News Clips

“We are clearly dealing with a very wealthy individual who has the ability to build goodwill among the public, among specific political actors, in a way that will benefit his campaign,” said Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “Where things could get tricky or legally problematic is if he starts, or is in fact, using his foundation to build support and goodwill for his campaign. Trump seemingly ran afoul of those laws, hopefully Bloomberg will avoid those violations.”The fact that he is able to appeal to potential voters by spending his vast personal wealth on issues they care about, Ryan said, is “another example” of how billionaires have an advantage in elections.

Paul Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Washington-based watchdog group Common Cause, said if Halle's tweet was instead a private message to an outside group, and the outside group made an ad buy based on the information in the private message, then the Buttigieg campaign and the outside spender's activities would "arguably meet" the "material involvement" standard under the FEC's multi-part test.This would violate federal laws.But in this case, because Halle had tweeted the message publicly instead of sending it as a private message to a super PAC, it's not necessarily covered by the FEC rules."In other words, if a candidate does all of their coordinating with outside groups in public view, there’s no illegal coordination under this FEC regulation," Ryan said. "It’s a pretty big hole in the law."

Last month, Common Cause — a watchdog group that fights against gerrymandering, voter suppression and the role of money in politics — filed a formal complaint against Sanders and Our Revolution with the Federal Election Commission. ... At the very least, Our Revolution needs to reveal all its donors, along with where they live and and how much they give. Beyond that, Sanders has to answer why he even needs such a group. He has had little problem raising money in the open, the old-fashioned way.The Citizens United case has produced a decade-long string of unintended consequences. It would be highly ironic if one of them is progressivism abandoning its soul in the name of political expedience.

“It was horrible the way we blew up the limits on donations to national parties because it allows people to buy access and influence,” said Paul S. Ryan, a vice president at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “Contrary to popular perception, the Democratic Party has long fought to loosen restrictions on money and politics, hand-in-hand with the Republicans. The public doesn’t think that because Democrats on the stump talk about campaign finance reform.”

Common Cause, a nonpartisan group that advocates for fairness in U.S. democracy, disagrees. Its vice president, Paul S. Ryan, told Fortune, “It’s entirely true that the wealthy in both parties are using this new system, but who is not benefiting is the everyday American.”Ryan believes that massive campaign expenditures by a handful of wealthy people, which can outstrip the collective donations of thousands of ordinary individuals, diminishes the power of regular voters. And while the Democratic candidates running for President have railed about the corrupting influence of money on politics, they have nonetheless embraced the money spigots available in the post–Citizens United era. Joe Biden, for instance, initially refused to accept super PAC support but quietly changed his position last fall after a soft fundraising quarter.

“Because Sanders set up Our Revolution and they have raised and spent money in candidate elections, Our Revolution is required to comply with contribution limits, register with the FEC and discloses its donors — but it hasn’t,” said Paul S. Ryan, an attorney for Common Cause. “It’s his establishment of the group that triggers these laws. That means a $5,000 limit, full donor disclosure and no contributions from prohibited sources.”