Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: With Uncertainty in GOP Ranks, McConnell Plans Votes on Kavanaugh
By Siobhan Hughes and Rebecca Ballhaus
Senate Republicans Tuesday were facing questions of whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s support within their ranks can withstand the scrutiny triggered by a reopened background check, and when to set in motion votes on his confirmation.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) is counting on the Republicans in his 51-49 majority to push through the confirmation even if the Democrats remain united against Judge Kavanaugh. But the Senate Republican leader also plans to begin votes this week without knowing where three key Republicans-Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine-stand, and without the benefit of a completed supplemental FBI background check that could clear up questions or prompt new ones.
The FBI probe began over the weekend and is estimated to wrap up by Friday, based on a deal reached last week for a one-week probe.
The Courts
Courthouse News Service: Terrorist Bus Ad Is Protected Free Speech, Ninth Circuit Finds
By June Williams
“We cannot conclude that the appropriate limitation on subject matter is ‘offensive speech’ any more than we could conclude that an appropriate limitation on subject matter is ‘pro-life speech’ or ‘pro-choice speech.’ All of those limitations exclude speech solely on the basis of viewpoint-an impermissible restriction in a nonpublic forum,” U.S. Circuit Judge Susan Graber wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) sued King County Metro after the public transit agency rejected a display ad claiming to show the “Faces of Global Terrorism.” The slogan ran above photographs of people exclusively of Middle Eastern and Asian descent.
The AFDI modeled the placard on a State Department ad that ran on King County buses for three weeks before the department voluntarily removed it due to community concerns over racial profiling.
King County rejected AFDI’s first ad for violating three criteria of Metro’s advertising policy – making false statements, containing demeaning or disparaging content, and potentially harming or disrupting the transit system.
AFDI submitted a revised ad, removing the false statement, “The FBI Is Offering Up To $25 Million Reward If You Help Capture One Of These Jihadis.”
King County rejected the ad again for content and disruption, which is when the AFDI sued for violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
When the Western District of Washington federal court ruled in the county’s favor, the AFDI appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The three-judge appellate panel found King County unconstitutionally refused to display the ads on the exterior of its public buses.
Courthouse News Service: PayPal Sued Over Block of Alex Jones, Infowars
By Nicholas Iovino
Right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones hit PayPal with a federal lawsuit Monday, claiming bias against conservative views guided its decision to block his company from earning money through the platform.
“It is at this point well known that large tech companies, located primarily in Silicon Valley, are discriminating against politically conservative entities and individuals, including banning them from social media platforms such as Twitter, based solely on their political and ideological viewpoints,” Jones’ company, Free Speech Systems, states in a 15-page complaint…
Jones claims PayPal’s decision was based purely on “viewpoint discrimination.”…
Were PayPal’s decision allowed to stand, it would set “a dangerous precedent for any person or entity with controversial views,” Jones’ company claims in its lawsuit…
“Having effectively cornered the market, [PayPal] is now using that market power to restrain conservative trade and commerce,” the complaint states…
Jones seeks damages and an injunction to stop PayPal from permanently restricting his account.
Free Speech Systems is represented by Marc Randazza of Las Vegas.
PayPal spokesman Justin Higgs said the company rejects the allegations in Jones’ complaint.
“PayPal is aware of the filing and believes the claims in the complaint are without merit,” Higgs said in an email. “PayPal looks forward to vigorously defending itself.”
Corporate Speech
Wall Street Journal: Companies Curb Their Political Spending
By Theo Francis
The biggest publicly traded companies are increasingly limiting their spending on elections and other political activity, a new report has found.
The report is the fourth annual analysis of political-spending policies at S&P 500 companies from the Center for Political Accountability…
Among the 414 companies that have remained in the S&P 500 since 2015, increasing numbers are either prohibiting or fully disclosing direct contributions to candidates, and contributions for election-related use to trade associations, so-called 527 groups and other nonprofits.
About 36% of the S&P 500, or 176 companies, have said they won’t engage in at least one form of spending on political activity, up from 32% a year ago and a quarter in 2015, the report found.
Some 132 said they forego so-called independent expenditures, such as when companies fund ads or events supporting or opposing a candidate or party. That is up 10% over last year, and almost 60% from 2015. (Such spending can’t be coordinated with candidates or parties.)
Contributions to state candidates and party committees are prohibited at 107 companies, while 80 bar contributions to so-called 527 political organizations. Just 35 companies prohibit contributions to trade associations for influencing elections.
Ten companies in the index reported engaging in no corporate political spending…
Some of the group’s benchmarks for disclosure of political spending have slipped, however. The number of all S&P 500 companies with a webpage dedicated to political spending fell to 259, from 268 a year earlier…
In general, the analysis found, larger companies and companies in the index longer were more likely to score higher on disclosure measures.
