Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: A Speech Mugging in Montana
Editorial Board
Montana is known for its restrictive—and illegal—campaign-finance laws. After the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, then Attorney General Scott Bullock tried to claim that Montana could continue to limit corporate expenditures. He was smacked down by the Justices in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock; Mr. Wittich’s law firm brought that case.
Campaign-finance coordination allegations have become a favorite tool of the political left, which knows proving coordination often requires a fishing expedition into a target’s personal communications. Prosecutors hope they can unearth evidence that will be embarrassing even if not illegal.
Perhaps some evidence will emerge to justify this political dragnet. Until then it looks like Montana’s effort to silence conservative voices in the legislature is the left’s latest attack on political free speech.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: You want to give to Ted Cruz’s super PAC? First figure out which one.
Matea Gold and Katie Zezima
At least eight independent political groups are jockeying to support Cruz now that he has risen in the polls as perhaps the strongest challenger to front-runner Donald Trump. The dynamic has confused wealthy donors and brought disarray to the otherwise orderly political operation that surrounds the freshman senator from Texas.
“We’re trying to figure out who has the best management team, the most efficient cost structure,” said Doug Deason, adding that he is a bit baffled by the various entities. “I just don’t think we need a bunch of people doing different things, maybe putting out different messages that don’t match up.”
More Soft Money Hard Law: Single-Candidate Super PACs and the Transparency Option
Bob Bauer
One conceivable approach would establish that link without running into constitutional complications. A Super PAC organizing or operating to support only one candidate could be deemed a “supporting organization”, or something like that, defined as an independent committee organized and operating for the primary purpose of supporting candidate X. A rule might provide that X be notified of an independent committee meeting that test. As in the case of draft committees, the candidate could “disavow” the designation, disputing that the committee truly supports him…
This designation would not affect the right to spend independently, which would still be controlled by coordination rules applied within constitutional limits. The candidate, however, would have to amend FEC reporting forms to identify the committee as a supporting organization, and the supporting organization would do the same with its own filings, identifying the candidate as the one it was established or operating to support.
Fundraising
Vox: Yet another member of congress retires, complains about the misery of fundraising
Lee Drutman
And here’s the problem: Regardless of what you think about the influence of campaign contributions on policy outcomes, or about the free speech value of money, fundraising clearly takes up an awful lot of members’ time.
This is time they could be spending reading briefing binders, attending hearings, getting to know colleagues — exactly the kinds of things you’d expect members of Congress to do. Instead, they spend countless hours depressingly dialing for dollars, listening sympathetically to wealthy and generally partisan donors.
Perhaps even worse, who the hell wants to sign up for this job in the first place? Who wants to self-telemarket for hours on end? It takes abnormal amounts of narcissistic hubris, which most thoughtful people just don’t have. Frankly, Congress could probably use a little more self-doubt. It might open up members to more alternative viewpoints.
Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: Corruption or Politics: Supreme Court Weighs McDonnell Case
Jacob Gershman
Corruption in politics is as old as government itself. But so has been the challenge of interpreting in law what corruption actually means.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to discuss whether to take up a case that could further sharpen the line that a government official must cross to be convicted of bribery.
The case that justices are considering — the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen — is one awash in shades of gray. And if the high court agrees to take it up, the McDonnell case has the potential to further limit the scope of federal bribery laws used to prosecute malfeasance.
The justices could announce whether they have accepted or rejected Mr. McDonnell’s appeal in the coming days or weeks.
Boston Globe: A make-or-break moment for Supreme Court appointments
Hillary Clinton
As president (and a lawyer and former law professor), I’ll appoint justices who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; make sure the scales of justice aren’t tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; and protect citizens’ right to vote, rather than billionaires’ right to buy elections.
Political Parties
Huffington Post: Building ‘Laundromats,’ Killing Political Parties
Meredith McGehee
Even though Sen. McConnell failed this time, don’t expect this faux reform to go away any time soon. The longtime opponents of real reform who are now pushing the “strong party” narrative have recently joined hands with a small group of academics and the so-called “political realists” who are pushing for less emphasis on preventing corruption and “good government” and a return to “transactional party politics” as a way to make the government more efficient.
