CCP
Amicus Brief: Yamada v. Snipes in Support of Petitioner
While the public’s informational interest may sometimes justify some disclosure, it cannot justify the PAC regulations imposed here. Disclosure burdens applied against independent speakers may permissibly reveal information about the financial constituencies of candidates for office, i.e., information about who is doing the speaking and who may have funded the speech. Additional recordkeeping, registration, and reporting provisions shed no additional light on candidates’ financial constituencies. Such regulation serves only to impose unnecessary, additional costs upon individuals and groups like Petitioner, and thus to stifle speech that candidates and PACs cannot control.
CCP v. Harris: Amicus Curiae Brief of Philanthropy Roundtable in Support of CCP
America’s culture of charitable giving has flourished because its legal framework—including the individual deduction for charitable donations and the income tax exemption for charitable organizations—marks a critically important boundary between government and civil society. It is understandable that government would prefer to maximize its influence and control over the vast resources of the private nonprofit sector. But that is not the system of self-rule established by our Constitution. Regrettably, however, the Ninth Circuit’s decision to allow the State of California to collect, in bulk, the names of charitable donors who choose to give anonymously—without any compelling reason for the intrusion—transgresses this crucial boundary and raises serious practical and constitutional concerns. Nearly one-eighth of all charities in the United States are registered with the state Attorney General to solicit donations in California. So the stakes for donor privacy and freedom in this case implicate donors and charities across the country.
FEC
Washington Post: FEC also confused why a Ted Cruz super PAC is donating to Carly Fiorina
Colby Itkowitz
Keep the Promise 1 had a healthy $10 million on hand from a $11 million donation from hedge fund CEO Robert Mercer as of the end of June. But it only spent $536,169. A little for legal services. A little for surveys. And a whole lot for Fiorina.
Even the Federal Election Commission is perplexed. The super PAC was (purposely?) vague about the donation, describing it on its FEC filing as “other disbursement.”
So, the FEC, as it does, sent a letter Wednesday asking for “a brief statement or description of why each disbursement was made.”
Sacramento Bee: Does FEC chair Ann Ravel support California campaign finance measure?
Christopher Cadelago
In the statement, Ann Ravel, the former head of California’s political ethics watchdog, is the first person quoted. She said the proposed constitutional amendment “goes a long way toward protecting our democracy by recognizing a fundamental right – the right of the public to have responsive and accountable political leaders.
“This is an innovative response to the current problems facing the political system,” Ravel continued…
Winuk acknowledged that while it certainly appeared that Ravel was a supporter, her job on the FEC prevents her from taking an official position on the initiative, in its entirety.
In a brief interview, Ravel said she can’t opine on the state law portion because it may come before the commission. She can, however, speak glowingly about the part amending the California constitution, which the FEC has no say over, she said.
Political Parties
More Soft Money Hard Law: Parties and the Rethinking of Reform
Bob Bauer
A conversation has begun and, as the differences between Edsall and the Brennan Center illustrate, it does not have to culminate in an “either-or” choice: regulation or virtually none at all. In each case–Edsall’s emphasis on transparency, and in the Center’s step-by-step approach–there is a recognition that reform objectives are appropriately kept in view as the overall Watergate-era regulatory model is reevaluated. But the reevaluation is necessary and there has been significant movement in that direction, now blessed by a leading reform organization and one of the press’ more informed and experienced commentators on campaign finance. It’s an approach also well worth taking beyond parties for testing elsewhere in the world of campaign finance.
Candidates and Campaigns
Medium: Larry Lessig: Tammany Hall’s 2016 Presidential Candidate
Paul Jossey
This all may seem like the political version of adult fantasy camp, where people (mostly men) spend big bucks pretending to be major league baseball players or shooting cardboard bad guys with former Navy SEALs. But to Lessig and the 9,000 or so people that have contributed to his quixotic cause, it is all real. Lessig will now once again play political super hero with other people’s money; dollar-sign envisioning consultants are assuredly lining up to help.