Lobbying
Forbes: Government Spends Millions To Lobby Government–Time To End The Practice
By Chuck DeVore
The Constitution’s First Amendment codifies our right to free speech…
And, while lobbyists labor under a myriad of federal, state, and even local laws and reporting requirements, banning the ability of people to lobby would quickly run afoul of the Constitution.
The right of the people to lobby as a given, does government itself have the right to lobby? This is an interesting question, and not at all a theoretical one.
In most states, especially states with tens of billions of dollars of tax money at stake at the state and local level, there is a large biosphere of lobbyists serving counties, cities, school districts and special districts…
When a lobbyist works for a corporation, a labor union, a special interest group, or even a wealthy individual, that lobbyist, and the person or group that hired them, are participating in free speech. But when the same lobbyist is working for government, the same cannot be said. Government itself does not have a right to free speech.
These lobbyists, employed with taxpayer money, typically use their influence with state lawmakers to advocate for greater spending, more taxing authority, and greater regulatory power, leaving 28 million individual Texans at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to getting their representatives’ attention…
What, if anything, should be done to curtail the lobbying of government by government? About a dozen states have restrictions on state agencies lobbying the legislature, with Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issuing an executive order in 2016 to curtail the practice.
But, local governments are still largely allowed free rein to lobby. A simple two sentence bill was introduced in the Texas House in 1997 to prohibit state political subdivisions from using taxpayer dollars to hire anyone whose main job was to lobby. Lobbyists crushed HB 2501. It’s time to try again.
Donors
Wall Street Journal: How to Spend Money on Politics Like a Billionaire (Video)
The 2018 midterm elections are here, and wealthy donors are spending millions on U.S. politics. How are they able to give so much? We help Marcy, a made-up donor, navigate campaign finance laws to spend $5 million.
Independent Groups
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: McCaskill, a dark-money critic, lauds black voter registration effort partially funded by it
By Chuck Raasch
Sen. Claire McCaskill, who has made opposition to “dark money” in politics a central focus of her re-election campaign and the primary reason she opposes Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, lauded the “good news” of an outside group partially funded by undisclosed donors aiming to register 100,000 black voters in Missouri.
That outside group, BlackPAC, is partially funded by $614,000 in donations from Majority Forward, a “dark-money” group affiliated with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
Several other political groups that do not disclose or only partially disclose their donors are also listed by the Federal Election Commission as having contributed six-figure checks to the PAC…
[N]ine minutes into a video posted Friday on St. Louis’s Washington Metropolitan A.M.E. Zion Church’s web site, McCaskill notes the “good news” about BlackPAC voter registration and anticipated get-out-the-vote efforts in the state…
“Because this is such a battleground state, there is a third-party organization that is sending a lot of resources into Missouri,” McCaskill said. “I don’t know how they are deploying resources because it is illegal for me to know…
“But I will tell you they announced today an organization called BlackPAC,” she said. “It was the same organization that went into Alabama” to help Jones…
McCaskill added: “I am told they have millions of dollars. I don’t know this for a fact, but I am told they have millions of dollars just to work on voter registration, voter identification, and voter turnout.”
An aide to McCaskill argued that there is an important difference between spending on voter registration and that of dark-money financed attack ads.
Candidates and Campaigns
AP News: Hawley to speak at university chapel, despite IRS guideline
By Jim Salter
Missouri’s Republican Senate candidate Josh Hawley opposes a federal provision that bars religious organizations from political endorsements, and his upcoming appearance at a Baptist university may provide a test case for the future of the measure.
Hawley, the state’s attorney general, is scheduled to speak Wednesday during chapel at Hannibal-LaGrange University, a 900-student college in Hannibal, 115 miles north of St. Louis.
Hawley is facing incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill in a race that could help determine control of the Senate. She’s not invited to chapel, which is mandatory for full-time students and open to the public.
At issue is an Internal Revenue Service provision known as the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other religious organizations from candidate endorsements. Doing so could cost them their tax-exempt status and a fine.
Hawley favors repealing the amendment. He told conservative pastors in August that he hoped the IRS would “fine a pastor” to create a legal challenge.
Trump Administration
Wall Street Journal: Trump Directed Legal Action to Enforce Stormy Daniels’s Hush Agreement
By Joe Palazzolo and Michael Rothfeld
In a phone call, Mr. Trump instructed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to seek a restraining order against the former adult-film actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, through a confidential arbitration proceeding, one of the people said. Messrs. Trump and Cohen had learned shortly before that Ms. Clifford was considering giving a media interview about her alleged relationship with Mr. Trump, despite having signed an October 2016 nondisclosure agreement.
Mr. Trump told Mr. Cohen to coordinate the legal response with Eric Trump, one of the president’s sons, and another outside lawyer who had represented Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization in other matters, the people said. Eric Trump, who is running the company with his brother in Mr. Trump’s absence, then tasked a Trump Organization staff attorney in California with signing off on the arbitration paperwork, these people said.
