CCP
Harvard Professor Gives PowerPoint Presentation
Luke Wachob
Lawrence Lessig doesn’t want to talk about campaign finance reform anymore, probably because those conversations haven’t been going very well for him lately. Instead, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Friday, Lessig retreated to a line of criticism more amenable to Americans’ taste: doesn’t Congress just suck?
On that point, it’s hard to disagree, but Lessig’s diagnosis and remedy for the cause of the problem continue to miss the mark. He puts a laser-like focus on the arcana of campaign finance regulation and redistricting to the neglect of other, more significant levers of power in government, despite the fact that his own presidential campaign succeeded at raising money, but was nonetheless forced to close shop because the Democratic Party boxed him out of the debates (at least in his point of view). One is left to ask: is money really the problem?
Comments to Montana Interim State Administration and Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Proposed Changes to Admin. Rules of Montana
Eric Wang
Specifically, the proposed rules:
Provide no clear standards whatsoever for determining when a group will be regulated as an “incidental committee”; Provide no clear standards whatsoever for determining when a group’s “primary purpose” becomes that of an “independent committee”; Gives unlimited discretion to the CoPP to make these determinations; Goes far beyond the statute in regulating “coordination”; Introduces an infinitely open-ended standard for regulating communications as “electioneering communications” that is found nowhere in the statute.
For these reasons, which are discussed in more detail below, CCP urges the Committee to recommend amendment or rejection of the CoPP’s proposed rules.
In the News
More Soft Money Hard Law: Disclosure Wars
Bob Bauer
Sometimes those who disagree about campaign finance are almost deliberately talking past each other, dreading any concessions because, they think, to give an inch is to surrender a mile. This seems increasingly the case in arguments about disclosure and a good example are the opposing reactions to the Supreme Court’s recent decision to decline review of California’s 501(c)(3) disclosure requirements upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris.
Here is one fundamental difference: the belief on the part of decision proponents that it was a victory for campaign finance disclosure, and reply by critics that it had nothing to do with campaign finance at all. And indeed, in technical terms, the case is not a campaign finance case – – it does not involve electoral activities, which 501(c)(3)’s may not conduct, and the information that the government is asking for is not in theory to be made available to the general public but only for the use of authorities for law enforcement.
NewJersey.com: Ex-N.J. Govs. Tom Kean and Christie Whitman: Big money poisoning politics
Jonathan D. Salant
Opponents of efforts to regulate political spending said the politicians are the ones who benefit by campaign finance restrictions.
“The ‘Reformers’ are a who’s who of Washington insiders, lobbyists and power brokers, exactly the type of people who benefit most from limiting other people’s ability to speak and criticize government,” said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, based in Alexandria, Va. “Many of them were tossed out of office by their constituents after their records were exposed by the kind of speech they now want to limit.”
Free Speech
1851 Center: Court: Ohioans Have Right to Criticize the Performance of Public Officials
The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law’s victory on behalf of Bill and Lynde Brownlee, husband and wife, and their small-town news website, Maple Heights News, reaffirms the principle that citizens’ criticisms of their government officials cannot be silenced when those officials file lawsuits for “defamation” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” as Mayor Jeff Lansky had attempted here.
The ruling should provide considerable help to both mainstream news outlets and alternative politically-minded journalists and organizations.
The Brownlees had written a short web article in the summer of 2014 questioning whether the Mayor had kept all of his campaign promises, and further questioning his tax and spending policies. The article strictly addressed the Mayor’s policies, and did not use insulting or harsh language.
[Congratulations to the folks at the 1851 Center on this victory in court!]
FEC
Washington Examiner: FEC commish warns of regulations on media-sponsored presidential TV debates
Paul Bedard
In the heart of the presidential debate season, the Federal Election Commission is ignoring press rights under the First Amendment by regulating the media’s involvement in the debates and maybe even political coverage and TV programming, according to a key Republican on the commission.
Lee E. Goodman, who has led a campaign to scare off Democratic moves to regulate internet media outlets, especially those with a conservative bent like the Drudge Report, warned that “some desire to impose greater restrictions upon press organizations in order to advance certain social and political values.”
Corruption
PragerU: Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts
George Will
What corrupts politics more: Millionaires and billionaires? Or the rules that intend to limit the influence of wealthy donors? George Will, author and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, explains who designed campaign finance reform and why Congress’s solution to the problem may actually be the bigger problem.
Independent Groups
The Hill: False advertising law as a weapon against scam PACs
Katie Bukrinsky and M. Miller Baker
Combating scam PACs has proven a challenge, as the FEC has indicated that it has no jurisdiction to police a PAC’s false or misleading fundraising solicitations. What has been overlooked until recently, however, is that the federal Lanham Act provides a weapon for candidates to combat scam PACs that siphon away their support.
