Daily Media Links 3/21: Trump spent less to win more, How American voters really can influence Merrick Garland’s confirmation battle, and more…

March 21, 2016   •  By Brian Walsh   •  
Default Article

Presidential Race

Politico: Trump spent less to win more

Kenneth P. Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf

As Donald Trump was racking up an impressive string of GOP primary victories last month, he was actually spending less than his nearest rival Ted Cruz and just a tiny fraction of his would-be general election opponent Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to campaign finance filings.

The filings, submitted Sunday with the Federal Election Commission, show that, while Cruz and Clinton continue to amass campaign infrastructure, Trump mostly continues to skate by on a tour-de-force of splashy rallies, free media and Twitter taunts.

Trump spent $9.5 million in February, compared to Cruz’s $17.5 million and Clinton’s $31.6 million, according to the filings.

Read more…

Supreme Court

Washington Post: How American voters really can influence Merrick Garland’s confirmation battle

John Kastellec, Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips

In particular, senators respond to the opinions of their fellow partisans back home. In other words, the votes of Democratic senators are driven by the opinion of their Democratic constituents, and the votes of Republican senators are driven by the opinion of their Republican constituents (controlling for ideology and other well-studied factors).

Why is this important? Consider the graph below, which shows the distribution of public opinion at the state level for 11 recent nominees for which we have suitable data.

Read more…

Independent Groups

CPI: Latest numbers to know about the 2016 presidential race

Dave Levinthal, Carrie Levine and Cady Zuvich

A new round of federal campaign finance disclosures due Sunday night detailed presidential hopefuls’ boom-or-bust February — sometimes in all-too-ugly detail for the several candidates who ended their campaigns last month.

Here’s a rundown of the more telling — and curious — statistics to emerge:

$25 million: What a gaggle of billionaires, corporations and other wealthy types invested in Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential bid just as it was poised to fall apart. Conservative Solutions PAC, a super PAC supporting Rubio, had its best fundraising month in February, raised the gaudy sum in February alone. The bulk of the money — $22 million — came in just 11 seven-figure contributions from big names in GOP donor circles

Read more…

Wall Street Journal: Billionaires Helped Anti-Trump Super PAC Raise $4.7 Million in February

Rebecca Ballhaus

The new donors mark an expansion for the group, which had just three donors give money in January. When the group’s last campaign-finance report was released last month, Mr. Trump tweeted at the Ricketts family. “They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!” he wrote.

The super PAC, which earlier this month hired former Bush spokesman Tim Miller, spent $2 million last month as it sought to blunt Mr. Trump’s path to the Republican nomination. The bulk of its spending was on advertisements, mailers and voter contact efforts.

The group had $3.2 million left to spend at the end of February.

Read more…

Corruption

American Thinker: Why Campaign Finance Reform Is a Bad Idea

Thomas Wheatley

I tip my hat to the former Burlington mayor; not only is he quoting one of America’s greatest presidents, but he’s addressing head on the very real issue of corruption in American politics.  Beltway insiders have indeed benefited from wealthy special interests groups at the expense of the average voter, and consequentially, Washington has become largely unresponsive to the demands of the people.

That said, Sanders’s plan is both nocuous and shortsighted.  Top-down campaign finance reform is a poor approach to eliminating corruption for two reasons.

…Campaign finance reform is ineffective because it is essentially an unwinnable battle against human innovation and creativity.

Second, Sanders’s version of campaign finance reform is self-defeating.  When lawmakers try to out-legislate human innovation, they engage in an embarrassing game of whack-a-mole.  As innovation exploits loopholes, bureaucrats create new regulations aimed at correcting the perceived deficiency and eventually weave a web of complex election law of which the only consistent byproduct is increased transaction costs associated with running for office.

Read more…

The Media

BuzzFeed: How Donald Trump Bent Television To His Will

Kyle Blaine

The symbiotic relationship between television news and Trump began, innocently enough, as a summer fling. The cable networks found their answer to the typically slower summer news cycle the moment Trump descended the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy to a lobby full of onlookers, some of them paid actors. Producers at several networks said they initially treated his candidacy as a joke, albeit a highly entertaining one.

Trump’s rallies became must-see daytime and primetime television on cable, pre-empting regularly scheduled newscasts and driving the day-to-day news cycle. Even when he was embroiled in controversy, Trump’s availability to the media for interviews, either on camera or by phone, shocked producers accustomed to dealing with difficult-to-book candidates.

As one veteran producer said, “He’ll throw a hand grenade in, and then will come on to us to talk about it.”…

Two network sources also confirmed the unprecedented control the television networks have surrendered to Trump in a series of private negotiations, allowing him to dictate specific details about placement of cameras at his event, to ensure coverage consists primarily of a single shot of his face…

 “As a programmer, it’s an easy decision, people watch it,” said one producer. “As an American, I’m sort of troubled by it, because I feel like we contribute it.”

