Most Recent Posts

Anyone concerned about how the two parties would pay for their national conventions after a new law took away their public funding can stop worrying.

The Federal Election Commission approved a joint request Thursday by the Democratic and Republican parties to let them accept as much as $32,400 per donor per year – for conventions alone. That's even in the three years of each presidential election cycle in which there is no actual convention, and on top of the $32,400 per year individuals can already give each party.

From an October 8 letter to the Federal Election Commission from the Democratic and Republican parties. Federal Election Commission hide caption

itoggle caption Federal Election Commission

In a letter to the commissioners Wednesday, the parties blamed "Congress's sudden and unexpected termination of the National Party Committees' entitlement to receive public funds to pay for convention expenses, at a time when planning for the national nominating conventions was well underway."

That "sudden and unexpected termination" came in the form of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Obama this spring. It ended public financing for the conventions and promised to shift the money saved — $18 million for each convention in 2012 – for children's cancer research.

Advocates of campaign finance limits opposed the change. Public Citizen noted that Congress so far has failed to actually provide any new cancer research funding. "Today, the commission is being asked by the same parties to create another loophole in federal election law," the group wrote in a Tuesday letter.

The commission has been blocked from acting in recent years because of a three-three split between the three Democratic and three Republicans members. It approved the change today on a 4-2 vote when Democratic vice-chairwoman Ann Ravel voted with the three Republicans.

party conventions

Federal Election Commission

Code Switch

As States Vote In Primaries, Voter ID Laws Come Under Scrutiny

It's All Politics

Voting Rights Ruling Could Open Lawsuit Floodgates

Updated at 7:03 a.m. ET Friday:

After an appeals court put Wisconsin's voter ID law back into effect, the Supreme Court voted to put the law on hold while the justices decide whether to take the case.

Erin Toner of Milwaukee's WUWM reports:

"This comes after a federal appeals court on Monday upheld the law as constitutional. But tonight's Supreme Court ruling blocks voter ID while it considers whether to accept the case.

"Gov. Walker and Republicans approved the law in 2011, and it's been held up in the courts ever since. ...

"It's been estimated that as many as 300,000 Wisconsin residents do not have the required IDs for voting. Supporters of the law claim the intent is to prevent voter fraud, but there is no evidence of any fraud in Wisconsin."

It's All Politics

Texas Voter ID Law Goes To Trial

NPR's Pam Fessler notes that while Samuel Alito joined fellow Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissenting, he expressed concern about imposing the law so close to the election.

"That was one of the main arguments that opponents of the law had made — that it was too late to put this law into effect this year," Pam tells Morning Edition. "It had been on hold for two years until in September a federal court ruled that it could go into effect. But by that time, the state had already sent out hundreds of absentee ballots that did not include ID instructions. So election officials were going to have to track down each of those voters and have them send in a copy of their ID so their votes would count, which was quite a mess. Now those votes will count."

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Texas overturned that state's new voter ID law, a ruling the state's attorney general says will be appealed immediately, The Associated Press reports. The Justice Department had argued that the law would have left 600,000 Texans, mostly blacks and Hispanics, without sufficient identification to vote in November elections, according to The Associated Press.

Pam Fessler had this to say on the judge's ruling:

"Texas has one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, and voting rights groups challenged it as discriminatory. Last night, District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos agreed. In a strongly worded opinion, she said the law discriminated against the state's Hispanic and African American voters, because they're less likely to have the required government-issued photo ID, and could have a more difficult time getting one. She said that the law effectively imposed a poll tax because some voters would have to pay to get documents — such as a birth certificate — needed to get a photo ID. Perhaps more importantly, she found that the state enacted the law with the intention of discriminating against voters.

"I should say that within minutes of her ruling, the Texas attorney general's office issued a statement that the state would immediately appeal. So this is definitely not the last we're going to hear on this. There's still some question whether or not Texas voters will have to show ID in this year's election."

Voter ID

Texas

Wisconsin

election

Supreme Court

This story is part of the New Boom series on millennials in America.

Millennials are not getting much love from politicians this year.

The big reason for that is low expectations for turnout among young voters.

Back in 2010, the last midterm election, fewer than a quarter of voters ages 18 to 29 showed up at the polls. This year, it's looking even worse: 23 percent of voters under 30 are expected to vote. That's according to Eva Guidarini of the Harvard Institute of Politics, which studies young voters.