Tax-Financed Campaigns
Politico Florida: Business-backed write-in candidate boosted Putnam’s campaign
Matt Dixon
To help preserve Putnam’s future political ambitions, though, a race was needed.
To ensure Putnam’s campaign did not have to shut down more than four months before election day, Associated Industries of Florida, one of the state’s largest business lobbies and a big donor, had one of its employees file to run for the same post.
The move was good for Putnam. It gave him an opponent and the ability to raise an additional $1.2 million, more than 40 percent of which came from state taxpayers. That money was used by his campaign to build name recognition with voters, an important cog in developing what Putnam supporters hope becomes a political machine. The Polk County Republican is eyeing a run for governor in 2018.
Vox: Seattle’s new political vouchers are an experiment. How will we know if they’re working?
Mark Schmitt
When will citizens use their vouchers? Money has the heaviest influence in politics at the beginning of an election cycle, determining whether a candidate can run. It’s a barrier to entry. Will candidates just starting out be able to reach enough voters and win enough vouchers early on to get to that critical level where they can compete and be heard? Or will they be stuck in a zone where they don’t have enough money to campaign for votes, and therefore also don’t have enough money to campaign for vouchers? Alternatively, the best-known, best-organized candidates (e.g., incumbents) might scoop up a lot of the vouchers early, making it hard for newer candidates to obtain them.
FCC
Washington Examiner: Lawmaker warns that FCC rules could crush political websites
Rudy Takala
For Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who’s leading the charge to stop “net neutrality” regulations, the possibility that political content on the web, like the Drudge Report or Fox News, could be regulated is a major motivation.
“When it comes to the content side, I have the sense that this is the very beginning of the net neutrality debate,” the Tennessee Republican told the Washington Examiner. “I’ve been very concerned about net neutrality turning out to be the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet, and having that applied to websites.”
“The Internet is not broken. It does not need FCC or FEC [Federal Elections Commission] governance in order to carry on,” added Blackburn, the vice chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: Jeb Bush loses TV ad edge to Marco Rubio
Shane Goldmacher
Down in the polls, Jeb Bush was supposed to find refuge in his financial superiority. But just as his campaign enters the critical primary phase, the fallen front-runner is about to get outgunned on the airwaves by the man his campaign views as its chief rival: Marco Rubio.
According to media buyers and a POLITICO review of TV ad purchase data, Bush and his allies are on pace to spend $5 million more than Team Rubio on broadcast, cable and radio ads through the first four voting states – but for that sum, they will put fewer ads on the airwaves.
That’s because the vast majority of Bush’s ads are paid for by his super PAC – roughly 85 percent for Bush versus only 40 percent for Rubio – and super PACs get far less bang for their buck.
The States
Colorado Springs Gazette: Colorado Secretary of State intervenes in campaign finance fight
Megan Schrader
Secretary of State Wayne Williams is in the middle of a campaign finance fight between the self-proclaimed campaign watchdog Matt Arnold and Bob Gardner, who was the former attorney for the Alliance for a Safe and Independent Woodmen Hills.
Williams made a motion to intervene in that dispute and two other campaign finance complaints Arnold has filed for similar issues.
Arnold says candidates and committees have to disclose attorneys fees, court filing fees and other fines when they are not paid with campaign funds…
Williams argues those types of expenditures don’t have to be disclosed under specific circumstances.
Racine Journal Times: Wisconsin Assembly passes campaign finance overhaul bill
Scott Bauer
The state Assembly gave final approval Monday to a pair of Republican-backed bills that would significantly alter the flow of money into Wisconsin political campaigns and dramatically change oversight of elections, campaign finance and ethics laws.
The proposals, which the GOP-controlled Assembly passed with no Democratic support, now go to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature. Walker has voiced general support for the proposals and was expected to sign them into law.
PJ Media: Secret Email Group Helps States Demand Names of Donors to Conservative Groups
- Christian Adams
Texas state campaign finance regulators are pursuing enforcement actions seeking the names of donors to conservative organizations. With other state regulators in Democrat-run states, these speech regulators are coordinating their responses to free speech litigation and state legislation limiting their regulatory powers.
Other states, including California, are also attempting to obtain the names of donors from conservative groups.
State speech and campaign finance regulators in blue states, and in states with regulatory boards such as Wisconsin with a decidedly left-leaning bias, have been participating in an internet discussion group to enhance state speech regulation.
New Haven Register: Dems would scrap clean election program to balance budget
Christine Stuart
The legislature’s Democratic majority released a proposal Monday to close a $350 million budget shortfall by, among other things, suspending Connecticut’s landmark campaign finance system for the 2016 election cycle.
The suspension of the program would only help close $11.7 million of the $350 million to $370 million budget gap.
But Michael Brandi, the head of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, said the one cycle suspension would start the “death spiral” for the program.
