CCP
CCP v. Harris: Amici Curiae Brief of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, the Civitas Institute, the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, and Alliance Defending Freedom in Support of CCP
The Ninth Circuit’s holding that the Attorney General’s actions do not impose a First Amendment injury conflicts with this Court’s consistent recognition that compelled disclosure chills the freedom to associate. That chilling effect is of particular concern to amici. Indeed, retaliation against public interest groups like the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), amici, and the donors that support them is an increasingly common occurrence. Today’s technology, moreover, exacerbates the speed and impact of such harassment. The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that compelled disclosure will not discourage potential donors from associating with these organizations is wrong, and contrary to authority in other circuits. This Court should grant the writ to clarify the circumstances in which a party’s First Amendment freedom to associate is impermissibly abridged by state action.
Is the media waking up to the myths of “money in politics”?
Brian Walsh
But not only does Yahoo’s analysis reinforce our understanding of how money does and doesn’t help candidates, it also helps to explain why most self-funded candidates fail. Although many would expect a self-funded candidate to benefit in the eyes of voters as a result of their financial independence, self-funders are often self-funders because they couldn’t persuade many citizens to support their campaign. Whether it was Steve Forbes, Meg Whitman, or Linda McMahon, history teaches us that having the money to run a campaign does not mean that the campaign will be successful. What this boils down to is the simple fact that money alone does not determine the outcome of an election – voters do.
Independent Groups
TIME: Hillary Clinton’s Bulldog Blazes New Campaign Finance Trails
Michael Scherer
You could consider him the first in a new generation of super staffers who can effectively advise the candidate while continuing to raise and deploy unlimited amounts of money to get that person elected. “What they are doing with Correct the Record is groundbreaking,” explains Paul Ryan, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, who is considering filing complaints with the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department challenging the group’s novel legal theories. “It is creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.”
National Journal: When a Super PAC Acts Like a Campaign
Emma Roller
Unlike in 2012, when super PACs mostly spent money on television advertising, super PACs are starting to get much more personal with their spending this cycle. Leslie Shedd, CARLY For America’s spokeswoman, said the super PAC’s staff finds out about Fiorina’s campaign events through public listings, then sets up a table to sign up attendees for its email list and distribute swag.
“What you’re seeing now is the modern campaign,” Shedd said. “This is how campaigns are evolving and moving, and I think that we just kind of latched onto that.”
Shedd said the super PAC decided the best way it could help is with on-the-ground work, which she said is “one of the most expensive and time-consuming aspects of any campaign.
Contribution Limits
Pillar of Law: Trump’s Advantages Call for Eliminating Campaign Contribution Limits
Stephen Klein
Celebrity has always confounded so-called campaign finance reform. Money raised and spent by politicians can be quantified, but no one can put an objective value on “earned media,” or press coverage a candidate does not have to pay for. This has usually benefited incumbent officeholders in the campaign finance regime, but is proving especially advantageous for Trump, whose celebrity comes from popular culture that is far broader than the political sphere. So, not only does Trump have practically limitless money to spend, he does not even have to spend it as much as other candidates since a cadre of reporters is always nearby eager to record his latest quip. Even restrictions on Trump spending his money could not address this popularity without new restrictions on television, radio and newspaper coverage. Many laws that meddle with campaign funding are already constitutionally dubious; to restrict journalism is a non-starter even for most reformers. Some other candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, are garnering more attention in part thanks to earned media, but they would have a much greater chance to compete if they could more feasibly raise the necessary money to take out more ads.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Hill: Clinton’s pledge to curb influence divides donors
Jonathan Swan
One dissenting Democratic donor is the long-time Clinton supporter Bill Brandt, who believes raising and spending money on behalf of political candidates is a fundamental right of free speech. Brandt, who runs the financial restructuring firm DSI Civic, said, “I am probably one of the only Democrats who believes that Citizens United was correctly decided.”
The Hill: Carson relying on small donors for funds
Jonathan Swan and Kyle Plantz
Whether Carson finds his mega-donor is an open question, but at least one billionaire conservative believes he shouldn’t be counted out regardless of what happens.
