CCP
Lawsuit Says Utah Law Violates the First Amendment
The lawsuit challenges Utah House Bill 43, which passed in 2013. Plaintiffs allege the law suffers many of the same defects contained in the Federal Election Campaign Act. That law’s reach was limited by the landmark 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo.
The key defect in the Utah law is that it attempts to regulate any speech “to influence or tend to influence, directly or indirectly” any vote.
“Many forms of speech on legislative or policy issues may indirectly influence how some person might vote but, under this law, it is far from clear what speech would trigger regulated activity and what would not,” said Allen Dickerson, CCP Legal Director and the lead attorney in the lawsuit. “Given the breathtaking scope of this provision, it greatly chills speech about any public policy matter and is clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.”
In the News
Salt Lake Tribune: Nonprofit groups challenge Utah political disclosure law
Lee Davidson
Attorneys said the law requires any nonprofit group to disclose its donors if it spends $750 or more “to influence or tend to influence, directly or indirectly” any campaign or vote.
“But that can be almost any speech, especially in a free society where ideas are expected to influence our government,” said Allen Dickerson, legal director for the Virginia-based Center for Competitive Politics — which is representing the local nonprofits.
For example, Connor Boyack, director of Libertas Institute — which says it “promotes the cause of liberty” — said his group chose not to comment much on Proposition 1 that sought to raise sales taxes for transportation because HB43 might have forced it to reveal all its donors.
ABC 4: Suit claims Utah law violates free speech
Randall Carlisle
Allen Dickerson says simply “Utah has passed a law that clearly violates the first amendment.”
He says the Supreme Court has ruled on “the right to privacy of association and belief and may not simply pry into the inner workings of a non-profit corporation.”
Here’s where the law of unintended consequences takes hold. If this law would have been in place when the LDS Church financially supported the Prop 8, gay marriage issue in California, the church could have been forced to list all of its donors around the world. That’s according to Conner Boyack, President of the Utah based Libertas Institute, one of the groups involved in the federal lawsuit.
Another example might be the Catholic Church financially entering the debate over capital punishment. If the church spent over $750, the Utah law could force it to list donors worldwide.
Utah Policy: Lawsuit Says Utah Law Violates the First Amendment
“Utah’s House Bill 43 has already had a chilling effect on free speech in Utah, which is exactly why we are representing these organizations in federal court,” Dickerson added. “Utah’s law is so overbroad that our clients are concerned that participating in any public debate could destroy the privacy of their donors, many of whom would stop making donations as a result. This isn’t about regulating speech urging voters to support or oppose a candidate or ballot issue. It’s about the First Amendment right to privacy of association and belief.”
Utah Public Radio: Utah Political Donation Law Challenged
Evan Hall
“Think if someone supports Planned Parenthood but they don’t want their religious leaders or their parents or their employer to know about it. If that type of information has to be disclosed it harms that individual’s free association rights.”
The IRS allows 501(c)(3) entities to engage in political causes, provided they do not participate in direct electioneering. Boyack said that, in passing HB 43, the Legislature greatly overstepped its bounds.
“What we’re worried about here is that the Legislature overreacted and rather than taking a scalpel and trying to close any potential loopholes tightly, they’ve taken a sledgehammer and they’ve roped in many other organizations and as a result of that, has chilled the free speech not only of the organizations but by extension their donors, their supporters,” he said.
Tax-Financed Campaigns
Washington Post: What are the benefits of campaign finance reform?
Sam Power
But if the logic behind reform is to strengthen democracy, that might be contradicted by having (1) parties colluding to (2) introduce an unpopular reform which (3) increases the amount of funding they receive (4) from the taxpayer. In fact, it might actually increase the anti-establishment and anti-political feeling that some believe these reforms should quell.
But even if you reject that argument, Democrats and Republicans are widely considered to be especially ideologically opposed just now. If funding reform tends to take place when the political climate is congenial, now might not be the moment.
So would state funding of political parties decrease corruption?
There is little evidence that introducing significant state funding will reduce corruption, and more importantly, perceptions of corruption. Just because you have state funding doesn’t mean your country is, or is perceived to be, less corrupt.
Independent Groups
Des Moines Register: Jindal suspends presidential campaign
Brianne Pfannenstiel and Linh Ta
Believe Again and another pro-Jindal group, America Next, spent more than $3.4 million to saturate the state’s airwaves with television ads last summer. The ads touted Jindal’s hard-line stand against illegal immigration and positioned him as a staunch religious conservative.
But as his numbers languished, both outside spending groups began canceling or rescheduling ads, a Register analysis of TV ad spending showed.
Eric Woolson, a strategist for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s now-defunct campaign, said Jindal’s struggles underscore that super PACS can’t carry an underfunded campaign organization.
