectively overturned within the next two months.

Here's part of TEAM's argument, as laid out in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court: Because the plaintiff in the Montana case made a "technical error" by naming state Attorney General Steve Bullock in his official capacity, the 11th Amendment bars the Supreme Court from touching the Montana decision. The amendment affirms the principal of sovereign immunity, which prevents federal courts from interfering with lawsuits brought by individuals against state governments.

The group is represented by Carl Mayer, a New York lawyer who's won cases against the likes of Nike and has been working on behalf of journalist Chris Hedges to strike down the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act. Last Wednesday, a federal judge sided with Hedges. (Mayer also unsucessfully sued the New England Patriots and NFL for $185 million on behalf of New York Jets fans, claiming that Patriots coach Bill Belichick rigged games by secretly taping opponents' signals.)

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Want to Ditch Citizens United? A DIY Guide

Pick your own path to an America without super-PACs.

—By Gavin Aronsen, Ben Breedlove, Dave Gilson, and Jaeah Lee

| Mon May. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Many Americans still don't know what Citizens United is, but most are unhappy with the impact of the 2010 Supreme Court decision that led to the birth of the megadonor-fueled super-PAC. Now, efforts are afoot to reverse the unpopular ruling altogether. But will they work?

Let this choose-your-own-adventure-style flowchart guide you through the steps to a Citizens United-free America.

Don't have time to click? Here's an abridged version:

Front page photo illustration by Dave Gilson. Images from Talk Radio News Service/Flickr, enggul/Flickr

This Week in Dark Money

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Fri May. 18, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

A quick look at the week that was in the world of political dark money...

How Citizens United went down: The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin has a riveting behind-the-scenes story of how the Roberts court decided the landmark Citizens United case. Toobin contends that Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated a sweeping reinterpretation of decades of campaign-finance laws while keeping his fingerprints off the final opinion (written by Justice Anthony Kennedy). SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein counters Toobin with a less conspiratorial take on how the conservative wing of the court made its decision. Plus: A look at four cases working their way to the Supreme Court that could speed—or stem—the flow of unlimited election cash.

New ad blitzes launch: Mother Jones' Andy Kroll reports on the latest ad campaign from Karl Rove's dark-money outfit Crossroads GPS: A 10-state broadside against President Obama. 501(c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS are prohibited from devoting the majority of their resources to politicking (although there's a chance that may change soon). This ad carefully sidesteps the issue by not explicitly telling viewers to not vote for Obama or to vote for Romney.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign unleashed a $25 million ad campaign of its own; it's suspiciously similar to another ad campaign released this week by the pro-Obama super-PAC Priorities USA Action, which is prohibited by law from coordinating with the Obama campaign.

Attack ads work: According to a new survey by two Arizona State professors, the more negative ads voters watch, the more harshly they judge the candidate being attacked. That could explain why, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, 70 percent of ads this year have been negative, compared with 9 percent in 2008. However, the survey also found that some people are more resistant to negative ads: strong partisans, close campaign observers, conservatives, men, young people, and those with unsophisticated political views.

Super-PACs home in on state races: Politico reports that super-PACs focused on congressional races are dominating outside spending, especially in Republican primaries. For example, Club for Growth Action has poured more than $1 million into races in Texas and Nebraska. Its Nebraska ads, like this one, appear to be proving the Arizona State survey true:

21-year-old starts super-PAC: This month's sixth-top spending super-PAC is Liberty for All, a pro-Ron Paul super-PAC cofounded in March by John Ramsey, who has spent upwards of $500,000 of his inheritance on campaign ads for Thomas Massie, a Paul-endorsed candidate running for an open House seat in Kentucky. "We're the only freedom organization that is focused on winning elections, plural," Liberty for All's other founder tells MoJo's Tim Murphy.

Americans Elect folds: Last week, it was becoming clear that Americans Elect's effort to launch a third-party presidential bid through a series of online caucuses was in serious trouble. Today, having gained ballot access in 29 states but unable to nominate a candidate, AE acknowledged defeat. When asked if he planned to end his presidential bid now that AE is toast, the group's front runner, former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer told Slate's Dave Weigel, "I'm digging deep for words, but all I'm coming up with is bullshit."

A plan of attack backfires: The New York Times reports that Character Matters, a new anti-Obama super-PAC, entertained a proposal to cast the president as a "metrosexual, black Abraham Lincoln" and tie him to his former pastor, the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The super-PAC is funded to the tune of $10 million by TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, whose family owns the Chicago Cubs. Ricketts disavowed the ad, but that wasn't enough for Chicago mayor and former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. The Washington Post reports that Emanuel is "livid" and won't return phone calls from the Ricketts family. Muckety maps their influence:

Will One of These Cases Be the Next Citizens United?

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Wed May. 16, 2012 3:25 AM PDT

In the latest issue of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin explores how Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a seemingly narrow case about political attack ads, ended up fundamentally changing campaign finance law and becoming the signature decision of the Roberts court. So what could be the next Citizens United? Here's a look at some of the biggest campaign finance cases working their way through the federal court system, and what they could mean for those who'd like to reform the current system (and roll back Citizens United):

Van Hollen v. FEC
Outlook for reformers: Promising
Last month, a district court closed a major loophole that allowed outside groups producing election ads (for example, Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS) to avoid disclosing their donors. On Monday, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request to stay the decision, putting an end to the secret financing of ads airing within 60 days of a general election—that is, if the notoriously ineffective Federal Election Commission enforces it.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California-Irvine, says the case remains a "moving target," but he suspects the request for a stay will wind up before the Supreme Court, which voted 8-1 to uphold disclosure laws in Citizens United. Fred Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21 and one of the lawyers who filed suit against the FEC, considers the case "the first major breakthrough in the battle to restore disclosure of contributions being spent to influence federal elections." Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Democracy 21 are considering bringing a second lawsuit that would take aim at the disclosure rules for outside ads that specifically call for the election or defeat of candidates.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]