European Debt Crisis Solution: Austerity and Growth

This article by FDA blogger Rupinder touches broadly on Europe's debt crisis and the French election of Hollande. The bio link (below) on Hollande is pragmatic and perhaps negative. The May 2012 Camp Declaration of balancing austerity with [publicly initiated] growth [or spending] is not a new concept, and it demonstrates how limited current Western thought is when dealing with macroeconomic issues. The reality of Europe is that it cannot afford its social programs and government expenditures because it has lost global competitiveness. So the Germans are correct that austerity is necessary to balance expenditure with revenue. Of course, there will be economic contraction, but that stems from lost productivity. The balance of austerity with growth is simply a short-term measure to buy more time, while in the meantime Europe will sink in further debt or somehow become more competitive, and thereby increase revenue.

European Debt Crisis Solution: Austerity and Growth

The victory of Mr. Franois Hollande in France and the failed attempts to form a new government in Greece after the May 12 2012 elections were both heralds of the people’s demand for a change in approaching and dealing with the European sovereign debt crisis. People’s support for social-democratic parties in these two countries could be seen as an indicator of the unrest caused by the German insistence on increasing austerity measures in the form of government spending cuts and tax increases.

Germany got one half of the equation right by insisting on austerity measures: Europe could not put any more on their credit card, and spending needed to be curbed. Where the German solution fell short was in accounting for how the lack of confidence in these economies and the inability of these economies to spend would then turn away investors.

The instability of these economies would further make big businesses work on their own profits—or even survival—by laying off more people and slowing down production. As demand would dwindle in the face of job losses, so would supply, and the big businesses would need even fewer people to do the work that needed to be done. Thus, austerity measures alone would lead to a downward spiral for economic growth.

The May 18–19 G8 meeting at Camp David may have led to a softening in the German position on austerity in the face of demands by France, UK, Italy, and the US to include capital spending and investment to promote growth in these broken economies. The solution, as many European leaders and President Obama insist, lies in working with both austerity and growth measures. This position is stated in the White House press release of the Camp David Declaration:

6. We agree that all of our governments need to take actions to boost confidence and nurture recovery including reforms to raise productivity, growth and demand within a sustainable, credible and non-inflationary macroeconomic framework. We commit to fiscal responsibility and, in this context, we support sound and sustainable fiscal consolidation policies that take into account countries’ evolving economic conditions and underpin confidence and economic recovery.

7. To raise productivity and growth potential in our economies, we support structural reforms, and investments in education and in modern infrastructure, as appropriate. Investment initiatives can be financed using a range of mechanisms, including leveraging the private sector. Sound financial measures, to which we are committed, should build stronger systems over time while not choking off near-term credit growth. We commit to promote investment to underpin demand, including support for small businesses and public-private partnerships.

(May 2012 Camp David Declarations)

Big Money Politics and Wisconsin

In a new report, the Center for Media and Democracy exposes the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)'s influence on the Wisconsin governor and Legislature. The issue at stake is lobbyists like ALEC influencing Wisconsin politicians through political contributions in order to get public policy and laws which favor ALEC's corporate members. In addition, ALEC is listed as an American charity, so how can it be promoting partisan agendas and still be a charity? Further, should elected officials be allowed to receive contributions with quid pro quo and dependency implications?

The main findings from the Report on ALEC as identified by the Center for Media and Democracy are:

32 bills or budget provisions reflecting ALEC model legislation were introduced in Wisconsin's 2011-2012 legislative session;

21 of these bills or budget provisions have passed, and two were vetoed;

More than $276,000 in campaign contributions were made to ALEC legislators in Wisconsin from ALEC corporations since 2008;

More than $406,000 in campaign contributions were made to ALEC alumnus Governor Walker from ALEC corporations over the same time period for his state campaign account;

At least 49 current Wisconsin legislators are known ALEC members, including the leaders of both the House and Senate as well as other legislators holding key posts in the state. Additionally, the Governor, the Secretary of the Department of Administration, and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission are ALEC alumni; and

At least 17 current legislators have received thousands of dollars of gifts cumulatively from ALEC corporations in the past few years, in the form of flights and hotel rooms filtered through the ALEC "scholarship fund" (complete "scholarship" information is not available).

ALEC describes itself as the largest "independent member association of state legislators" in the country, but over 98 percent of its nearly $7 million in annual revenue comes from corporations and sources other than legislative dues, which are $50 a year. Representatives from America's largest corporations, including Koch Industries, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Reynolds, and Altria/Phillip Morris fund ALEC and sit on its private sector governing board.