“At least as the nomination process unfolds, the millionaires and billionaires have not taken over the process,” said Woolson, who’s not affiliated with another campaign. “The people are still in the driver’s seat. And Iowa continues to do its job of winnowing the field.”
Dayton Daily News: Super PAC money keeping candidates in race longer
Jessica Wehrman
But Bill Todd, a campaign finance lawyer from Columbus, said many billionaires, surprisingly, don’t feel as if they’re owed anything for their contributions.
“There are very few people who care at that level,” he said.
He specifically cited a billionaire who he worked with who dropped a million dollars in half a dozen races.
“I suspect he never even talked to the candidates, and never will,” he said. “For him, it’s like playing FanDuel.”
New Republic: There’s a small hitch in Jeb Bush’s plan to rely on massive super PAC money.
Elspeth Reeve
Federal law limits how much TV stations can charge campaigns, but that doesn’t apply to super PACs. “Who’s going to go weeping for the super PAC that gets gouged?” Elizabeth Wilner of Kantar Media told Fortune in September.
An early lesson from this election is that super PACs might not be quite as powerful as anticipated. They alone can’t sustain a campaign. Scott Walker had to drop out of the race despite a well-funded super PAC, because, as The New York Times noted, those groups “cannot pay rent, phone bills, salaries, airfares or ballot access fees.”
Politico: The Koch ATM
Kenneth Vogel
But Freedom Partners also wrote grants to an array of groups that play key roles in the broader conservative coalition, but are not considered to be part of the network ― including some that have differed sharply with the Kochs’ public policy stances.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce received $2 million from Freedom Partners, despite lobbying for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, a program vehemently opposed by the Koch network as market-skewing corporate welfare. The Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America ― which supported a 2013 government shutdown that the Koch network said it opposed ― received $1 million and $150,000, respectively.
Politico: The Koch Intelligence Agency
Kenneth Vogel
As a fundraising vehicle, it’s the closest thing on the left to a mirror image of the Kochs’ operation, though the cash raised by the Koch network in recent years has far eclipsed the amount credited to the DA. Donors to both networks write huge and mostly untraceable checks to a collection of endorsed for-profit companies and non-profit groups registered under sections of the tax code ― 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 ― that do not require the disclosure of donors’ identities.
During the session at the St. Regis, Mark Holden, a key Koch legal and policy advisor, pointed out the irony in liberal attacks on the Kochs’ secretive spending, calling the DA “a shadowy network of c(3)s, c(4)s ― who don’t disclose their donors, remember — who attack us as a shadowy network of c(3)s, c(4)s) … Whatever they may say about us goes the same for them.”
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: Wall Street loved Hillary Clinton before 9/11, too
Phillip Bump
Clinton’s 2000 campaign filing from the FEC reveals 44 donations from Citigroup, 54 from Goldman, 36 from Paine Webber, 43 from Deloitte, 21 from Credit Suisse and 18 from Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. There are a number of other financial firms that appear in the list; these are just the most frequent donors.
The year 2000 was not the first time that the financial industry was introduced to the Clinton family, of course. It’s worth noting that generosity from Wall Street was extended to Clinton’s husband well before 2001. In 1992, for example, Bill Clinton’s campaign received $853,000 from the financial industry.
Bloomberg: Barney Frank Says It’s ‘Stupid’ to Think Bank Donations Affect Clinton
Silla Brush & Jackie Edwards
Former House Financial Services Cmte Chairman Barney Frank says Democrats such as himself, Hillary Clinton have taken Wall Street money and gone on to regulate the industry vigorously.
The Hill: Graham, Kasich call for NBC airtime after Trump’s ‘SNL’ gig
Mario Trujillo
Ohio Gov. John Kasich sent a letter to NBC’s vice president of regulatory affairs asking for an equal amount of time on the network and its broadcast affiliates across the country — 12 minutes and five seconds in total.
Similarly, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) sent a letter to the general manager of the WHO-TV broadcast station in Des Moines asking for 12 minutes on air in the early caucus state.
Both letters were sent last Friday. CNN reported former New York Gov. George Pataki also filed a letter earlier last week.
Under the FCC’s equal opportunity rules, stations that feature a presidential candidate during a non-news broadcast must disclose details of the appearance. Other qualified candidates can petition to get an equal amount of time on the air.
The States
Great Falls Tribune: ‘Dark money’ rules move forward
Phil Drake
Proposed rules for campaign reform legislation known as the “dark money bill” moved forward Tuesday despite an effort by some on a legislative committee to delay a decision in order to give members more time to review the rules that some have called vague and overly broad.
“I think this is a good day for Montana,” Jonathan Motl, the commissioner of political practices, said shortly after a motion before the State Administration and Veterans Affairs Interim Committee to delay adopting the rules one more time failed due to a 4-4 vote.
