In the News
Zocalo Public Square: Embrace higher Spending
Brad Smith
Money can make races less equal, but it can also make them more equal. For example, it can balance out newspaper endorsements, name recognition unrelated to political achievement or acumen, and non-monetary support from special interest groups such as unions or trade associations. And while people often complain about the negativity of campaigns when they complain about money in politics, media coverage of candidates is often more negative than advertising.
It is alleged that money “drowns out” voices, but it more often makes new voices heard. If you were introducing a new soft drink, which would you prefer—a ban on spending on soft drink advertisements, or unlimited spending on soft drink ads? The latter would clearly be preferable, even if Coke spent more than you would on advertising. In a modern society, money is needed to promote a mass message.
Political Donors
Pacific Standard: The People Who Finance Political Campaigns
Seth Masket
Just limiting the amount some groups can give can have important effects; when parties are limited in their spending, that can contribute to polarization. Other ideas, such as a matching fund system for small donations, can similarly exacerbate polarization if small donors are actually polarized. A few states have experimented with complete public financing of elections, which solves some problems, though not necessarily polarization.
But we should also remember that the funding of elections is not inherently corrupt or evil. We actually need the information that campaign advertisements provide, and we need it advertised aggressively and continuously so that it reaches the bulk of voters. For the most part, this money is provided by the wealthiest among us on a voluntary basis, and it’s not obvious they’re getting a ton in return.
Independent Groups
Politico: Undisclosed dollars dominate campaign spending
Kenneth P. Vogel
Big-money outside groups have spent more than $143 million in the presidential race in the six months since any of them were required to reveal their donors, according to a POLITICO analysis of campaign and advertising records.
The origins of some of that cash will never be revealed, while the rest of it won’t become known [until] midnight on Jan. 31 ― meaning that voters won’t know who funded the majority of the ads in the presidential race until just hours before Iowa voters head to their state’s pivotal caucuses.
Supreme Court
New York Times: Supreme Court Seems Poised to Deal Unions a Major Setback
Adam Liptak
In a closely watched case brought by 10 California teachers, the court’s conservative majority seemed ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they have declined to join violates the First Amendment…
Edward C. DuMont, California’s solicitor general, arguing in support of the union, did not dispute that collective bargaining involved political issues that implicate workers’ First Amendment rights.
Mr. DuMont added that workers remained free to speak out in other settings.
A workers’ union is an indispensable part in an organization. But for union, most organizations would have denied even basic rights to its…
That did not sit well with Justice Kennedy. If a worker “is required to pay $500 for someone to espouse a belief that he doesn’t share,” Justice Kennedy said, it would be small comfort “that he is now free to go out and argue against it. That means he has to spend another $500 so that it balances out? That makes no sense.”
Washington Post: The Roberts Court finds a new way to stack the deck in favor of the rich
Dana Milbank
The case, from California, involves arcane issues of “agency fees” and member opt-outs, but make no mistake: This is about campaign finance, and, in particular, propping up the Republican Party.
Citizens United and other recent rulings created the modern era of super PACs and unlimited political contributions by the wealthy. Because there are fewer liberal billionaires (and those who are politically active, such as George Soros and Tom Steyer, tend to shun super PACs in favor of their own projects) the only real counterweight to Republican super PACs in this new era is union money. And the Supreme Court is about to attack that, too.
Koch Obsession
New York Times: Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says
Nicholas Confessore
The book, “Dark Money,” by Jane Mayer, traces the rise of the modern conservative movement through the activism and money of a handful of rich donors.
But the book is largely focused on the Koch family, stretching back to its involvement in the far-right John Birch Society and the political and business activities of the father, Fred C. Koch, who found some of his earliest business success overseas in the years leading up to World War II. One venture was a partnership with the American Nazi sympathizer William Rhodes Davis, who, according to Ms. Mayer, hired Mr. Koch to help build the third-largest oil refinery in the Third Reich, a critical industrial cog in Hitler’s war machine.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Hill: Trump taunts Bush: ‘You can’t buy elections anymore’
Bradford Richardson
Bush is so low, listen, wow, what’s going on with that guy?” Trump said at a rally in Clear Lake, Iowa, on Saturday.
