IRS
Wall Street Journal: GOP Lawmakers Seek to Jump-Start Long-Running IRS Investigation
By John D. McKinnonWASHINGTON—The new Republican-controlled Congress is trying to pump fresh life into a long-running probe of alleged targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service.Seeking to jump-start the stalled inquiry, GOP lawmakers raised concerns at a House hearing on Thursday night about possible IRS wrongdoing during the course of the probe.The hearing by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed few new details, however, and Democrats accused Republicans of airing the allegations prematurely, before all the evidence has been gathered.
Washington Post: Investigators probing for criminal activity with Lois Lerner’s missing emails
By Josh HicksThe inspector general’s office said it found about 33,000 unique emails and is working to identify which messages, if any, the IRS has not already sent to congressional investigators, who are examining the Lerner’s involvement in the IRS targeting scandal.The watchdog agency found the emails on backup tapes after consulting with IRS information-technologyspecialists, according to TIGTA Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Tim Camus. “They were right where you would expect them to be,” he said at the late-night hearing with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which adjourned at about 10 p.m.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Justice Department ramps up scrutiny of candidates and independent groups
By Matea Gold and Colby ItkowitzThe Justice Department is stepping up scrutiny of the increasingly cozy ties between candidates and their outside allies, a move that could jolt the freewheeling campaign-finance atmosphere ahead of the 2016 elections.A rare conviction of a Virginia campaign operative this month is part of a broader focus on cases in which candidates may be violating a federal ban on sharing strategic information with well-funded independent allies, Justice officials said.“The opportunity to commit the crime has increased dramatically,” said Justice spokesman Peter Carr. “Illegal coordination is difficult to detect, which is why we strongly encourage party or campaign insiders to come forward.”
More Soft Money Hard Law: The Common Cause Report On the “Crusade” Against Campaign Finance Regulation
By Bob BauerAs a descriptive piece, there is nothing wrong with this report. The activities of Bopp and his clients are presented with reasonable accuracy, as far as one can tell. But on another level, the report could be read to be making a political point—to imply that the religious right, waging this “crusade” against campaign finance, is exhibiting an unsavory zealotry on regulatory issues like the one some might attribute to its religious commitments. The word “crusade” is not here a throw -away. It appears in the title of the Report, then again in the Executive Summary, and finally once more in the Conclusion. It is an imputation to this cause of extremism.This is typical of an unfortunate certain line of argument that would judge the merits of a reform position by the politics of the proponent. It is also selective in its choice of targets. The “religious right” is not alone in resisting campaign finance restrictions, both limits and disclosure, as obstacles to the pursuit of a program they believe to have paramount political, moral or social importance. This can be true of crusades on the left and the right, and also of those “crusades” that are secular in character but conducted in a crusading spirit.Professor Larry Lessig, for example, has undertaken what has been describedelsewhere as a “crusade,” this time in favor of restrictions on money and politics: “Lessig’s crusade against money in politics,” Evan Osnos of The New Yorker has written, can be traced back to 1998….” Osnos is writing about Lessig’s choice to employ an avenue of unlimited spending —a Super PAC—that he aims to close to all others. Precisely because, as he sees it, desperate times call for desperate measures, he is willing to live with what he calls the “irony” of exploiting the fruits of deregulation in order to re-regulate. His is a higher purpose, and he appeals to it in justifying this strategy.
NY Times: G.O.P. Race Starts in Lavish Haunts of Rich Donors
By Nicholas Confessore and Jonathan MartinLong before the season of baby-kissing and caucus-going begins in early primary states, a no less decisive series of contests is playing out among the potential 2016 contenders along a trail that traces the cold-weather destinations of the wealthy and private-jet-equipped. In one resort town after another — Rancho Mirage, Calif.; Sea Island, Ga.; Las Vegas — the candidates are making their cases to exclusive gatherings of donors whose wealth, fully unleashed by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, has granted them the kind of influence and convening power once held by urban political bosses and party chairmen.Even a single deep-pocketed donor can now summon virtually the entire field of candidates. No fewer than 11 Republican White House hopefuls will fly to Iowa this week to attend the Iowa Agriculture Summit organized by Bruce Rastetter, a businessman and prominent “super PAC” donor. Each will submit to questions from Mr. Rastetter, who said he wanted the candidates to educate themselves on agriculture policy.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Bloomberg: What happens when you punish a political lie
By Stephen CarterClayton was fined by an administrative panel whose members concluded that he’d violated a state statute barring any “person or candidate” from making “a false claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization” and from stating “in written campaign material that the candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual without first getting written permission from the individual to do so.”A state court upheld the ruling in relevant part, and, on Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear Clayton’s appeal.Given the court’s reading of the facts, Clayton’s violation of the statute seems clear. His lawyers argued in the Minnesota court of appeals that the statute violates the First Amendment. They lost. They petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge, but the justices declined.Why does the case matter? None of us, presumably, are greatly sympathetic to liars. But the problem isn’t that Clayton lied. The problem is that he was fined by a state agency for lying.
