In the News
Washington Examiner: Citizens United upheld free speech rights for everybody, not just the elite
By Luke Wachob
Once upon a time, not long ago, a government claimed that it could ban books, films, or other forms of speech if they contained a single line of political advocacy and were funded by corporations or unions.
In today’s world, corporations are an integral part of public debate. Books are published and sold by corporations, films and television are produced and distributed by corporations, and news reporting is primarily conducted by corporations.
The power to prohibit or censor corporate political speech would allow the government essentially to pull the plug on public debate.
So what oppressive government, in what time period of history, would dare claim the power to silence political speech and dissent? You might guess that it’s Venezuela or China, but you would be wrong.
CCP
5 Things You Didn’t Know About Citizens United
By Remy Munasifi
The Center for Competitive Politics marks the fourth anniversary of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by releasing a video about the decision by noted YouTube artist GoRemy.
Disclosure for Disclosure’s Sake
By Eric Wang
It has become shibboleth among the speech regulation lobby that all “disclosure” is good, and that no amount of disclosure can be too much. Take, for example, the curious claim made by Public Citizen lobbyist Craig Holman in a recent Roll Call article, concerning the salaries of the staff heading up super PACs, unions, and other political advocacy groups. Of the lack of uniformity in the reporting of staff salaries between the tax, campaign finance, and labor laws, Holman proclaims it is “a very serious problem . . . As long as we don’t have any disclosure of salaries, we’re just leaving the barn door wide open here.”
Never mind Holman’s hyperbole about there not being “any disclosure,” since the article already established that there is, in fact, ample disclosure, albeit not uniform. But Holman’s hyperventilation begs the question, “wide open”… for what, exactly? Which brings us to another example this week of how the speech regulation lobby has become completely untethered from reality.
As the Campaign Legal Center’s Meredith McGehee writes in a recent Campaign Legal Center blog post, “Listeners Are Entitled to Know by Whom They Are Being Persuaded.” Before I get into the merits of McGehee’s post, let me first relate it to Holman’s concern.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: IRS Targeting and 2014
By Kimberley Strassel
President Obama and Democrats have been at great pains to insist they knew nothing about IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofits before the 2012 election. They’ve been at even greater pains this week to ensure that the same conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.
That’s the big, dirty secret of the omnibus negotiations. As one of the only bills destined to pass this year, the omnibus was—behind the scenes—a flurry of horse trading. One of the biggest fights was over GOP efforts to include language to stop the IRS from instituting a new round of 501(c)(4) targeting. The White House is so counting on the tax agency to muzzle its political opponents that it willingly sacrificed any manner of its own priorities to keep the muzzle in place.
Politico: IMF funding, IRS guidelines collide in spending bill
By David Rodgers
But in the course of House-Senate negotiations, the IMF became paired with an amendment shaped by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who wanted to block Treasury from implementing new IRS rules to curb political activity by tax-exempt groups.
As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, McConnell once chaired the panel overseeing the foreign aid budget and U.S. support for the IMF. But he is more preoccupied these days with a tea party challenge back home in Kentucky.
In this context, the proposed IRS guidelines are red meat for the right, which accuses Obama of wanting to protect his healthcare program and the Democratic Senate by using the tax agency to tamp down on grassroots tea party organizing in the 2014 elections.
National Journal: 10 Super PACs You’ve Never Heard of That Will Make News in 2014
By Scott Bland
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling loosening campaign finance regulations, several brand-name super PACs emerged with big-name backers – Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and President Obama-supporting Priorities USA, just to name a few.
But there will be many smaller groups making a major impact on the congressional landscape in 2014. As the super PAC era progresses, more and more groups that can take and spend unlimited money have popped up. Some high-powered strategists are going local, establishing big-money super PACs that focus on just one Senate or House race. And though their total spending doesn’t come close to the larger entities, these individual organizations can pump millions of dollars into an individual congressional race — as much as the biggest players ever do.