“$69 million! It shows you, you can’t buy elections anymore. It’s really true. I think people are too smart for it.”
Bush’s presidential campaign has raised nearly $25 million, and super-PACs supporting the former Florida governor have amassed more than $103 million.
Wall Street Journal: Campaign Ads, Even More Than Before, Bolster TV Stations
Rebecca Ballhaus
For decades, presidential campaigns have been windfalls for local TV stations in swing states. But they also came with a big headache: keeping local advertisers happy when their ads get shunted to the wee hours of the morning, if they run at all.
In this election, though, stations are figuring out how to win on both ends, bolstering already big revenue years by channeling the messages of their regular customers to digital offerings, including on station websites and embedded in online videos.
Daily Beast: Bernie Sanders’s Millions Raised Sans Moneymen
Betsy Woodruff
Every competitive presidential campaign in recent election cycles has had team of people exclusively dedicated to finances: figuring out how much money the campaign needs, putting together a plan to get that money, and then making it all come together.
It’s considered a fundamental part of a modern presidential campaign, right up there with having a team to deal with the press. But Sanders may be changing that.
Call it a reinvention of campaign funding, but the Vermont senator has shown so far that a campaign can operate just fine without a fleet of green-visors counting the cash.
“I’ve never heard of a presidential campaign, even a minor party presidential campaign, that didn’t have a fundraising team,” said one campaign finance attorney. “But, OK if it’s working.”
The States
KOB4 Albuquerque: Bill would mandate campaign finance overall
Ryan Luby
Smith’s legislation would require a campaign finance information system that’s more electronic, complete with more drop-down menus, compliance features, and mechanisms that make campaign finance data downloadable and sortable so voters can conduct campaign finance investigations of their own.
He’s also among the legislators who are calling for more transparency of political “dark money,” including efforts made by 501 (c)(4) entities which don’t have to disclose their donors. The legislators are reintroducing legislation once again after it died during the session last year.
St Louis Public Radio: House committee passes 4 ethics bills; full Missouri House could vote by Thursday
Marshall Griffin & Jo Mannies
Four ethics bills were heard by a House committee, then easily passed after little more than an hour’s worth of discussions.
The bills: would require twice-yearly filings of financial disclosure reports; would bar lawmakers and statewide elected officials from working as paid political consultants; would require disclosure of 3rd-party payments of lawmakers’ lodging and travel expenses within 30 days, would create a one-year waiting period before former lawmakers and statewide elected officials can become lobbyists.
KJZZ Tempe: Secretary of State Proposes Campaign Finance Overhaul
Jude Joffe-Block
“We are keeping almost every existing policy, but we have rewritten it in a simpler manner,” Spencer said. “We have reorganized it to the place where you would expect to find it. And we have created the statutes like the way you would read a book.”
He compared the process to thinning a forest to keep it healthy.
Once the legislature begins debating the bill, the language could change further, and could veer into one of the most hotly debated topics in campaign finance: dark money.
Spencer said his office could be open to changes that would allow certain tax exempt non-profits known as 501(c)4s a “safe harbor” from disclosing their donors.
WAMC Public Radio: Cuomo’s State Of The State Speech To Address Ethics, Homelessness
Karen DeWitt
The governor has also promised to propose major ethics reforms in his budget, following the convictions of the two leaders of the legislature on corruption charges late last year. Blair Horner, with the New York Public Interest Research Group, says outside employment, which factored heavily in the two cases, should be banned or strictly limited. He calls it Albany’s “Watergate moment”.
“We think it’s time to end the practice of lawmakers using their public office for private gain,” Horner said.
Horner’s group and other reformers also want to close a loophole that allows companies to skirt contribution limits by forming Limited Liability Corporations and giving , in some cases, millions of dollars to candidates.
Event Reminder: 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.
Buckley remains a vital precedent that restrains and empowers Congress. But should Buckley be considered a First Amendment failure? Or did it embrace inevitable compromises that were both worse and better than everyone desired? How does Buckley affect the law and American politics and campaigning today? Does the decision have a future? Please join us to discuss these essential questions of First Amendment law and politics.
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 at the following link.
