In the News
Washington Examiner: Supreme Court should resist Left’s scare tactics in McCutcheon campaign finance case
By Luke WachobThe experience of the 50 states is also informative. Thirty-seven states do not have biennial limits on contributions from individuals to state legislative candidates, and no scheme where joint fundraising was exploited to ask for, or give, maximum contributions to all candidates and committees has ever been found.Most likely, the real reason for this aggregate limit is that it protects incumbents. A study shows that challengers rely more heavily on large contributions than incumbents.The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and any time a restriction on political expression is considered, the burden of proof should be on those advocating for the restriction.
The Libertarian Republic: Incumbents Stifle Contributions to Protect Themselves
By Joe TrotterIndividuals are limited to contributing an overall amount of $74,600 to party committees and PACs, and $48,600 to federal candidates in the next election cycle. While most Americans do not have the means to contribute north of $120,000 to campaigns, at the heart of the case is a challenge to where politicians can set arbitrary limits on political expression.Although supporters of aggregate limits claim that the limits help prevent corruption, an extensive search in the Congressional record yielded no relevant or persuasive record of debate on this point. In short, Congress arbitrarily set a limit on constitutionally protected speech with no evidence as to why this infringement was merited. Making matters worse, after the law passed, it quickly became clear that many of those who voted in favor of the bill did so while almost entirely ignorant as to what they were passing.The truth is that the law included aggregate limit because it helped the incumbents who wrote the law.
CBS: Supreme Court to consider rolling back campaign donation limits
“If you fear deregulated politics, you’re concerned about that,” former Federal Election Commission commissioner Brad Smith, co-founder of the Center for Competitive Politics, told reporters last week. “If you’re like us and say there’s not much to show for the regulation we’ve had since 1974, then we welcome that development.”
CCP
What is more valuable to a candidate, an extra .025% of funding, or an endorsement in a major newspaper?
By Luke WachobThe exact value of a newspaper endorsement is impossible to calculate, but it’s surely much more than the $2,600 limit that individuals face. In 2012, the average winner in the Senate spent $10.2 million, and the average winner in the House spent $1.5 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That means that for the average Senate winner, a maximum contribution of $2,600 constitutes just .025% of that candidate’s total funds. What is more valuable to a candidate, an extra .025% of funding, or an endorsement in a major newspaper? The answer is obvious, and with this in mind, the Washington Post’s 10 endorsements of federal candidates in the 2012 general election also constitutes a much larger contribution to candidates than is permitted for citizens that do not own media companies. Indeed, virtually every newspaper endorsement is more valuable to candidates than the maximum individual contribution of $2,600.It’s indefensible to place greater restrictions on the speech of individuals than the speech of corporations (or PACs, which face no aggregate limit on contributions, allowing them to make maximum contributions to as many candidates as they wish). Yet while many have argued in support of limiting contributions from individuals, we haven’t heard any calls for limits on newspaper endorsements, or limits on how much media companies can spend on speech about elections.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
NRO: The Next Citizens United?
By Paul ShermanFirst, and most fundamental, we should feel glad whenever courts stand up for First Amendment rights. Political contributions are an important and venerable form of peaceful political association. Striking down contribution limits would simply be a properly engaged court fulfilling its highest duty.
Second, ending contribution limits would likely improve the tone of our political debate. One of the reasons uper PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations run such nasty ads is because contribution limits prohibit them from coordinating their message with more temperate candidates and political parties.
Wall Street Journal: Campaign-Finance Law Divides Supreme Court
By Jess Bravin“Most people couldn’t come even near the limit,” she told Ms. Murphy. “Is there any information on what percentage of all contributors are able to contribute over the aggregate?”Justice Scalia scoffed in response.“I assume that a law that only prohibits the speech of 2% of the country is OK,” he said.
Washington Examiner: Supreme Court can advance freedom of speech in campaign finance case
EditorialSince the Court has long said that the appearance of corruption must be established in order to limit political speech, the FEC’s ceiling must be vacated. Otherwise, the FEC abrogates to itself an unaccountable power to revise the First Amendment through regulatory fiat. Such a result pleases those in Congress, the campaign finance reform movement and the legal profession, all of whom applaud the FEC, but it horrifies every true friend of civil liberties.They are properly horrified for two reasons: First, providing financial support to a favored political candidate or cause is as intrinsically an act of political speech as writing a letter to the editor, posting a yard sign or delivering a speech in a candidate forum. This is why the debate between proponents and opponents of campaign finance regulations such as contribution limits has always been at its core about whether it is ever proper for Congress to determine how much political speech is too much. The Constitution rather explicitly answers that question in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting … the freedom of speech …”
AP: High court wary of campaign contribution limits
By Mark Sherman
But Justice Antonin Scalia said that in an era of unlimited independent spending brought on by Citizens United, “I don’t think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money.”Scalia said Verrilli’s fears were overstated. The court already has held that “enormous amounts of money” spent in support of a member of Congress’ re-election is not a problem, he said.
Wall Street Journal: Restoring Free Political Speech
EditorialThere is little such risk of quid-pro-quo corruption if a donor spreads his donations among dozens of candidates. Under the McCain-Feingold law, Congress already treats all “related” PACs as a single PAC and counts any donations earmarked for a candidate against the individual contribution limit to that candidate. A donor can’t evade the individual limits by donating to PACs.However, the aggregate limits do restrict how much donors can participate in politics. A donor may want to contribute the maximum to 100 candidates but can’t. This violates his First Amendment right to political speech. The limits on aggregate donations also harm political participation by limiting donations to political parties. This has diminished the role of parties with the paradoxical result of empowering the wealthy who can donate to independent political groups without limit.
Roll Call: McCutcheon Super PAC Already Busts Limits
By Eliza Newlin CarneyAn Alabama businessman whose challenge to campaign contribution limits goes before the Supreme Court on Tuesday has already spent well beyond the current limit through an unrestricted super PAC, public records show.
FEC
CPI: Idled FEC recalling workers to fix computing crash
By Dave LevinthalA computer server crash is forcing the government shutdown-idled Federal Election Commission to recall “a few staff people” to address the issue with major campaign finance filing deadlines looming.Key sections of the FEC’s website, such as those containing financial disclosures by political candidates, committees and parties, have been offline since Monday. Downloadable databases are also malfunctioning.
State and Local
Arizona –– Arizona Star: Campaign finance changes may boost business clout
New Arizona campaign finance laws that increase contribution limits may boost the influence of business interests.Those interests were once viewed as political powerhouses, but their clout diminished with the advent of public funding for state election candidates in Arizona.
New Jersey –– CPI: Booker burying Lonegan in super PAC cash dash
By Dave LevinthalWhen it comes to super PACs, U.S. Senate candidate and Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker loves demonizing those on the right — even as he’s enjoying massive support from those on the left.A “right-wing super PAC” could be “targeting Cory — with big money behind them,” Booker’s Democratic campaign wrote to supporters in mid-July.