His latest adventure continues a pattern whereby Lessig advances vanity projects with a mixture of empirically and scholarly deficient arguments, political obliviousness, and a healthy dose of racial demagoguery. His slick PowerPoint-aided talks — whose distinctive style have earned him an eponymous moniker — strike just the right emotional chord with his picayune but well-heeled progressive following. The theatrics are precisely designed to portray Lessig himself as the answer to a “rigged system.” He can fix it if only enough people get behind him.
Washington Post: Ending the media’s in-kind gifts to Donald Trump
Jennifer Rubin
I get it. CNN got 23 million viewers and bushels of ad money hyping the Trump show. Every day it and its rivals outpace one another in the “Who can put The Donald’s face on more?” contest. That is acceptable for an organization that is running pure entertainment content. It is not acceptable to turn over its news programs to him or view the entire lens through the Trump filter. (Next, how Trump not making news today affected his rivals!) At some point, it verges on an in-kind gift to Trump. No one is suggesting filing FEC complaints over hours of coverage devoted to Trump (although it would be amusing), but if news outlets refuse to be even-handed in their coverage, there are still steps candidates can take.
Texas Tribune: Pro-Perry Super PACs Give Back Millions
Carrie Levine
“We’re still settling up with a few vendors … but we had a pretty good estimate of what those were so we were able to hold back a little bit of the reserve and refund the rest,” Brint Ryan, the super PACs’ finance chairman who runs a Dallas-based tax services company, told the Center for Public Integrity.
The pro-Perry super PACs, all named variations on Opportunity and Freedom PAC, are legally allowed to accept unlimited contributions.
They collectively reported raising $12.8 million during the first half of the year. Austin Barbour, the senior adviser, said they had received another $4 million contribution from a single donor after the reporting deadline, bringing the total to nearly $17 million.
MSNBC: Bernie Sanders raises $1 million off Clinton super PAC attack
Alex Seitz-Wald
Bernie Sanders raised more than $1.2 million in less than 48 hours off a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC’s attack on the Vermont senator, his presidential campaign said Thursday.
That’s an unprecedented response in such a short amount of time, according ActBlue, the non-profit that processes online donations for many Democratic campaigns, including Sanders.
“We’ve never seen an immediate donor response like what the Sanders’ campaign received on Tuesday,” said ActBlue Executive Director Erin Hill. “At one point, it drove 180 contributions through our platform per minute. Over its 11-year history ActBlue has sent money to over 11,000 campaigns and committees – and the Bernie Sanders campaign holds the record for the two biggest donor days ever for a campaign on our platform.”
The States
Albuquerque Journal: New Mexico secretary of state pleads not guilty
Dan Boyd
During the hearing, Duran’s attorney raised several technical complaints about the charges filed against Duran, including whether at least one of the charges – an identity theft charge alleged to have occurred in 2010 – might violate the state’s statute of limitations. The judge rejected motions to dismiss part or all of the case, though more attempts are expected to be made in coming weeks.
“She’s not been convicted of any offenses,” said Duran’s attorney, Erlinda Johnson. “As she sits today, she is an elected official.”
The hearing was Duran’s first court appearance since being charged last month with 64 violations by Attorney General Hector Balderas’ office. Although the amounts withdrawn at eight different casinos run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the counts against her revolve around 19 transactions totaling about $13,000.
Los Angeles Times: State panel outlaws ‘dark money’ in California political campaigns
Patrick McGreevy
The state’s campaign finance watchdog agency on Thursday adopted new requirements that nonprofit groups that contribute through a federal political action committee to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates in California must disclose their donors.
“The amendment to this regulation clarifies that so-called ‘dark money,’ originating from nonprofit or other organizations whose donors are not disclosed, is not permitted in California elections,” said Hyla P. Wagner, general counsel for the state Fair Political Practices Commission in a report to the panel.