Report on the American Legislative Exchange Council Influence on Wisconsin Elected Officials and Public Policy

Types of Political Corruption 

Garvey Goes Head-to-Head with Breakenridge

In this radio interview on the Rob Breakenridge Show on QR770 (based out of Calgary), Stephen Garvey FDA Executive Director goes head-to-head with Rob Breakenridge in regard to the FDA's Media Report on the 2012 Alberta Election. This discussion is heated and touches on a number of important issues.

To listen to the interview, click on the link below for the QR770 audio vault, and then go to May 22nd at 9 p.m. The interview begins around 9:09 p.m.

QR770 Audit Vault

FDA Media Study on the 2012 Alberta Election

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Venezuela

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Bolivia

Carter Institute Election Report on the 2007 Venezuelan Referendum

Bolivia Recognized for Excellence in Human Development Policies

Freedom House which Mr. Breakenridge references in the interview, calls itself independent; yet in 2007 for example, Freedom House received 70% of its funds from US government sources such as the USAID and the US State Department:

Information on Freedom House 

FDA Media Study of the 2012 Alberta Provincial Election

Alberta PC and Wildrose Parties Receive Lion's Share of Media Coverage During 2012 Provincial Election

The Alberta Progressive Conservative Party (PC's) and the Wildrose Alliance Party received almost twice the coverage than the other seven registered parties during the last two weeks of the 2012 Alberta provincial election. The Foundation for Democratic Advancement, a non-partisan organization that advances fair and transparent democratic processes, found that the Alberta PC's and the Wildrose received 65.2 per cent of the total media exposure compared to only 34.8 percent for the seven other registered parties. Five of these seven parties had 4.1 per cent of total exposure. The data was collected from two major corporations for each medium (print, radio, television).

Key points gleaned from the study:

The Alberta PC's and Alberta Wildrose Parties received a combined 62 per cent of the print coverage as compared to the other political parties.

The PC party alone received 41 per cent of the radio coverage during the election period comprising almost half the news stories during that period.

The Alberta PC's and Alberta Wildrose Parties received a combined 64 per cent of the television coverage as compared to the other political parties comprising more than half of the news stories during that period.

The FDA has found that a clear positive correlation exists between the amount of media exposure and the election results for each party.

FDA Media Study of the 2012 Alberta Provincial Election

FDA Media Study Advisory

880 News Interview on the FDA Media Report

Wrzesnewskyj Verse Opitz Ontario Supreme Court Decision

Judge Lederer did not address wrongdoing by voters who may have voted without being qualified to do so or who voted more than once. Thanks to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's persistence and willingness to file a civil law suit, the Etobicoke election result would not have been found null and void.

Conclusion from Judge Lederer J.'s decision:

[153] Based on this analysis the following votes are set aside.

On account of failure of registration:

At Poll 426.........26
At Poll 31...........15
At Poll 174.........1
At Poll 89...........10

On account of failure of vouching:

At Poll 21..........8
At Poll 30..........4
At Poll 174.........8
At Poll 502.........7

[ 154] This exceeds the plurality of 26. I declare the election null and void as contemplated under s. 531(2) of the Canada Elections Act.

[155] As for what was referred to earlier as the conundrum, it should be evident that in deciding these applications, the court walks a thin line in search of a delicate balance.

[156] On the one hand, people who are qualified to do so should be allowed to vote and to have their votes count. True clerical errors, such as recording the number of ballots cast in the place reserved for the number who were vouched for, do not matter. Some oversights, such as a failure to check off the means by which a voter identified himself or herself, can be accepted, when considered in context of the overall requirements to register. There are irregularities, such as voting in the wrong polling division which, in the absence of any suggestion of double voting,
should not impact the result. These should not cause a qualified voter to be disenfranchised.

[157] On the other hand, there are requirements of the process which are fundamental. We need to be assured that those who vote are qualified to do so. We need to be confident that those who receive a ballot have been identified as persons who are an the official list of electors or who have registered. If we give up these foundations of our electoral system, we are risking a loss of confidence in our elections and in our government.

[158] If this case can be summarized, in a single observation, it would be that it cannot be good
enough to accept that individuals who voted were qualified to do so by registration, in the absence of the registration certificates, in the absence of the poll books recording anyone who registered by vouching and in the absence of the names from the final list of electors. Our system requires more.

