CCP
Constitutional and Practical Issues with Minnesota Senate File 2099
By Matt Nese
This bill may be one of the worst infringements on First Amendment political rights that the Center has seen proposed. The statutory trigger in S.F. 2099 only permits those funds which have been reported on a personal income tax form (or which would be required to be so reported) to be contributed to political entities. But not every American is required to file a federal income tax return.[1] For example, in 2013, single individuals under the age of 65 did not need to file an income tax return if they made less than $10,000.[2]
Consequently, if this bill becomes law, an entire class of America’s working poor will have their constitutional rights extinguished. Those with sufficient means to trigger income taxes will be able to be more fully engage in the political process. In essence, this bill actually brings back one of America’s oldest forms of political discrimination: a property qualification on participation in our democracy.
While an obvious result of the bill’s language, it seems doubtful that this outcome was intended. But it illustrates the poor drafting and insufficient vetting underlying this effort. For that reason alone, this bill ought to be defeated.
IRS
Washington Examiner: New IRS emails describe Washington direction of Tea Party targeting efforts
By Mark Tapscott
In a February 2010 memo, Thomas directed a colleague to “let ‘Washington’ know about this potentially politically embarrassing case involving a ‘Tea Party’ organization.
“Recent media attention to this type of organization indicates to me that this is a ‘high profile’ case. In addition to 501(c)(4) typical legislative activities, application indicates possible future political candidate support.”
Portions of the February 2010 Thomas email that were redacted by the Obama administration when it was provided to the House Ways and Means Committee were left visible in the response to Judicial Watch.
Independent Groups
Roll Call: Bank Gives $250K Unsecured Loan to Super PAC (Updated)
By Kent Cooper
In an unusual transaction, a Super PAC has reported receiving an unsecured $250,150 loan from a financial institution to use for making independent expenditures in the 2014 primary elections.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Opinion: Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland
The Board also admits that GAB § 1.42(5), the wordy regulatory disclaimer, is unconstitutional as applied to 30- second radio ads. The extra verbiage required by the rule goes well beyond the short disclaimer required by statute. But it simply repeats—in 50 extra words—the very same point: that the political message was not authorized by a candidate…
Journal Sentinel: Federal court strikes down state rule on political issue ads
By Jason Stein and Patrick Marley
Wednesday’s decision by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago likely ends a legal battle that has played out in state and federal court since 2010. It began when the state Government Accountability Board was sued for seeking to regulate ads that weighed in on issues and candidates in the run-up to an election without expressly advocating for the defeat or victory of the candidates
MSMHL: “John Doe” and the Criminal Enforcement Strategy
By Bob Bauer
The 2014 Wisconsin and 1996 presidential election cases are similar, in fact. Each involves an attack on the coordinated use of soft money, allegedly to circumvent campaign finance restrictions. In 1996, the hub of the coordinated activity was mainly, but not only, the political party: now, fitting for the times, the central players are the outside groups who have come to dominate soft money resources.
District Court Judge Randa is aggressive in approach, free-wheeling in his rhetorical references to liberty gone the way of the Gulag and the Guillotine, and provocative in his praise for “circumventing” campaign finance laws if necessary to engage in issue advocacy. But the issue before him is a serious one, today as in 1996: when constitutional limits are much in dispute and the boundary line between express and issue advocacy is poorly marked, what effects, for better or worse, do criminal law enforcement strategies have?
Disclosure
Buzzfeed: Harry Reid Backs Constitutional Amendment To Limit Koch Brothers’ Influence
By John Stanton and Kate Nocera
“The Koch Brothers, I’m not walking away from them. I’m going to be on their tail for the whole campaign because if they think Romney was watched closely by me, that’s nothing compared to what it’s going to be like with the Koch Brothers. They’re spending money in state party races. They’re going after secretaries of state. They want to do everything they can to suppress voting. They want to do everything they can to go back to that 1980 campaign,” Reid said.
The Daily Show: Harry Reid Takes On the Koch Brothers
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NY Times: House and Senate Don’t Share Campaign Cash, Even When It Makes Sense
By Derek Willis
Vulnerable senators looking for campaign help from the other side of the Capitol probably won’t find much, even if it would be in their party’s best interests.
Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, two Democratic senators facing tough re-election battles, are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from their Senate colleagues for their re-election campaigns. They have received nearly no financial support from House Democrats because of a Washington practice in which members of each chamber look after their own first (and sometimes only their own).
Roll Call: Five Joint Fundraising Committees Register at FEC
By Kent Cooper
The Federal Election Commission has received five new registrations for political committees that will operate as joint fundraising committees, allowing a donor to easily write one check for a large amount. However, the check may not exceed the combined contribution limit for all the participating candidates/committees.
CPI: Polis adds to campaign stash, bitcoin by bitcoin
By Dave Levinthal
His website homepage now shouts in bold red letters: “Now Accepting Bitcoins!”
Polis became the first federal official to accept Bitcoin after the FEC’s less-than-crystal-clear decision, which, in part, permits candidates and political committees to accept up to $100 in Bitcoin from an individual per election. It did not rule one way or another on whether candidates and committees may accept the Bitcoin equivalent of the $2,600-per-election federal donation limit for individuals.
State and Local
Arizona –– AZ Daily Sun: Former Horne staffer alleges campaign finance violations
By Howard Fischer
Beattie, hired last year, also attached 146 pages of supporting materials, including campaign documents on which Beattie said she worked and emails from Horne and others. Beattie also said she witnessed others in Horne’s executive team — all state employees — who worked on campaign materials, often for hours at a time.
Connecticut –– CLC: Legal Center, Connecticut Watchdogs, File in Defense of State’s Post-Citizens United Campaign Finance Reforms
Last night the Campaign Legal Center, joined by three Connecticut watchdog groups, filed an amici brief in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut urging the court to deny a request for preliminary injunction being sought by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) that would undermine the new campaign finance laws passed by the state in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The DGA seeks to make unlimited “independent” expenditures in support of Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s candidacy while at the same time having Governor Malloy fundraise for the DGA – without having to abide by Connecticut’s contribution limits or source prohibitions, and in many cases without disclosure.
