In the News
USA Today: Spending bill would open campaign money spigot
By Fredreka Shouten“It will give parties more of a voice,” said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics. “About half the states don’t impose any fundraising limits on parties. Why do we have them at the federal level?”
Politico: Budget rider would expand party cash
By Kenneth P. VogelPlus, unlike much of the cash raised by outside groups, all contributions to parties are publicly disclosed, pointed out David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes many campaign-cash restrictions as infringements on free speech. The rider “will ease the burden of fundraising for parties and allow them to speak more freely in upcoming elections,” he said. “Let the parties speak and let the voters decide.”
Courthouse News: Koch Bros. Group Sues California AG to Keep Donors’ Names Secret
“Faced with such bullying, current and potential donors are understandably afraid that having their identities disclosed will put them and their families at risk,” the complaint states. “Dozens of potential donors, a number of whom live in California, have reluctantly refused to contribute to the foundation because they are too fearful of the reprisal they will face if their contribution becomes public knowledge, and current donors have indicated that they will cease their contributions if their names and addresses are revealed to the state of California.”The group claims that another nonprofit, the Center for Competitive Politics, has entered Harris’ crosshairs for the same reason. That group sued Harris in Federal Court in March, then appealed the court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to the 9th Circuit.Americans for Prosperity seeks an order barring Harris from demanding its donor information, and a declaration that her demands violate the First and 14th Amendments and the Supremacy Clause.
CCP
Redlined changes to 52 USC 30116
Independent Groups
CPI: Koch-linked operative mum on mystery millions
By Michael BeckelNow, Sean Noble — a political consultant who was chosen by the Koch brothers to quarterback their political efforts, and who signed the Center to Protect Patient Rights’ tax return disclosing the contribution under penalty of perjury — is refusing to explain where the missing $1.6 million went.Noble did not respond to numerous requests for comment by phone and email. Upon two separate visits to Noble’s Washington, D.C., office, employees said Noble wasn’t there.Reached by phone Monday after multiple inquiries by the Center for Public Integrity over two weeks, Jason Torchinsky, a lawyer who represents the Center to Protect Patient Rights, said he and his client are “reviewing the transaction.”
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Wall Street Journal: Opinion Journal: Arizona’s Free Speech Victory
Institute for Justice Attorney Diana Simpson discusses a federal court ruling that strikes down unconstitutional campaign finance laws
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Reporter: Did the GAB doctor documents to cover their tracks in John Doe?
By MD KittleWAUKESHA, Wis. – The subjects of a multi-county John Doe probe suggest that government officials may have broken state law while pressing their investigation into Wisconsin conservatives, and then attempted to hide the violation by altering invoices and other documents.That bombshell suggestion – that the Government Accountability Board went beyond its legal role as an investigative agency – is backed by court documents reviewed Friday by Wisconsin Reporter, including some records in Waukesha County Circuit Court that apparently should not have been disclosed to the public.On the surface, this may seem much ado about mere accounting. But the GAB under state law is prohibited from playing the role of prosecutor in criminal cases. If the agency paid for the services of a special prosecutor, it has exceeded its reach.
State and Local
Arizona –– The Arizona Republic: Arizona election law is broken, but fixing it is easy
EditorialThe state’s nearly 300-word definition of a political committee, with clauses inside clauses and a sentence that goes on for 183 words, is not easily deciphered. When it can be read to prohibit a few friends from informally gathering to hoist signs opposing a bond issue, as it did in the Fountain Hills case that lead to this decision, it is an infringement on free-speech rights. The judge is on solid ground.The more elegant solution? Rewrite the definition. Simplify it. Bring in a few English teachers instead of a team of lawyers.And remember that the rationale for campaign finance law was to lessen the potential for money to corrupt government. Small-potato groups, the neighbors who hand-draw a few protest signs, are no threat to good government. Quite the opposite. They should be exempted.
