In the News
Reuters: Delaware wins appeal, can enforce law on election ads
Jonathan Stempel
Thursday’s 3-0 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia reversed a lower court ruling that had favored Delaware Strong Families, a conservative-leaning group that publishes “voter guides” ahead of elections.
Allen Dickerson, a lawyer at the Center for Competitive Politics representing Delaware Strong Families, said the group intends to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“In allowing Delaware to police non-political groups as though they were political parties, and destroy the privacy of supporters contributing years before any election, the Third Circuit committed a grave error,” he said.
News Journal: Federal judges uphold Delaware campaign disclosure law
Jon Offredo
“Delaware voters deserve to know who is responsible for advertisements and other materials asking for them to support or oppose candidates, and the court has made a strong statement upholding the state’s right to ensure transparency for our citizens,” [Gov.] Markell said in the statement…
Nicole Theis, president of Delaware Strong Families, said in a statement that her group’s voter guide should not be compared to a major advertisement purchased by a political party. She said the group’s voter’s guide is informational and intended to educate voters, not choose sides in an election, and should not be subject to disclosure requirements.
CCP
Statement on ruling in the case of Delaware Strong Families v. Attorney General
Nicole Theis, president of DSF , said: “Delaware, and the Third Circuit, are wrong to treat our voter guide like the ad buys of a major political party, requiring us to register with the State before seeking to educate voters on a strictly nonpartisan basis. A well-informed electorate is good for everyone, and the First Amendment protects our right to speech and association, and we intend to continue fighting to ensure those rights for ourselves and all Delaware citizens…”
As written, the law appears to require groups to choose between publishing information on candidates and violating the privacy of their supporters who might contribute as little as $9 a month. The Delaware law creates a new form of regulated speech known as a “third-party advertisement.” The law appears to subject groups that publish voter guides to essentially the same regulatory and disclosure burdens as parties, PACs and candidate committees.
CCP Reaction to “John Doe” Decision
“The First Amendment rights of the John Doe victims were trampled on for far too long, and while this decision ends a sorry chapter, great damage was done,” said Brad Smith, CCP Chairman. “For three years, American citizens were gagged, intimidated and forced to pay a heavy price for simply speaking out about government. Their speech was suppressed, their lives were disrupted, their reputations were damaged and bank accounts squeezed by legal bills in order to defend their rights in court. The Wisconsin Legislature and legislatures throughout the country should pass reforms to ensure this can never happen to anyone else. This investigation illustrates how campaign finance laws are used to harass political opponents and it shows the need for the Courts to uphold robust First Amendment rights and develop clear, bright line rules for Constitutionally protected political activity, to defend American citizens against such abuses.”
Wisconsin John Doe
Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Court Ends Investigation Into Scott Walker’s Recall Election Bid
Patrick O’Connor
The latest probe of Mr. Walker focused on whether he and his top advisers violated campaign-finance laws by working closely with a handful of outside groups that helped keep him in office. A top aide was advising both his campaign and a supportive nonprofit group, and prosecutors said the groups’ advocacy on Mr. Walker’s behalf amounted to an unlawful “in-kind” contribution.
“Today’s ruling confirmed no laws were broken, a ruling that was previously stated by both a state and federal judge,” said AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Mr. Walker’s presidential campaign. “It is time to move past this unwarranted investigation that has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Reuters: Wisconsin Supreme Court orders halt to campaign finance probe
Brendan O’Brien
The court ordered a special prosecutor to cease an investigation into whether Walker’s gubernatorial campaign and conservative advocacy groups such as the Wisconsin Club for Growth unlawfully coordinated efforts during recall elections in 2011 and 2012, court documents showed.
“The special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed,” the court wrote.
Wall Street Journal: Key Excerpts from Wisconsin Court Ruling Ending Scott Walker Probe
Jacob Gershman
The opinion concludes with another reprimand of the special prosecutor: “Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them.”
