Significant Constitutional and Practical Issues with Maine Legislative Document 1192 (S.P. 419)
By Eric WangL.D. 1192 imposes disclosure requirements that single out by name political contributors whose aggregate contributions exceed a certain threshold, but the disclosure appears to serve no meaningful purpose other than to unconstitutionally stigmatize and invite public antipathy and hostility toward the contributors. Additionally, the legislation imposes requirements to identify in disclaimers certain large donors to sponsors of independent expenditures. These disclaimer requirements are a radical departure from current Maine law and court precedent, and would tend to mislead rather than inform the public. Lastly, L.D. 1192 would reduce the ability of political action committees (PACs) to speak and to associate with other PACs by imposing an unprecedented 25 percent tax on PAC-to-PAC contributions. The tax does not appear to further any legitimate governmental interest, and the purported justification for this measure can be addressed in a far more narrowly tailored and more speech-protective manner.
Support for Maine Legislative Document 1290 (S.P. 465)
By Matt NeseContrary to the unfounded claims of their advocates, “clean elections” programs, more appropriately known as tax-financed campaign systems, have roundly failed to achieve their stated goals. While the intent of the MCEA may have been noble, in practice, a variety of academic research and the Center’s own research demonstrate that these programs: (1) contain alarming amounts of corruption; (2) relatedly, fail to decrease the incidence of public corruption; (3) fail to change legislative voting patterns or reduce lobbyist influence; (4) fail to promote electoral competitiveness; (5) fail to increase either occupational diversity or female representation in legislatures; (6) fail to result in financial savings to taxpayers; and (7) fail to improve voter turnout or trust in government.As the Center’s own research shows, the Maine Clean Election Act, in particular, has suffered from many of the aforementioned problems.
Constitutional and Practical Issues with Maine Legislative Document 189
By Matt NeseOn behalf of the Center for Competitive Politics,[1] I am writing you today to respectfully submit the following comments regarding the constitutional and practical impact of the provisions contained in Legislative Document 189, which proposes to amend Maine’s campaign finance laws by requiring Section 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofits, Section 501(c)(5) labor unions, and Section 501(c)(6) trade associations to report the names, home addresses, occupations, and employers of all of their donors – regardless of how paltry the contribution – over the past two calendar years to the government, simply as a result of such an entity’s choice to make a contribution over $50 to a political party or political committee operating in the State of Maine.
Amending the First Amendment
Wall Street Journal: Hillary’s Constitutional Aversion to Criticism
By Donald F. McGahn IIIn a sense, it’s fitting that Mrs. Clinton supports efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that dealt with the right to buy television ads for a movie that criticized her. The constitutional amendment she wants could return American elections to where they were in 2008, when her opponents and critics were often muzzled in the public square.Despite the hyperbole surrounding Citizens United, the justices were actually debating a simple issue: Whether a movie critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton could be aired on pay-per-view television. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, such activity was banned within 30 days of a primary election. The justices struck down this prohibition, ruling that “the First Amendment protects political speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts was even more blunt, arguing that such bans subvert “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”There was a time when most Americans agreed with this logic. The American Founding was partially triggered by the Stamp Act, which squelched speech by mandating that publications possess a stamp purchased from the British government. Following the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution, the first Congress wisely passed the First Amendment to prevent politicians from banning speech that criticizes officeholders. Throughout American history, this constitutional guarantee of free speech has been the bulwark of the country’s experiment in self-government.
Independent Groups
The Federalist: Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee
By Paul JosseyThe pilot episode of “The West Wing” features fictional progressive President Josiah Bartlet lecturing caricatured Christian leaders on America’s commitment to freedom of expression—no matter how personally distasteful the expression. The scene portrayed a familiar banality: progressives are the First Amendment’s proud defenders. Left-wing intellectuals populating America’s most elite universities join Hollywood liberals as professed sentinels of free expression. In particular, a trio of Harvard law professors supplies the intellectual bedrock of most current First Amendment understanding.Larry Tribe, Larry Lessig, and Cass Sunstein oversee this important constitutional debate, not only in academia, but public policy, and even popular culture. The best academic journals publish their writings, they regularly testify before Congress, proposeConstitutional amendments, rotate through high-level government positions, and author textbooks. Lessig, through an actor, even cameoed “The West Wing.” The paucity of conservative and libertarian faculty leaves progressive First Amendment dogma substantially unchallenged—particularly on complex applications like campaign finance. This lack of ideological competition begets sloppy, flawed, and sometimes outright erroneous analysis. The professors’ First Amendment view contravenes Founding-era thinking, Supreme Court doctrine, and current social science. Nevertheless, everywhere except a slim Supreme Court majority, they have successfully transformed a government prohibition tethered to natural rights theory into an instrument of ordinary politics infused with egalitarianism.
Politico: Cash flows in year of SuperPAC 2.0
By Tarini PartiFrom the types of committees created to the timing and number of outside money vehicles involved, with billionaire donors now watching more closely than ever before, supporters of presidential hopefuls have added innovative twists to how they raise and spend outside money. They are going one step beyond the model supporters of President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney used in 2012 – the first presidential election that used super PACs.Jeb Bush has yet to announce his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, but he’s raised millions by setting up a super PAC, leadership PAC and nonprofit all with the same name, Right to Rise — a branding that signals to donors the committees to which they should give.
CPI: New super PAC takes moon shot
By Dave LevinthalNo space rock is so political as the moon.President John F. Kennedy vowed to land a man there and return him safely to Earth.President Richard Nixon presided over humanity’s first successful moon landing, all while prepping for the worst.More recently, Newt Gingrich — to innumerable snickers — promised that, as president, he’d colonize the moon.It’s fitting, therefore, that the 2016 election will feature a decidedly lunar super PAC.