Here’s the problem: In practice this advocacy for robust parties is getting translated into legislative proposals to allow donors to give unlimited amounts to parties. The current campaign finance system is already too dominated by big money donors who are rewarded with access, influence and — at times — policy victories. The realists’ solution would make the situation worse and actually weaken America’s political parties.
SEC
Bloomberg BNA: Republicans Petition SEC to End Pay-to-Play Rule
Rob Tricchinelli
Thwarted in their legal challenge, the Republican parties from Tennessee and New York State are instead petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to repeal its pay-to-play rule.
The rule is “unconstitutional and unlawful” because it “limits the ability of investment advisers to make otherwise lawful political contributions,” the petition for rulemaking said.
The groups had challenged the rule in federal court, but the suit was tossed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in August because the groups waited too long to file
The States
Washington Times: Vos, GAB dispute campaign finance disclosures
Todd Richmond, Associated Press
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Friday that the state elections board wrongly asserted that Wisconsin’s new campaign finance laws don’t require political parties and campaign committees to disclose contributions from corporations.
The dustup stems from a sweeping overhaul of the state’s campaign finance laws that Gov. Scott Walker approved last month. Vos, who wrote the GOP-backed bill outlining the changes, said the board is misinterpreting the law.
The new rules allow corporations to donate up to $12,000 to political parties and campaign committees controlled by legislative leaders. The parties and the committees can’t give that money to candidates or use it to expressly advocate for a candidate’s defeat or election.
Los Angeles Times: Don’t crowd the ballot with Citizens United advisory measure
Editorial Board
The problem with Proposition 49 was that it was a purely advisory referendum that would essentially have turned the polling place into a Gallup Poll, as if California voters need to further crowd a ballot already stuffed full of complicated initiatives and referendums. As Gov. Jerry Brown correctly observed, “We should not make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures, as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect.” (Brown let the measure become law, but without his signature.)
In its decision Monday, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature acted within its power in authorizing Proposition 49. That measure, the court said, was related to the Legislature’s role in the process of amending the U.S. Constitution, whether that takes the form of applying to Congress for the creation of a constitutional convention or petitioning Congress to directly propose an amendment for ratification by the states.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Lots of talk about ethics reform in Jefferson City. So far, just talk
Editorial Board
Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: This could be the year that ethics reform finally passes the Missouri Legislature.
Missourians are like Charlie Brown, forever hoping to kick that ol’ ethics reform football, only to see the Legislature’s Lucy Van Pelts annually snatch it away.
There are still no limits on campaign contributions. Nor is there any limit on how much lobbyists can spend wining and dining lawmakers. There’s nothing to prevent a lawmaker from resigning his seat one day and going to work as a lobbyist the next. Lawmakers and their staffers can work as political consultants, doing official favors for clients who also happen to be sitting legislators. No other state in the nation has such a sleazy combination of problems.
Event
CCP-Cato Institute Conference on January 26, 2015: The Past and Future of Buckley v. Valeo
On January 30, 1976, the United States Supreme Court handed down Buckley v. Valeo, still its most important decision at the intersection of campaign finance and the First Amendment. The Court brought forth a per curiam opinion that invalidated significant parts of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Buckley Court denied Congress the power to limit campaign spending. But not completely. The same Court decided Congress could restrict contributions to candidates to prevent quid pro quo corruption or “the appearance of corruption.” Giving citizens an “equal voice” in elections, however, could not justify suppressing speech.
The January 26 event is free of charge and will be held at The Cato Institute at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW in Washington, DC. The program will begin at 9:00 AM and conclude at 12:30 PM with a luncheon to follow. Speakers are still being finalized, but CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith will be speaking. More information, including an agenda, can be found here. All those interested in attending should RSVP here.