The groups run the gamut, from helping undermine Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Democratic opponent, to promoting an effort to exploit Florida Rep. Trey Radel’s political problems.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
More Soft Money Hard Law: The Excesses of Giving and of Argument
By Bob Bauer
The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation have teamed up to preview the consequences if the Supreme Court in McCutcheon eliminates the biennial aggregate limit. Their work is the latest of a number of analyses predicting trouble without the limit. It is also the most recent of its kind to exhibit the flaws in these predictions—and to suggest that the real concern with McCutcheon may lie elsewhere.
The CRP/Sunlight argument is made up of two parts. In the first, the authors make their case for the dangers of permitting contributions to exceed the limit, based on an episode in the past when certain contributors from the senior ranks of the business community gave more than the aggregate amount allowed. The second part discusses a world where there is no limit and identifies specific contributors with various interests before or in the government who, nearing their limit now, might be expected “most likely to exceed” the $123,200 limit of current law.
Lobbying and Ethics
NY Times: A Loophole Allows Lawmakers to Reel In Trips and Donations
By ERIC LIPTON
Congress, after a corruption scandal that involved golf trips to Scotland and other getaways paid for by lobbyists, passed legislation in 2007 prohibiting lobbyists from giving lawmakers gifts of just about any value. But as is the norm in Washington, the lawmakers and lobbyists have figured out a workaround: Political campaigns and so-called leadership PACs controlled by the lawmakers now pay the expenses for the catering and the lawmakers’ lodging at these events — so they are not gifts — with money collected from the corporate executives and lobbyists, who are still indirectly footing the bill.
Even if no explicit appeals for help are made, the opportunity to build a relationship with the lawmakers, staff members and family — far from the distractions of Washington — is worth the price of admission, the lobbyists said. The donors and lobbyists, 50 to 100 of whom typically attend the events, generally donate individually or through a corporate political action committee between $1,000 and $5,000 apiece, in addition to paying their own hotel bills and airfare. There is no public disclosure that specifically shows how much is raised at each event, and lawmakers are generally unwilling to say.
FEC
NY Times: Dangerous Inaction by the Election Commission
Editorial
The F.E.C. should be scrapped in favor of a nonpartisan and independent board capable of decisive action, not the contrived deadlock that compounds the risk of big-money campaign corruption.
State and Local
New York –– Politicker: Cuomo Dismisses ‘Baloney’ Criticisms of Fund-Raising Haul
By COLIN CAMPBELL
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose campaign finance filing this week revealed a mammoth total of $34.5 million over the course of the cycle, simply doesn’t think it’s a big deal that many of his donations come from contributors who have given $40,000 or more.
Some critics have suggested the emphasis on big donors doesn’t comport with Mr. Cuomo’s stated commitment to reforming the campaign finance system, but the governor directly dismissed such concerns today.
“I think a lot of this conversation is baloney, frankly,” he said, speaking this morning on The Capitol Pressroom radio show with Susan Arbetter. “What people want to know, what they say to me is, ‘Look, we want to know that you’re working for us, you’re not working for anyone else.’ And that is a question of character more than anything else.”
“Because some politicians out there can be bought for $10. And some politicians can’t be bought for $10 billion. It’s a question of the person. It’s a question of character. It’s a question of values,” he continued.
New York –– AP: NYC mayor names head of city watchdog agency
NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has named his former campaign treasurer to run the city department that investigates corruption and official misconduct.
De Blasio announced Saturday that he has nominated lawyer Mark Peters as commissioner of the Department of Investigation.
New York –– NY Times: Cuomo’s Budget Is Said to Include Ethics and Campaign Finance Reforms
By THOMAS KAPLAN
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, seeking to prod recalcitrant lawmakers to take action after a rash of embarrassing corruption scandals in Albany, plans to use his budget proposal this week to push for approval of new ethics laws and a public financing system for state political campaigns, administration officials said.
Mr. Cuomo, who has sought to position himself as a centrist Democrat and has collected millions of dollars in campaign cash from real estate developers and other wealthy donors, has faced persistent calls from the left wing of his party to be more forceful in demanding an overhaul of New York’s lax campaign fund-raising laws, a top priority of liberals who hope that sweeping changes in Albany could provide a model for other states.