Wisconsin
National Review: A Revealing Leftist Defense of Wisconsin’s Shameful Political Prosecutions
By David FrenchThe Left has long tried to argue that bipartisan law enforcement participation in the John Does meant that they couldn’t possibly be politically-motivated, but the participation of opportunistic alleged Republicans hardly means that a concerted attack on conservatives (yes, there’s a difference) wasn’t politically-motivated.Finally, Botarri and Fischer (and the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel) call for the John Does to be “open to the public.” After years of prosecution-enforced secrecy combined with intrusive, unconstitutional searches, this demand is extraordinarily disingenuous. Essentially, the Left is demanding that the court dump reams of private information obtained through illegal search warrants into the public square — continuing the punishment of conservative speech. To the contrary, if the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the trial court quashing the John Doe subpoenas, then the investigation should end, and the subpoenaed and seized information should be returned to the targeted conservatives and conservative groups.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Wall Street Journal: Huckabee’s Pitch, Whether Joke or Not, At Odds With Federal Election Law
By Rebecca BallhausMr. Huckabee said his campaign would be funded by “working people who will find out that $15 and $25 a month contributions can take us from Hope to higher ground,” he said, a reference to Hope, Ark., where he was speaking. But, he cracked: “Rest assured, if you want to give a million dollars, please do it.”Not so fast. Individuals are only permitted to give up to $2,700 per election to a candidate, according to Federal Election Commission rules. Though in a joking manner, Mr. Huckabee was likely making a pitch to the audience on behalf of a super PAC, Pursuing America’s Greatness, that he formed last month to back his campaign. Super PACs can accept unlimited donations from individuals but are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns.There’s just one hitch: Under FEC rules, candidates are only permitted to solicit up to $5,000 in donations to super PACs backing their campaigns. To be sure, there are ways around this rule—candidates can appear at super PAC fundraisers that solicit more than $5,000 from attendees, as long as the candidates themselves don’t ask for it.
Roll Call: Clinton Foundation’s Missteps Point to Broader Problem
By Eliza Newlin CarneyOn the surface, the uproar over foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of State looks like another example of the Clintons behaving badly. But the problem goes beyond the Clintons and could tar Republicans as well.Conservative author Peter Schweizer says in his forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” that the foundation pocketed millions from foreign interests that won favorable treatment from the State Department. The foundation also repeatedly flouted an agreement with the Obama administration to seek approval from State Department ethics officials before accepting new donations from foreign governments.
NY Times: Rand Paul’s Donations Show His Small-Town Appeal
By Derek WillisAlthough Rand Paul has received hundreds of contributions from donors in cities such as Houston, New York, Los Angeles and Phoenix, a disproportionate number have come from donors in smaller cities and towns. More than a quarter of Rand Paul’s online donors list addresses in communities with populations of less than 10,000. According to the 2010 Census, about 15 percent of Americans lived in incorporated areas with populations of less than 10,000. That support reveals his appeal among rural donors (like those in his home state of Kentucky).At least 21 contributions have come from donors listing an address of Cumming, Ga., which has a population of about 5,500, although places with a Cumming mailing address, in the Atlanta metropolitan area, have a population of around 100,000. At least 15 donations are from Magnolia, Tex., one for every 105 residents in the Houston suburb.The two Pauls do share some of the same donor base: At least 2,000 of the donors to Rand Paul in April gave money to his father’s 2012 campaign, an analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows; the number is very likely higher because many small-dollar contributors do not appear on F.E.C. filings.
CPI: Capitol Hill’s Uber caucus
By Dave LevinthalIn all, some 275 federal politicians and political committees together spent more than $278,000 on at least 7,625 Uber rides during the 2013-2014 election cycle, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign spending records indicates.That’s a roughly 18-fold spending increase from the previous election cycle, when federal committees together spent about $15,000 on Uber services. It represents a veritable monopoly, too: Almost no political committee used Uber’s direct competitors, Lyft and Sidecar, according to the analysis, and traditional taxi use declined precipitously.Bipartisan love of Uber abounds, with politicos of all stripes composing a de facto Uber caucus, voting with their money for a wildly popular but controversial company.
FEC
NY Times: F.E.C. Data Shows Campaign Fines Hit Record Low in 2014
By Eric LichtblauWASHINGTON — Penalties levied by the Federal Election Commission for campaign finance violations have plummeted to record lows even as political spending has soared, according to newly released data from the agency.The statistics underscore the sharp decline in enforcement at the commission, which has come under fresh scrutiny because of partisan gridlock. By law, each party has three commissioners, resulting in recent years in a 3-to-3 vote on virtually any significant issue.
State and Local
New York –– Politico: Congratulations, New York, You’re #1 in Corruption
By Alan GreenblattOther states have plenty of corruption, but it’s hard to beat New York when it comes to sheer volume. The indictment Monday of Dean Skelos, the state Senate majority leader, and his son Adam came just three months after charges were brought against Sheldon Silver, then the Assembly Speaker. Having the top leaders in both chambers face indictment in the same session is an unparalleled achievement, but Skelos is now the fifth straight Senate majority leader in Albany to face indictment.New York doesn’t so much have a culture of corruption as an entire festival. So far, Senate Republicans are standing by Skelos, but if they decide to make a change, they probably won’t turn to Thomas Libous, the chamber’s Number Two leader. He faces trial this summer on charges of lying to the FBI, while his son faces sentencing later this month on similar charges. All told, more than two dozen members of the New York state legislature have been indicted or resigned in disgrace over the past five years. “Albany for a long time has had a culture of self-interest, where private gains are woven in with public policy,” says Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause in New York.