[ 1 ~ 9] The fact of this application demonstrates that our electoral process has the necessary checks and that they can work even where the plurality is as small as 26 votes and the number of impugned ballots is 79. There are places in the world that would wonder that such a result was possible. This is not to say we should be content. This is just one of so many areas where our society is changing more quickly than the ability of our systems to keep up. I repeat an observation made at the outset. This election was conducted by responsible public officials and well-intentioned individuals, who were motivated by nothing less than a desire to do the job properly. What this case represents is an opportunity to learn and for the process to evolve in order to guard against the particular problems that appeared in this case.

 Wrzesnewskyj Verse Opitz Ontario Supreme Court Decision 

Canadian Democracy Wins a Battle

FDA Blogger Rupinder writes:

Although the 2011 Canadian federal election that has been blighted with allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and processual irregularities, finally there is a heartening victory for democracy in Canada.

Justice Thomas Lederer has declared the results of the May 02, 2011 election in the riding of Etobicoke Centre void because of irregularities in the election process. Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj challenged the election results after losing the race by 26 votes to Conservative MP Ted Opitz.

In his 40-page decision, Justice Lederer presented the case as a “true conundrum” at the heart of which lies Canadians’ faith in the electoral process—while irregularities in the electoral process would shake that trust, so would the justice system putting aside the results of an election too easily.

After an analysis of 181 disputed ballots from 10 polling stations, Justice Lederer put aside 52 votes on account of failure of registration and 27 votes on account of failure of vouching.

Because 79 votes were put aside and because the winning margin was 26 votes, the election was declared void. This decision would lead to a by-election in Etobicoke Centre; however, if the judgment were appealed, then the case would appear in the Supreme Court.

Etobicoke Election Result Overturned

Canadian Federal Robocall Scandal

Canadian Human Rights and Democracy Agency Closed

C-38 Erodes Canadian Democratic Processes

Nature Journal Criticizes Canadian Federal Government

Etobicoke Federal Election Result Overturned Due to Irregularities by Election Canada

Former Liberal MP Wrzesnewskyj convinced a Toronto Judge of sufficient evidence to overturn the 2011 federal election result for the Etobicoke constituency, in which Conservative candidate Optiz won. Now there will be a byelection to determine who represents the constituency. Elections Canada was at fault for overturning the result due to irregularities in its administration of the vote count in the constituency. It is unclear whether or not the issue with Elections Canada is incompetence or corruption. Insufficient funding is ruled out as an issue. In addition, there were voters who voted more than once. It is unclear if they were associated with a federal political party.


From CBCNews,

Toronto riding's election result tossed by judge

Conservative MP Ted Opitz's 2011 federal election win last year in Etobicoke Centre was declared null and void today in a challenge by former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

Opitz won the May 2011 election by 26 votes, but Wrzesnewskyj challenged the results over voting irregularities. The case required more than 26 votes be thrown out for it to be declared void.
Conservative Party spokesman Fred Delorey said they're disappointed with the court decision after 52,000 people in Etobicoke Centre "followed the rules, cast their ballots and today had their democratic decision thrown into doubt."

"The judge has found problems with the way that Elections Canada ran the election in this riding," he said in an emailed statement.

"As the judge took care to point out in the decision, Ted Opitz and the Conservative campaign team followed the rules.

Wrzesnewskyj told CBC News that the riding needs a by-election to restore democracy.
"Something broke in the last federal election," he said. "It's a terrible thought not to know whether or not someone who is in the House of Commons, voting on laws by which we govern ourselves, whether those individuals are actually an expression of the will of the people."

He and the Conservatives seem to agree there's a need for more training for the volunteers and temporary workers the election agency takes on in advance of voting day.

"Elections Canada has to have the resources to properly train their officials, to make sure that people who vote are — it's as basic as making sure that they actually are Canadian citizens."
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae wrote a celebratory message on Twitter.

"Borys wins ! And now for round 2...," he tweeted.

Justice Thomas Lederer set aside 79 ballots in his decision Friday in Toronto. Opitz has eight days to appeal. If he does, the case would be heard as soon as possible by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Wrzesnewskyj's lawyer had argued up to 181 ballots were in dispute.

The voting irregularities included some people who weren't on the list but cast ballots after being vouched for by others at the polling station, some people without the proper paperwork completed, and others in which voters cast ballots when they were registered at other polling stations or didn't live in the riding.
Lederer said the core of the case was about the "confidence that Canadians must have in our electoral process."