Direct involvement of the president and his son in the effort to silence Ms. Clifford hasn’t previously been reported. The accounts of that effort recently provided to The Wall Street Journal suggest that the president’s ties to his company continued into this year and contradict public statements made at the time by the Trump Organization, the White House and Mr. Cohen…
In August, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to felony violations of election laws in connection with the payments to Ms. Clifford and a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who also says she had an affair with Mr. Trump that he denies.
Mr. Cohen, whose sentencing is scheduled for December, said during his plea hearing in Manhattan federal court that Mr. Trump directed him to silence Ms. Clifford and coordinate a hush payment to Ms. McDougal “for the principal purpose of influencing the election” in 2016.
The States
NBC News: Can’t spot the bot? In California, automated accounts have to reveal themselves
By Gili Malinsky
California Gov. Jerry Brown drew plenty of headlines on Sunday when he signed the state’s net neutrality bill into a law, a move that was immediately met with a lawsuit from the Department of Justice.
On Friday, he signed another bill that drew less attention – a new law that bans automated accounts, more commonly known as bots, from pretending to be real people in pursuit of selling products or influencing elections. Automated accounts can still interact with Californians, according to the law, but they will need to disclose that they are bots.
The law comes as concerns about social media manipulation remain elevated. With just more than a month to go before the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, social media companies have pledged to crack down on foreign interference.
A big part of that effort has been targeting bots that spread misinformation and divisive political rhetoric…
Robert Hertzberg, a state senator from California who pushed for the new law forcing bots to disclose their lack of humanity … told The New York Times he was the subject of a bot attack over a bail reform bill. So he decided to fight bots with bots – launching @Bot_Hertzberg in January.
And, per California law, the account discloses its automated nature.
Santa Fe New Mexican: Some Santa Fe councilors skeptical of campaign finance overhaul
By Tripp Stelnicki
A proposal to overhaul the city of Santa Fe’s campaign finance system by letting publicly funded candidates raise extra money in small amounts got a frosty reception Monday from the city Finance Committee.
Under the proposal, mayoral and City Council candidates who qualify for public campaign money (currently $60,000 for mayoral candidates and $15,000 for council candidates) could raise additional funds in $100 increments and then see that money “matched” by city government 2 to 1…
City councilors, however, were less than enthused by the idea, which has gained traction elsewhere in the country…
“I have a hard time seeing that this really makes a difference,” Councilor Mike Harris said. “To take this next step, to me, is just not worth it.”
Skeptical councilors variously commented that proposed additional disbursements were greater than City Council candidates could reasonably expect to need and that so-called “dark money” has not been a menace in down-ballot city races, including the one for the municipal judgeship.
Finance Committee members voted 3-1 to indefinitely postpone consideration of the measure, saying they want to further explore potential caps on what the city could pay out in matching funds…
Councilor Signe Lindell voted against the postponement, saying she was prepared to kill the measure outright.
“We’re solving a problem that we don’t have,” Lindell said…
Councilors also expressed concern about the ongoing viability of the city fund from which candidates pull money, and Harris added he was not convinced privately financed campaigns are inherently suspect.
“It’s a very cynical view of our political culture – not only that money corrupts, but it corrupts absolutely,” he said. “I just don’t buy that.”
Insider NJ: Campaign Finance Reform: Looking Through the Wrong End of the Telescope
By Barry Brendel
Recently the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission proposed a set of new campaign finance laws. There were several good proposals and one strange piece of logic that somehow making it easier for county parties to raise more money will help curb money in politics. This, of course, will make it even harder for non-organization candidates to compete in primaries…
The old campaign adage “money is like water; it will seep into every crack” is true. While we should always be searching for solutions to this problem, the forces of money will constantly be thinking of new ways to influence the system. The Supreme Court ruling that money equals speech has made it much harder to keep the money out.
What can be done? Well, let’s start at the beginning. Why are campaigns expensive? Because the mediums of communication cost lots of money. TV, direct mail, radio, newspaper ads, etc. all cost money. Lots of it.
So, lets turn the telescope around. How about reducing the costs of campaigns for candidates, instead? Then, they won’t have to raise as much money – and money givers become less important. Here’s a few simple things we can do…
Cable networks sign contracts with each town, giving it a monopoly. The state should require language mandating that systems provide X amount of free advertising spread across all day parts. They should provide enough to effectively communicate two spots…
The state can solicit bids and designate 3-5 printers to handle all of the campaigns printing, requiring large volume discounts…
The state is providing a $5,000,000 pool of money to support local news coverage. How about requiring that any newspaper accessing that money be required to provide six half page ads for each candidate, spread throughout April-June for primaries and Sept.-Nov. for general elections.