Kochs
National Review: What the Kochs Could Do for Their Country
By Josh GelernterLike concerned Americans dating back to nuisance pamphleteer Thomas Paine, les bêtes noires Koch brothers are trying to persuade people and influence elections. According to Alan Abramowitz at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, the Kochs plan to spend $900 million in the next election cycle — though, says Abramowitz, super-PAC spending has an unexpectedly modest impact on election results. If the Koch brothers really want to spread the good word of libertarian conservatism, they might consider redirecting some of their largesse.People talk a lot about media bias — X is too liberal, Y is too conservative. Often, they’re right, but this is more or less the way news has always operated. The balance doesn’t come from individual players; it comes from the field as a whole. The New York Times was balanced by the Herald Tribune, Walter Cronkite by Huntley & Brinkley, and The New Republic by National Review. The Guardian is balanced by the Telegraph, the Huffington Post by Drudge, CNN and MSNBC by Fox News.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Washington Post: Rick Perry questions Hillary Clinton’s ethical judgment
By Jose A. DelRealFormer Texas governor Rick Perry is raising questions about Hillary Clinton’s ethical judgment after reports that her family’s foundation received millions of dollars from foreign governments during her tenure as secretary of state.“Are you going to trust an individual who has taken that much money from a foreign source? Where’s your loyalty?” Perry, who is considering a 2016 White House bid, told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview airing Sunday. “I’m really concerned, not just going forward, but what has been received at the Clinton Foundation over the course of years and how that affects this individual’s judgment.”A Washington Post report last week revealed that the Clinton Foundation — which is a philanthropic organization — accepted donations from seven foreign governments. At least one of the donations reportedly violated an ethics agreement between Clinton and the Obama administration.“It’s not only the appearance of impropriety. It’s also the ethical side of this that, I think, most Americans really have a problem with,” Perry said.
Tampa Bay Times: Jeb Bush exploits non-candidate status to rewrite campaign finance playbook
By Alex Leary And Adam C. Smith
How can Bush, who acts and sounds every inch the candidate for president, not be a candidate?The former Florida governor says he is merely exploring the idea of possibly running for president. He drops disclaimer after disclaimer — If I decide . . .That may seem laughable given Bush’s actions — including campaign-style speeches and visits to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, courting the wealthiest donors and best political talent in the country, and resigning from corporate boards that pose potential conflicts of interest — but it is part of a carefully planned strategy.It also underscores campaign finance regulations awash in loopholes and lax enforcement in the fast-evolving world of Super PACs unleashed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
State and Local
Maine –– Maine Sun Journal: Lawmakers seek reform for Maine’s Clean Election law
By Scott ThistleAUGUSTA — A stack of bills aimed at cleaning up Maine’s Clean Election finance law holds the potential to rankle political leaders on both sides of the aisle.State Rep. Justin Chenette, D-Saco, said he knows leadership is displeased with his efforts to stop candidates who are seeking state office from also running political action committees that can filter money back to a political party, which in turn can use it to support a candidate or oppose a rival.According to Chenette and others, the practice creates a virtual black hole in Maine’s campaign finance law, allowing candidates the cover of their party when attacking opponents. State law also allows candidates who are running publicly funded campaigns, under the state’s Clean Election law, to separately manage so-called “leadership PACs” and collect private donations from industry lobbyists and others.
Minnesota –– Watchdog.org: Candidates cash in on court-ordered end to donor limits
By Tom Steward“I hope people in both parties, who rail against money in politics and attack campaign finance reform from some ideological side, realize this benefited both parties, this benefited candidates across the board,” said Anthony Sanders, an Institute for Justice attorney who led the successful legal challenge on First Amendment grounds. “Only one candidate can win any race, but all of those races where candidates exceeded the old limit had more speech because of this lawsuit.”The lawsuit targeted a complex state law that effectively prevented many larger political donors — “special sources” in legalese — from contributing the maximum allowable amount.Under the old system, 12 contributors could donate up to $1,000 to a candidate for the state House. The 13th contributor, however, would be restricted to a donation of $500, due to a $12,500 “special sources limit” for large contributions. Similar limits with larger dollar amounts applied to candidates for state Senate and constitutional offices.
Texas –– The Dallas Morning News: Dallas City Hall closes up a bad loophole
EditorialThe way the ordinance was written, incumbent City Council members could use any amount of money they collected in a so-called officeholder account for campaign purposes. This presents a potential problem because the city limits the amounts candidates can collect from individual donors for campaigns. Incumbents could have supplemented their campaign spending with funds from their largely unregulated officeholder accounts, giving them an advantage not available to challengers.Council races in Dallas are getting more expensive, particularly in northern Dallas. And successfully running for mayor has become a million-dollar affair.The ordinance gave incumbents an unfair advantage over the massive head start they already enjoy just by being in office (incumbent council members rarely lose in Dallas).When Ronquillo pointed out that Rawlings could move “officeholder” money into his campaign spending account whenever he pleased, the mayor did the right thing. He pledged not to use any money donated to him above the limits on campaign contributions. And he promised to change the ordinance.