"If that confidence is diminished, it follows that our interest in, and respect for, government will be similarly diminished. It surely follows that if people who are not qualified to vote were permitted to do so, or if there is a concern that people may have been permitted to vote more than once, confidence in our electoral process will fade."

Lederer noted that it seemed the election was conducted by responsible public officials and well-intentioned individuals who were motivated by nothing less than a desire to do the job properly.

But it can't be good enough to accept some people voted by registration and without registration certificates, without poll books recording who vouched for whom, and without having their names on the final list of voters.

"Our system requires more," Lederer wrote in the 40-page decision.

Elections Canada wouldn't comment on the decision in case there's an appeal.

Under a court order, Wrzesnewskyj's lawyers were able to examine the ballots at 10 polling divisions, as well as poll books and electors' lists at Elections Canada's office in Ottawa.

The test to declare the election invalid, and trigger a byelection (after any appeals are exhausted), was a finding that more than 26 ballots, the losing margin, should not have been counted.

Particularly outstanding is what went on in Polling Division 31, located in a church in Etobicoke. Eighty-six people voted by registration certificate on May 2, meaning they showed up without a voter identification card. Wrzesnewsky's lawyers claim that 68 of those voters actually lived in another polling division and should never have been allowed to vote at polling station 31. Lederer threw out 15 ballots in that polling division.

Two of those voters gave addresses outside the riding and their ballots should be discarded, the lawyers claim. And 32 voters were already on the electors' list in that polling division or others nearby, suggesting it's possible they voted twice.

In another polling division in the riding, five voters who voted by registration certificate are listed as being crossed off the electors' list in another polling division, indicating they most likely did vote twice.

In one polling division, both the deputy returning officer and the polling clerk vouched for more than one voter who showed up without ID, something that, as Elections Canada employees, they should have known was illegal. Lederer threw out the four votes for which they vouched.

Plutocracy and Nation Failure

This article by Thomas L. Friedman from the NY Times examines why nations fail, and Friedman with reference to the "Why Nations Fail" argues that plutocracy and authoritarianism are at the center of nation failure. The article fails to touch adequately on the United State's political shortcomings such as corruption at the core of the US Congress and Senate via lobbyists, which turn influence public policy in favor of minority interests. Also, Acemoglu's and Robinson's argument against China is unconvincing, because the authoritarian bent of the ruling communist party may be a check on Chinese free enterprise and vise versa; whereas in the United States free enterprise (albeit in a plutocratic state) controls government. 

Why Nations Fail

I’M reading a fascinating new book called “Why Nations Fail.” The more you read it, the more you appreciate what a fool’s errand we’re on in Afghanistan and how much we need to totally revamp our whole foreign a strategy. But most intriguing are the warning flares the authors put up about both America and China.

Co-authored by the M.I.T. economist Daron Acemoglu and the Harvard political scientist James A. Robinson, “Why Nations Fail” argues that the key differentiator between countries is “institutions.” Nations thrive when they develop “inclusive” political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become “extractive” and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few.

“Inclusive economic institutions that enforce property rights, create a level playing field, and encourage investments in new technologies and skills are more conducive to economic growth than extractive economic institutions that are structured to extract resources from the many by the few,” they write.

“Inclusive economic institutions, are in turn supported by, and support, inclusive political institutions,” which “distribute political power widely in a pluralistic manner and are able to achieve some amount of political centralization so as to establish law and order, the foundations of secure property rights, and an inclusive market economy.” Conversely, extractive political institutions that concentrate power in the hands of a few reinforce extractive economic institutions to hold power.

Acemoglu explained in an interview that their core point is that countries thrive when they build political and economic institutions that “unleash,” empower and protect the full potential of each citizen to innovate, invest and develop. Compare how well Eastern Europe has done since the fall of communism with post-Soviet states like Georgia or Uzbekistan, or Israel versus the Arab states, or Kurdistan versus the rest of Iraq. It’s all in the institutions.

The lesson of history, the authors argue, is that you can’t get your economics right if you don’t get your politics right, which is why they don’t buy the notion that China has found the magic formula for combining political control and economic growth.

“Our analysis,” says Acemoglu, “is that China is experiencing growth under extractive institutions — under the authoritarian grip of the Communist Party, which has been able to monopolize power and mobilize resources at a scale that has allowed for a burst of economic growth starting from a very low base,” but it’s not sustainable because it doesn’t foster the degree of “creative destruction” that is so vital for innovation and higher incomes.