New York Times: Key Excerpts from Wisconsin Court Ruling Ending Scott Walker Probe
Monica Davey
In a divided ruling from the highly polarized court, a majority of Wisconsin justices found that the state’s campaign finance law included language that was unconstitutionally vague and broad, a finding that could be seen as loosening fund-raising and spending regulations on so-called issue advocacy involving all political groups in the state.
The ruling, complicated by three related lawsuits, numerous separate legal issues and multiple written opinions from the justices, concluded that a largely secret investigation into outside groups and Mr. Walker’s successful effort to survive a recall in 2012 could not continue “because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law.”
Wall Street Journal: Free Speech :Liberation Day
Editorial
The opinion eviscerates the attempt to criminalize political speech under the theory of illegal “coordination.” Prosecutors claimed that their targets had illegally coordinated their independent expenditure campaigns with Mr. Walker’s. But the court ruled that prosecutors stretched the definition of the words “political purposes” in Wisconsin campaign law to sweep in constitutionally protected political speech.
In particular, they tried to criminalize “issue advocacy,” or advocating on behalf of issues as opposed to specific candidates. The Justices agreed with lower-court judge Gregory Peterson that this was an abuse of power and ordered an end to “this unconstitutional John Doe” probe.
Campaign Finance
Daily Beast: Why No One Will Reform Washington
Lawrence Lessig
I f these reformers are to be taken seriously, they need to give us a plan. They need to show us how they will deliver a Congress, as former governor and Republican presidential candidate Buddy Romer put it, “free to lead”—first. They need to identify the steps they will take immediately upon coming to office that would free Congress from special-interest money. They need to convince us those steps are plausible, and give us a reason to believe they can succeed.
Arizona Republic: The absolute worst-ever effect of campaign-finance laws
Doug MacEachern
Thirty-five years of post-Watergate campaign finance laws may have failed, utterly, to stanch the growth of political spending. But it gave its advocates a sense of control. If only we pour more concrete into the campaign-finance barrier, we can finally stop “undue influence” from stealing our elections.
The reality of “stopping undue influence” is that it has always been a euphemism for “keeping Republicans from winning elections” (has any liberal ever complained that Citizens United opened the money-valve for unions, too?), but its most pernicious effect has been feeding the desire to control what other people contribute to politics. It has fostered a sense of the other side as a criminal enterprise.
Politico: Small donor myth debunked
Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti
A Bush campaign source said that 61 percent of the campaign’s donors gave $200 or less, while the Clinton campaign said it had 250,000 donors and that 94 percent of its donations came in amounts of $250 or less
Those claims – which are similar to metrics offered by other campaigns – cannot be independently verified from FEC reports. The reporting rules do not require campaigns to list individual donations from supporters who gave $200 or less. Additionally, campaigns can, and do, use fundraising techniques intended to inflate the small donation numbers — sometimes without substantially boosting their overall cash.
Independent Groups
New York Times: What Campaign Filings Won’t Show: Super PACs’ Growing Sway
Eric Lichtblau and Nicholas Confessore
“As long as there is an enormous advantage — and it is literally enormous — to raising money in super PACs instead of in hard money to campaigns, people are going to do what mathematically makes sense,” said Newt Gingrich, whose 2012 presidential bid was bolstered by a well-funded super PAC.
Mr. Gingrich, who favors lifting the limit on contributions to candidates, said it was “not necessarily healthy for the country,” in part because super PACs tended toward negative advertising.
Politico: Biggest losers in 2016 money count
Nick Gass
At this stage of the campaign, almost anything can happen, with mega-donors still lining up behind unrestrained candidate super PACs and wealthy candidates assessing how much money to pour into their own campaigns. Super PACs, which have no fundraising or spending limits, have until the end of July to file financial reports.
But some campaign watchers said the FEC numbers provide a reality check about popular support as the campaign season heats up.
“Candidates who rely on a one-note appeal” who lack personal resources or a healthy super PAC “are looking at a very steep climb to stay in the game,” said Republican political strategist Rick Wilson.
