CCP
A Teaching Moment
By Luke WachobLastly, I can’t help but point out that the cartoon not only gets the law wrong, but implies a relationship between money and votes that does not exist. Imagine a world with no laws against bribery or quid pro quo corruption. To take two prominent examples, does anyone honestly believe Senator Harry Reid would stop publicly criticizing the Koch brothers and Koch Industries if they paid him? Or that Senator Mitch McConnell would support strong climate change legislation if Tom Steyer wrote him a check?The answer, I think, is no. There’s a reason donors give to candidates that already agree with them: you can’t change most legislators’ minds with money. If you could, donors would be contributing in droves to candidates that disagree with them in order to change those candidates’ positions. Instead, what we see in the real world is contributors giving to candidates that already share their views. That in itself is strong evidence that votes on legislation cannot be easily “bought” in the manner implied by the cartoon, and academic research largely agrees: scholarly studies have found that “campaign contributions had no statistically significant effects on legislation.”
Independent Groups
Forbes: Campaign Spending Freedom Is Great For Speech and The Advertising-Media Sector
By Jeffrey DormanMany voices on the left complained vociferously each time in the past few years that the Supreme Court rolled back unconstitutional campaign finance restrictions. Yet the loosening of the rules on campaign donations and campaign spending are showing positive signs in both the political arena and in an economic one: the advertising sector.In terms of politics, it should be self-evident that more speech is better than less. The first amendment really only had two points as the Founding Fathers saw it: protect the press so they could expose any government wrongdoing and ensure freedom of speech for political arguments. Nude dancing was not on their minds.Read the history of the revolutionary period and the early presidential campaigns and you will realize that the campaigns were wild, often dirty, free-wheeling affairs. Today’s negative campaigners have nothing on their forefathers of two centuries ago.
Townhall: Who’s Afraid of ‘Rocky Mountain Heist’?
By Michelle MalkinOur documentary, as Ted Olson argued, expresses core “political speech that is at the heart of the First Amendment’s protected activity.” Here’s what’s so rich: So-called “progressive” champions of transparency (with names like “Colorado Ethics Watch”) intervened to try and stop Citizens United and me from educating my fellow Coloradans — and the rest of the country — just weeks before a critical midterm election.What are the opponents of “Rocky Mountain Heist” so afraid of? An informed citizenry, an independent media, and conservatives willing to go to the mat for their constitutional rights.
CPI: Bloomberg helps Democratic governors’ group close gap on Republicans
By Ben WiederThe top five donors to the Democratic group are all labor unions. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, has given $3.7 million to the Democratic governors’ group this year, while the country’s two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, and their related political groups, have been the second- and third-largest donors, giving $2.8 million and $2.5 million, respectively. The Service Employees International Union and United Commercial Workers International Union each has given more than $2 million.The unions have helped narrow the gap between the two political groups, especially in the final months leading up to the election. In 2010, the last time this many governors faced election, the Republican group held a $32.5 million fundraising advantage through the same period.
Disclosure
The Colorado Independent: Citizens United movie-advertisers must disclose funders in Colorado
By Tessa CheekUltimately, the panel of three 10th Circuit Court judges hearing the emergency appeal offered a split decision. They said that, as news outlets are exempt from disclosure because they mention candidates in the course of their regular reporting duties, so Citizens United’s film might be considered part of their regular film-making duties and likewise be exempted. The decision then pointed out that, if a news outlet were to run ads of a similar nature to the ones Citizens United is planning, they too would need to file disclosure reports.Citizens United has not announced whether or not they will appeal the ruling after this election cycle. The group could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, looking for a ruling that would include advertisements and have long-term, national implications on disclosure laws.
Kochs Obsession
Free Beacon: Poll: Harry Reid’s War on the Koch Brothers Is a Bust: They’re more popular than he is
By Andrew StilesThe latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that Reid’s efforts haven’t panned out like he might have hoped. Only 27 percent of voters have a negative view of the charity givers, while 47 percent don’t know who they are. Those number haven’t moved significantly since a similar poll taken back in April. Reid, meanwhile, is far less popular. Nearly 40 percent of voters have a negative view of the senator.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
CPI: Ads in U.S. Senate contests turn nasty
By Dave LevinthalOnly about 28 percent of U.S. Senate-focused television advertisements last week contained a “positive” message meant to promote, not attack, a candidate, the data indicates.That’s even more negativity than the week before, which, percentage-wise, featured marginally more positive-sounding ads. Campaigns seemed downright cheery two months ago, when about 42 percent of U.S. Senate-directed ads featured a positive message during that month’s second week.Crown the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as last week’s ultimate hater.
Washington Post: Think more competitive midterms would help? They’d actually make things worse.
By Nathan L. GonzalesAnd what about all that nostalgia for the good old days when members and their families socialized together and spent time hammering out the details of complex legislation? Competitive races could make that idyll even more remote, since vulnerable incumbents will want to get back to their districts as quickly as possible for fundraising and politicking.Finally, would the mood on the Hill really improve if dozens (or hundreds) more members had just survived millions of dollars of attack ads from the rival party? A member might feel compelled make certain token gestures at bipartisanship to appease a closely-divided electorate. But at the same time, the rigors of a tough campaign would surely factor into his or her willingness to suddenly sit down and talk reasonably with foes from the other side of the aisle who had just spent a year or more trashing his or her character.Don’t get me wrong. As a political handicapper, more competitive races are probably in my self-interest. But similar to other well-intentioned endeavors such as campaign finance reform, there can often be other, serious consequences that add to the very problem people desire to fix. More competition in campaigns could actually add to congressional dysfunction, not cure it.
State and Local
New Hampshire – AP: NH Supreme Court rules on push pulling lawsuit
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) – The state Supreme Court has upheld a judge’s ruling that federal election laws pre-empt New Hampshire’s regulation of push polling, the practice of asking voters questions intended to influence their decisions.
Pennsylvania – Philadelphia Inquirer: Phila. Ethics Board tightens campaign-finance rules
By Chris HeppSpecifically, the board approved an amendment to address the reuse of campaign materials produced by a candidate, but then picked up and distributed by an individual or political action committee independent of the candidate.Under the new rule, such reuse would be considered an in-kind campaign contribution and thus would fall under the city’s campaign rules that limit such contributions to $2,900 for individuals and $11,900 for political action committees, or PACs.A third party does not need to obtain the material directly from the campaign to fall under the rule. For instance, if a campaign posts a supportive video on YouTube – an increasingly popular and relatively inexpensive tactic – it would be considered an in-kind contribution for a third party to download that video and turn it into a paid political ad.