“Sustained economic growth requires innovation,” the authors write, “and innovation cannot be decoupled from creative destruction, which replaces the old with the new in the economic realm and also destabilizes established power relations in politics.”

“Unless China makes the transition to an economy based on creative destruction, its growth will not last,” argues Acemoglu. But can you imagine a 20-year-old college dropout in China being allowed to start a company that challenges a whole sector of state-owned Chinese companies funded by state-owned banks? he asks.

The post-9/11 view that what ailed the Arab world and Afghanistan was a lack of democracy was not wrong, said Acemoglu. What was wrong was thinking that we could easily export it. Democratic change, to be sustainable, has to emerge from grassroots movements, “but that does not mean there is nothing we can do,” he adds.

For instance, we should be transitioning away from military aid to regimes like Egypt and focusing instead on enabling more sectors of that society to have a say in politics. Right now, I’d argue, our foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan is really a ransom we pay their elites not to engage in bad behavior. We need to turn it into bait.

Acemoglu suggests that instead of giving Cairo another $1.3 billion in military aid that only reinforces part of the elite, we should insist that Egypt establish a committee representing all sectors of its society that would tell us which institutions — schools, hospitals — they want foreign aid to go to, and have to develop appropriate proposals.

If we’re going to give money, “let’s use it to force them to open up the table and to strengthen the grass-roots,” says Acemoglu.

We can only be a force multiplier. Where you have grass-roots movements that want to build inclusive institutions, we can enhance them. But we can’t create or substitute for them. Worse, in Afghanistan and many Arab states, our policies have often discouraged grass-roots from emerging by our siding with convenient strongmen. So there’s nothing to multiply. If you multiply zero by 100, you still get zero.

And America? Acemoglu worries that our huge growth in economic inequality is undermining the inclusiveness of America’s institutions, too. “The real problem is that economic inequality, when it becomes this large, translates into political inequality.” When one person can write a check to finance your whole campaign, how inclusive will you be as an elected official to listen to competing voices?

Plutocracy and Political Inequality

Bill Moyers on US Plutocracy

Proposal for Campaign Finance Reform of New York State's Laws

This proposal by Andrew Cuomo touches on some important aspects of campaign finance reform: public subsidies, all candidates access to debates, limit soft money through loopholes, reduce campaign expenditure limits to reasonable level, improve transparency of electoral finances, tighten loop holes for corporate contributions, increase penalties for violation of election law, ban fund raising during the operation of the Legislature, and ban use of personal funds in campaigns.

In addition, the FDA recommends a ban corporations and trade unions from making contributions and third party spending, and set contribution and expenditure limits at levels reasonably attainable by all candidates.


Proposed Solution on Campaign Finance

Campaign Finance

Proposal: Campaign Platform: Reform New York State's Campaign Finance Laws
Source of Proposal: Andrew Cuomo
Summary of Proposal:

We must restore honor and integrity to government, with tough new ethics standards, expanded disclosure requirements, independent investigators to root out and punish corruption, and an overhaul of campaign finance laws. We must remove legislative redistricting from partisan elected politicians and place it in the hands of an independent commission that works only for the people. And we must hold a constitutional convention -- A People’s Convention – to rewrite the Constitution and make these changes immediately because we cannot wait any longer for the state legislature to act.

Reform New York State’s Campaign Finance Laws

In order to restore trust and accountability in government, we must reform the very foundation of democracy — the ballot box.  Therefore, we must change our antiquated campaign finance laws. Our current laws amplify the voices of wealthy individuals and special interests and entrench incumbents at the public’s expense.

Individuals can now contribute up to $55,900 to candidates for statewide office. Corporations that are barred from donating one penny to federal candidates may donate directly to state candidates and use subsidiaries and LLCs to avoid New York’s limits. Unlike federal law, New York allows unlimited “soft money” contributions to party “housekeeping” accounts by individuals and corporations, and leaves unrestricted transfers between PACs and parties and candidates.  In addition, unlike New York City’s campaign public financing system that has expanded the diversity of candidates and enhanced the voices of small donors, New York fails to provide voluntary public financing of any kind. Moreover, elected officials can use campaign funds for personal expenses that are unrelated to their campaign costs.

In short, the State’s campaign finance laws fail to prevent the dominance of wealthy contributors and special interests in our government and force our representatives to be more concerned with how their contributors will react to a particular policy than with whether that policy is the right thing to do.

