In the News
CPI: New FEC chief on ‘dark money’ mission
By Dave Levinthal“I expect [Ravel] to use her bully pulpit to advance issues she cares about,” Goodman said. “That’s fine. We’ll debate respectfully and enthusiastically. I’m not expecting things to fall apart.”Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who now leads pro-campaign deregulation group Center for Competitive Politics, says the agency might have some measure of success next year.“Commission Ravel and Commissioner Goodman deserve solid marks for trying to get the commission moving,” Smith said. “There are many, many small items on which agreement ought to be attainable in 2015, items that don’t draw public passion but that are important to practitioners and politicos.”
FEC
US News: Leave the Internet Alone
By Peter RoffA longtime advocate for greater controls on political speech, Ravel (as chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission) tried to enact regulations covering blog posts and “online commentators” as a necessary step to keep up with changes in political technology and the way campaigns operate.“Ms. Ravel casts free speech in ominous terms, referring to ‘this effort to protect individual bloggers and online commentators.’ I thought that was the function of the First Amendment to the Constitution: protecting political speech. The fact that Ms. Ravel and her ilk view free and open debate as something dangerous and in need of regulation should alarm all Americans,” Martin says.At least one of Ravel’s colleagues on the FEC shares these concerns. Lee Goodman, the FEC’s current chairman, has sounded the alarm that his colleagues, Ravel in particular, “are flirting with the creation of a ‘government review board,’” according to a report that appeared on the Fox News website.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: The Elizabeth Warren Right
EditorialAmid America’s current distemper, there’s no easier target than “big money” in politics. So it’s no surprise that Senator Elizabeth Warren and liberals would denounce the omnibus spending bill’s provision increasing the amount that an individual can give to the political parties. What is surprising is that some on the right have joined this misguided outrage.The 1,600-page omnibus bill that passed this weekend is no way to run a government, but one of its better provisions raises the campaign contribution limits to political entities like the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee. Individuals have heretofore been limited to donating $32,400 a year to a party committee. The omnibus raises that tenfold to $324,000.With a few exceptions like Arizona’s John McCain , conservatives have long led the fight against arbitrary limits on money in politics, not least because such restrictions are usually designed by incumbents to help incumbents. Yet all of a sudden some on the right are treating the deregulation of money in politics as a conspiracy against grass-roots conservatives.
Campaign Finance
WGBH: CRomnibus Pays Off for Parties
By Ray La RajaFirst, raising party limits should improve transparency and accountability. A greater portion of cash, which is now swishing around outside the formal campaign finance system, will flow instead through highly transparent parties. The party organizations have seen their financial positions erode relative to outside groups since the beginning of McCain-Feingold, thanks especially to judicial decisions that allow interest groups to raise and spend without limits. Many outside groups have opaque names like “American Crossroads” and some do not have to disclose their donors. In contrast, the Democratic and Republican Parties are clearly recognizable names and they supply lists of all donors to the Federal Election Commission. Voters know what they stand for and which candidates belong to them. I would much rather have money flowing through parties if only for these reasons.But there’s another reason too. Making parties the central financiers of elections strengthens their vital role in the political process. Any political scientist will tell you (particularly those who write for this blog) that parties play a unique role in a democracy: they help aggregate diverse interests in the polity, frame electoral choices, and organize governing. Financially strong parties have the wherewithal to diminish the clout of the most extreme interest groups and Members of Congress who don’t ever want to compromise. It is no wonder that Tea Party folks seem tohate the change in the law. My own research with Brian Schaffner at UMass-Amherst also indicates that party organizations tend to finance moderate candidates precisely because party leaders put a priority on winning elections rather than scoring ideological points.
Wall Street Journal: The Handful of Super-Wealthy Donors Affected by Raised Contribution Limits
By Rachel BallhausA provision tucked into the $1.1 trillion spending bill signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday raising caps on contributions to national party committees caused a stir among critics who fear the rules will increase the flood of wealthy donors’ dollars into elections.But several campaign-finance experts aren’t so sure. That is because the new money can’t be used for the so-called “sexy” aspects of party politics — candidate advocacy, party building and outreach — but are earmarked for critical, if less exciting, functions — presidential conventions, renovations at the headquarters, and recount expenses.Donors typically want to spend their money to buy political influence, and the avenues opened up by the new rules are more of a “low-impact investment,” said longtime lobbyist and Democratic donor Tony Podesta.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Reporter: Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up John Doe complaints
By MD KittleLate Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced it would take up petitions originally filed in the court in February, as well as assume jurisdiction over petitions to bypass a state appeals court that originally ruled prosecutors of the multi-county probe were within their rights to set up and maintain the investigation. The court took the unusual step of granting the plaintiffs’ petition for an original action, allowing the state’s highest court to hear a case even before it has moved through lower courts.The court’s order came as relief to one target of the John Doe, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the John Doe’s strict gag order, which could land targets in jail for speaking out.
Wisconsin Reporter: ‘R word’ surfaces in wake of state Supreme Court taking up John Doe challenges
By MD KittleMADISON, Wis. – Now that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases connected to the politically charged John Doe investigation, expect the left to scream for the recusals of the conservative justices that make up the court’s majority.The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pumped up the point in the second paragraph of a piece Tuesday.“Four of the justices have benefited from political spending by the Wisconsin Club for Growth, one of the groups at the center of the investigation. Some legal experts have argued that at least some of those justices should not hear the cases because of actual or perceived biases from that political help,” wrote the newspaper’s Patrick Marley.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Time: Rand Paul is Already Running an Ad Against Jeb Bush
By Zeke J MillerHours after former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced he would “actively explore” a run for the White House, the political action committee for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who appears certain to announce a bid for the Oval Office in the coming months, took out a Google search ad on his name, with a not-so-subtle dig at the more moderate Republican.“Join a movement working to shrink government. Not grow it,” the ad states, with a link to RandPAC, Paul’s longstanding federal leadership committee, and a page asking supporters to give their email address and zip code to “Stand With Rand.” Bush announced Tuesday he would form a similar leadership committee in January. His Facebook announcement didn’t include any attempts to gather data on potential donors or supporters.
Corporate Governance
Wall Street Journal: Regulators Are a Proxy Adviser’s Best Friend
By James K. Glassman
What investors, large and small, care about is a return on their investment. But rising stock prices is not the aim of proxy advisory firms—enforcing a particular corporate-governance ideology is. If the staff bulletin isn’t enough to wipe out the current proxy advisory system, then the SEC itself must take stronger action by rescinding the decade-old staff letters that caused the trouble in the first place and forcing funds to assume liability for all of their proxy decisions.
