In the News
USA Today: Wealthy donors seize the steering wheel in 2016 races
Fredreka Schouten
David Keating, who favors fewer campaign restrictions as president of the Center for
Competitive Politics, said donor-focused super PACs may provide greater accountability and transparency to contributors. Each super PAC is required to detail its fundraising and spending in regular reports to the Federal Election Commission.
“It’s one thing to get a promise that ‘We’ll spend your money this way,’ but it’s another thing to see exactly how it was spent in a report that has to be filed with the government,” said Keating, who was the plaintiff in the 2010 federal case that help create super PACs.
Washington Post: Groups backed by secret donors take the lead in shaping 2016 elections
Matea Gold
Supporters of limited regulation argue that there is an important value in allowing anonymous donations.
“You’re going to get speech you don’t get otherwise,” said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics. “There are going to be people willing to fund speech who want to change government policy, and they won’t fund an organization if they are going to be tied publicly to it.”
CCP
Comments Regarding Proposed Changes to Montana ARM § 44.10.301 et seq.
Eric Wang
The Center for Competitive Politics (“CCP”)[1] submits these comments in response to your office’s initial draft of its proposed changes to Montana’s campaign finance regulations. The proposed rules go beyond even the already expansive authority the Montana Legislature recently granted to your office in SB 289, and are thus contrary to law. The proposed rules are also unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and alarming in the absolute discretion they purport to grant to one individual to regulate political speech in all of Montana.
Citizens United
Politico: Revenge of Citizens United
Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti
Concerns are mounting among top donors and party elites that an influx of huge checks into the GOP primary will hurt the party’s chances of retaking the White House. Long-shot candidates propped up by super PACs and other big-money groups will be able to linger for months throwing damaging barbs at establishment favorites who offer a better chance of victory, the thinking goes.
Corruption
More Soft Money Hard Law: The Judging of Politicians–By Judges
Bob Bauer
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had its chance to clarify the distinction between criminal and lawful politics, and it seems to have missed it. Among other issues, it was called on to consider the question of what constitutes an “official act.” In extensive briefing, the Court was warned that whatever one thinks of former Governor McDonnell’s behavior, the jury was not properly instructed about where, in the world of politics, mutual backscratching ends, and bribery or honest services fraud begins. The cases cited included Citizens United (along with McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission) and their declaration that ingratiation and access are elements of ordinary political interaction, not corruption.
But the Court in McDonnell rejected the relevance of these cases. It insisted that an official act included “customary” or “settled” practices of the widest variety that cannot be known except upon the consideration of the facts in particular cases. The Court conceded that it might not be enough for such an act to simply relate to official duties. But it did not explain what the might be.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: How Obama can hurt the Kochs with one stroke of his pen
Katrina vanden Heuvel
In the post-Citizens United landscape, the enormous influence of money in politics often feels inescapable. And while the astounding rise of dark money is a clear perversion of IRS rules dictating that nonprofits must remain nonpartisan, those rules are far too weak and, it now appears, unenforceable. As one former IRS official recently said, “It’s anything goes for the next couple of years. The whole system has really collapsed.”…
The president should sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their contributions to dark-money groups.
To be sure, such an order would not eliminate dark money. It would, however, expose de facto political contributions by powerful corporation that hold federal contracts, including JP Morgan Chase, Exxon Mobil, and Koch Industries. Moreover, with the 10 largest federal contractors receiving approximately $1.5 trillion from the government since 2000.
Politico: New nonprofit to give cover to Senate Republicans
John Bresnahan and Anna Palmer
Allies of Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn are forming a nonprofit to support the Republican policy agenda as the threat of a partisan showdown over spending this fall continues to grow…
The decision to launch the group comes as several similar nonprofits have been created to provide Republican leaders with air cover during politically contentious battles with the conservative flank of Congress, as well as Democrats and the White House. The pro-Republican groups are also another fundraising outlet for donors looking to affect legislative debates. Since these groups are often set up as nonprofits, they typically don’t have to disclose individual donors.
Media Matters: It Could Soon Be Easier For The Media To Expose Dark Money By Government Contractors
Daniel Angster
Citizens United gave federal contractors a huge incentive to contribute to these third-party groups as a way to curry favor with politicians who award lucrative government contracts. Washington hands out hundreds of billions of dollars annually in federal contracts and grants, and a vast majority go to large corporations. According to the Brennan Center, “Since 2000, the top 10 federal contractors have made $1.5 trillion from the government.” In some states, these federal contractors are an outsized influence on the local economy.
Candidates and Campaigns
Wall Street Journal: What to Watch in Presidential Campaigns’ Quarterly Filings
Rebecca Ballhaus
But many other details haven’t been disclosed. Moreover, full information about fundraising by groups supporting the campaigns — such as super PACs and nonprofits — have yet to be released, and some have minimal filing requirements. Super PAC data won’t be disclosed until later this month, and other groups won’t have to file anytime soon.
Beyond the official top lines on fundraising and spending, Wednesday’s filings will also offer some more detailed insight into how 2016 campaigns are functioning. Here’s what we’ll be looking for:
New York Times: At the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport: Reporter’s Notebook
Nicholas Confessore
Once the last trolley had loaded, my photographer and I raced to Walker’s Point, the rocky peninsula where the Bushes have their family homes. The compound is not open to the public, but we set up shop at an overlook with a view of the lawn, watching through binoculars and long camera lenses as the Bush donors slapped backs, took selfies and paid homage to former President George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara.
The Hill: Sanders enlists Ben & Jerry’s in fight against super-PACs
Ben Kamisar
The ice cream men ask supporters to sign a petition supporting Sanders’s call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Sander has regularly worked with the founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which is located in his home state. The pair attended Sanders’ official launch of his Democratic presidential campaign, where they gave out free ice cream.
The senator is an ardent supporter of campaign finance reform and has refused to bless any super-PAC to help his long-shot presidential bid. His emails specifically include a tag at the bottom that says “Paid for by Bernie 2016 (not the billionaires).”
The States
Washington Times: NYU law center sues to close campaign finance loophole
Michael Virtanen
“The very consequence that legislators most feared and sought to avoid, dominance of New York government by the wealthiest business interests, has too often come the pass,” the suit says.
The Brennan Center for Justice wants a state judge to reverse the Board of Elections’
1996 decision that subjected the hybrid business entities to the same higher campaign finance limits as individuals. LLCs are unincorporated but shield members from liability.“I think this is a clear misreading of the law,” said Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the center’s Democracy Program.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Taxpayer financed campaign proposal, with “Democracy Vouchers,” wins a place Seattle’s fall ballot
Joel Connelly
An initiative that would raise property taxes in order to create publicly financed election campaigns for Seattle city offices has qualified for the Emerald City’s November ballot.
The so-called “Honest Elections Seattle” measure would impose a 10-year, $30 million property tax levy, puny by such standards as the gargantuan $930 million Move Seattle levy. The money would pay for a system in which citizens would be given “democracy vouchers” to invest in their candidates of choice.