Therefore, as Governor, Andrew Cuomo will work to fundamentally reform our system of financing elections that achieves three core goals: transparency, integrity, and participation. Such a system must include public funding of elections. Coupled with redistricting reform (discussed below) this will truly yield meaningful improvement of our system. However, until such fundamental reforms are in place, the alternative is to lower contribution limits, close loopholes in the campaign finance law and allow for more enforcement of New York’s campaign finance law.

Institute a Voluntary System of Public Funding of Election Campaigns

Fundamental campaign finance reform must include a system of public funding of elections. Like New York City, New York State needs a system of public campaign financing to allow limits on campaign spending and to increase participation by qualified candidates who lack the means or connections to raise significant campaign funds. Candidates should also be required to agree to participate in debates in order to receive public financing.

Limit Soft Money

We must take necessary steps to achieve transparency by limiting soft money donations. Unlike federal law, New York State allows donations of an unlimited amount to party “housekeeping” accounts. The housekeeping loophole allows individuals and corporations to contribute unlimited funds to a political party. Political parties’ housekeeping accounts should no longer be exempted from contribution limits and, as discussed below, those limits should be lowered significantly.

Reduce Sky-High Campaign Contribution Limits

Individuals in New York are permitted to contribute up to $94,200 annually to political parties and a total of $55,900 to the primary and general election campaigns of statewide candidates, $15,500 to state senate candidates, and $7,600 to assembly candidates. New York must limit the amount that candidates can raise in primary and general elections. Together, with a system of public financing, these reforms will dramatically expand the talent pool for our elected offices, increase competition, and reduce the impact of particular donors on an elected representative’s policy agenda.

Close Corporate Subsidiary and LLC Loopholes

We must close loopholes that make meaningful campaign finance reform difficult. To that end, donations from corporate subsidiaries and related limited liability companies should be counted as donations from the affiliated parent company so that the limit for corporations of $5,000 per year is meaningful.


Tighten Inadequate Reporting Requirements

Contributors in New York should be required to reveal their occupations and the names of their employers, like they are required to do under federal law.


Restrict Fundraisers during Legislative Session and Prohibit Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Albany-area fundraisers and lobbyist campaign contributions should be restricted during the legislative session and timely disclosure of contributions made during session required.

Moreover, campaign contributions should not be used for personal expenditures. New York’s vague prohibition on the use of campaign funds for personal expenditures has resulted in their use for such noncampaign related expenses as country club memberships, purchases of television sets and personal wardrobe items. Permissible and nonpermissible uses of campaign funds must be clarified, and non-campaign related, personal uses of any kind prohibited and enforced.


Improve Enforcement of Campaign Finance laws

The New York State Board of Elections (“Board”) is limited by law in its ability to investigate and punish election law scofflaws. The Board’s Campaign Finance Unit is a bottleneck for all potential civil or criminal enforcement proceedings because it must review and refer a potential violation to the Board’s Enforcement Counsel Unit or to the district attorney’s office prior to any action being taken. In turn, the three-person Enforcement Counsel Unit can bring a court proceeding, but it has neither sufficient resources nor any requirement that it do so even in cases where a violation has been shown. Moreover, the civil penalties for violations of campaign finance laws are minimal or, in many cases, non-existent.

Accordingly, reforms must include (1) granting the Attorney General full concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute civil and criminal violations of the laws; (2) authorizing the Enforcement Counsel Unit to act without referral from the Campaign Finance Unit and prohibiting the Board itself from overruling the Enforcement Counsel Unit’s decision whether to investigate an alleged violation; (3) requiring the Board of Elections to publish the names and entities found to have violated campaign finance laws, as the New York City Campaign Finance Board is required to do; and (4) significantly increasing the penalties for violations of campaign finance laws across the board.

2012 FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Study

Biden Addresses Romney's "Politics of Envy"

Vice-president Biden in this his recent Ohio address takes on the Romney's "politics of envy" by arguing that most Americans aspire and dream for lofty goals: No envy; will to succeed. So how about politics of competition: Americans striving for the same goals and dreams. This now links into the issue of how fair or unfair the competition is.

FDA Media Study on the 2012 Alberta Provincial Election

On Tuesday May 22nd, the FDA will release its media study on the 2012 Alberta Provincial Election. The study focuses on major media outlets in the newspaper (and online), radio, and television (and online) sectors.