Asked whether Carson could win purely on the back of small donations, Minnesota-based media mogul Stanley Hubbard, who is supporting Scott Walker, replied, “Well I will say this to you: If somebody can get enough public support via the media, then I don’t care how much money you have or don’t have. You can get the nomination.”
Fayetteville Observer: As Trump and Sanders rise, the two major parties fall
Joe Trippi
This campaign season, a combination of small-dollar giving over the Internet and “super PAC” funding is sustaining the largest Republican field in history. Long-shot candidates typically do not leave the field because they are low in the polls; they leave because they can’t afford an airplane ticket to the next debate or the next state. But the Republican Party can’t cut off Ted Cruz’s tea party revenue stream or prevent Rand Paul from soliciting money over Twitter.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Hillary Clinton and Citizens United
Christian Schneider
But the Supreme Court found that blocking the film’s release amounted to political speech censorship; if “Hillary: The Movie” could be banned, so could books and other campaign materials.
So it makes sense that Clinton would want to stifle criticism of Clinton. In fact, limiting third party money almost always benefits those in power; typically, challengers and their supporters have to spend more money to overcome the natural advantages incumbents enjoy.
Mostly, Clinton’s plan is a sloppy kiss to the Stephen Colbert crowd that has a wildly distorted view of the change Citizens United actually made. The ruling allowed formation of so-called super PACs that can expressly support candidates by raising and spending unlimited sums — but super PACs also must disclose their donors.
Campaign Finance
Washington Post: Why Clinton’s big campaign finance proposal could lead to more partisan gridlock
Max Ehrenfreund
“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans,” Clinton said in a statement.
Yet some political scientists warn that many of those everyday Americans — at least, the ones who are most likely to donate to a campaign — have widely divergent views about how the country should be run. As a result, more public money in federal campaigns could result in a Congress that is even more polarized and gridlocked than it is now.
NPR: Reality Check On Campaign-Finance Reform. It Would be Difficult And Slow
Jessica Taylor
If she were president, Clinton may be able to nominate justices who would overturn Citizens United, but they could face a difficult confirmation. And even if they did get through, there’s no guarantee they could change the court’s makeup enough to change the outcome.
As for her proposal for a constitutional amendment on the issue, that’s a long and tedious process and one that would likely be dead on arrival in a GOP-controlled Congress or a divided one. It’s been over a decade since the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, otherwise known on Capitol Hill as BCRA, went through Congress. And the institution is far more polarized now.
Some of her other plans, like increasing disclosures for companies and government contractors, could feasibly be done, but would still likely meet Republican resistance. Clinton, though, indicated that some of her proposals she might try through executive order.
Center for Responsive Politics: Clinton money-in-politics plan would benefit candidates like… Bernie Sanders
Brianna Gurciullo
The price tag of a matching program on the federal level could “induce sticker shock” at first glance, Ryan said. But, he noted, existing local programs don’t break the bank. In 2013, New York City paid $38.2 million to 149 participating candidates.
“If you were to implement such a program at the federal level, the price tag would be larger but so too is the total federal budget,” Ryan said.
He added that such a program might require more information – name, address and occupation – to be collected about the small donors than is now the case. Currently, federal campaigns have to disclose the personal information only of donors who make contributions of more than $200. But Ryan said the threshold would need to change for the matching system to work.
The States
Albany Times Union: LLC loophole penalty could hinder NY donors
Chris Bragg
After reviewing the settlement Tuesday, election lawyer Sarah Steiner criticized Sugarman for never conducting discovery showing whether or not the LLC donations were legitimate. “It’s sort of a success as a fishing expedition, but as an attack on the LLC loophole, it falls short,” Steiner said. “I’m opposed to the LLC loophole, but while it’s open and legal, you need to be very careful about the kind of speech you stifle.”
Sugarman, who was appointed by the governor a year ago, has faced questions about her independence from the Cuomo administration. The suit would appear to bolster Sugarman’s claims of independence. While she declined to say whether the settlement means she would now go after the state’s biggest recipients of LLC donations, she vowed her enforcement unit would keep pressing cases. “We’re not going to stop with this settlement,” Sugarman said.