YouTube

Rock the Vote gained visibility in its early years with music stars like Madonna appearing in spots that aired on MTV.

For many years, young voters were not expected to really care about politics, much less get involved.

That's why the group Rock the Vote was started in 1989, relying on music stars like Madonna to engage their young fans. And they're still at it, with an updated set list.

For a while, it didn't look like millennials would need much convincing. As more members of this generation reached voting age, participation among young voters rose. The peak year was 2008 (52 percent). In 2012, the turnout among voters 18 to 29 dropped to 45 percent.

On top of that, the rate of voters younger than 30 who could say with certainty that they were registered to vote fell steadily after 2008, according to the Pew Research Center. By 2012, it hit 50 percent — the lowest number Pew has recorded going back as far as 1996.

YouTube

Rock the Vote's latest video message, starring rapper Lil Jon.

Why the big drop? It's not like millennials aren't paying attention. Some say they're easily better informed than past generations.

Jacob Bell, a 20-year-old student at the University of Maryland, put it this way: "I can pull up Facebook in front of me and see five different articles about the next Senate race, and that's something that I know my mom's generation never had."

Ashley Spillane, the president of Rock the Vote, says it's no mystery why millennials, or any voters, would be turned off from the process: "Politics right now is really disheartening. I think it's why you see in the polls that young people are not affiliating with political parties."

(The number of millennials who consider themselves independents has shot up to 50 percent, according to Pew.)

But Spillane doesn't think that means they are apathetic. "They do care very passionately about issues that matter to them," she says. "They are getting involved at a local level. They are creating startups. They are volunteering with local organizations. They are looking to take problems on in real time and fix them," she says.

Use the hashtag #newboom to join the conversation on social media.

For Rock the Vote, the challenge is reaching a generation that's paying attention to politics — but is simultaneously repelled by what they see.

While Guidarini is concerned about a generation of voters turned off by politics as they are forming their political identities, she doesn't think all hope is lost: "I think that if politics starts to change in a direction that I think all of America wants to see it change — not just young people — then you'll see young people get back in the game."

The question is whether politics will improve unless a new generation gets more involved and pushes for that change.

For South Dakotans who have enjoyed a relatively low-key campaign season so far, your peace and quiet is about to end.

Both the Senate arm of the national Democratic Party and a crowd-sourced, anti-super PAC super PAC are preparing to flood the airwaves with ads backing Democratic candidate Rick Weiland and attacking former Republican Gov. Mike Rounds.

South Dakota was supposed to be one of three easy pickups for Republicans in their bid to take control of the Senate – which means it's just a matter of time before Republicans and their outside group allies respond in kind.

The flurry of activity comes after new polling that shows Rounds' big lead in the race has shrunk, with both Weiland and former Republican Sen. Larry Pressler within striking distance. Democratic party leaders would be happy with either Weiland, a one-time aide to former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, or Pressler, who both in 2008 and 2012 endorsed President Obama.

South Dakota has been a generally reliable Republican state in recent years, but Rounds has been dragged down by investigations into a state agency's use of a visa program that gives green cards to wealthy foreigners who invest in United States businesses. Rounds promoted the plan as governor, but a major beneficiary went bankrupt amid allegations of corruption and self-dealing.

A spokeswoman at the National Republican Senatorial Committee said Rounds is in good shape, and that it's a sign of Democrats' desperation that they are throwing money at a race in a state like South Dakota.

Both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Mayday PAC have said they will spend $1 million in South Dakota, although the Democratic money will also be used for voter turnout.

The state is about as inexpensive a media market as they come. An ad buy designed so that the typical viewer will see it 10 times in a week costs about $250,000 in South Dakota – a fraction of what it costs in states with big TV markets.

And while states like North Carolina and Colorado have seen tens of thousands of television ads so far this election, South Dakota had only seen about 12,000 through this week, at a total cost of $2 million, according to the Center of Public Integrity.

If those hoping to defeat Rounds spend as much as they say, and those hoping to elect him match that, South Dakotans could easily be subjected to twice that number of ads in the final three weeks of the campaign.

2014 Senate race: South Dakota

2014 Senate races

South Dakota