Read more…

SEC

American Prospect: Will Disclosure Fight Doom SEC Nominees?

Justin Miller

At a Senate Banking Committee hearing this week to consider two potential commissioners nominated by President Barack Obama—Democrat Lisa Fairfax and Republican Hester Pierce—Democrats on the panel called on both candidates to state whether they think the SEC should step up corporate political disclosure requirements.

Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey all signaled that the nominees would need to be crystal clear that they support the corporate disclosure rule if they want to move forward in the process…

However, both Fairfax and Pierce danced around the controversial issue and did not offer much assurance to Democrats. “I think there is certainly an argument to be made that it is material,” Fairfax said, without committing any further. Pierce, the Republican, punted, saying she would need to examine the details of such a rule before staking out a position.

Read more…

FCC

Reuters: A neat trick that makes political ads more effective

Meredith McGehee

Viewers are more likely to be persuaded by political TV ads, several recent studies reveal, when the groups behind them are undisclosed. The studies help explain why ads by secret independent groups have become the vehicle of choice in the 2016 presidential election…

Recognizing that it makes a big difference when a viewer or listener knows the actual sponsor behind an ad can help build a strong case for why the Federal Communications Commission needs to enforce on-air sponsorship requirements.

Read more…

Influence

MSNBC: Pro-democracy rally frightens conservative media

Zachary Roth

But the panic on the right reflects a growing backlash against the string of recent protests, whether against Trump or police brutality, orchestrated mostly by young people of color. It suggests that many conservatives now view any popular protest organized by progressives as dangerous and destabilizing, even those in support of widely accepted principles.

“They think that they have the stage. They’re wrong,” right-wing radio host Michael Savage said Monday on his show, referring to anti-Trump protesters. “They don’t have the power in this country. They’re a small group of people … They’re going to provoke violence on the other side, and that is bad for America. It’s very bad for America. That is what the left specializes in, which is violence and anarchy of this nature.”

Read more…

The States

New York Post: Campaign Finance Board might make voting irrelevant

Editorial Board

But the CFB has huge say over elections. It arguably tipped the scales for de Blasio in the 2013 Democratic primary by freezing the matching funds of a key rival on the left, John Liu. It cited a federal fund-raising probe, but Liu was never charged.

CFB members serve staggered terms, with the mayor naming three, including the chairman, and the City Council speaker two. Come November, de Blasio and Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito will have appointed a majority of the board…

We’ve never been fans of the CFB, which pretends to boost democracy but operates as an unelected barrier to campaigns and political speech. In fact, the city’s entire campaign-finance system, which costs taxpayers millions, has proven itself a sham that’s only invited abuse and corruption.

Read more…

Albany Leader-Herald: NY judge rejects suit to close campaign finance loophole

Associated Press

Justice Lisa Fisher writes there have been “numerous attempts” in the Legislature to close it and the matter is best resolved by lawmakers.

But she first rejected the suit on grounds that it’s too late to challenge the 1996 decision by the state Board of Elections to treat limited liability companies like individuals.

Read more…

New York Times: Many Mississippi Officials Take From Closed Campaign Accounts, Review Reveals

Associated Press

She is hardly the only Mississippi official to cash out at the end of her career. An Associated Press review shows that of 99 elected officials who have left office in recent years, as many as 25 may have pocketed more than $1,000 when they closed their campaign accounts.

At least four other former officeholders besides Ms. Tuck — who is now vice president for campus services at Mississippi State — took more than $50,000.

Mississippi is one of five states where such withdrawals are legal as long as state and federal income taxes are paid, with no restrictions on how the money is spent.

Read more…

Washington Post: D.C. Council eyes cost of homeless shelter plan

Fenit Nirappil

An examination by The Washington Post revealed that most of the private properties are owned or at least partly controlled by major donors to the mayor.

Bowser told reporters that she had “nothing to say” about the politically connected beneficiaries of her plan.

Brenda Donald, deputy mayor for health and human services, said that the deals were the best the administration could negotiate and that there was no favoritism in site selections.

“I can say unequivocally the decisions made on the sites had nothing to do with the developers,” Donald told The Post. “We didn’t even know who the developers were.”

Read more…

Arizona Republic: Overreacting to Reagan’s campaign rewrite

Robert Robb

The Reagan reform is a dark-money sideshow. The real problem is that no one has yet figured out how to craft a law that would actually force the disclosure of contributors who prefer to remain anonymous.

If anyone ever makes that breakthrough, that will be the time to beat the drums for dark-money disclosure reform.

The Reagan rewrite, however, is intended to clean up existing law, not blaze new ground. While awaiting such a breakthrough, the proposed bright-line test for “primary purpose” is a defensible clarification.

Read more…

Great Falls Tribune: For some Montana office seekers, it’s not about winning

Bobby Caina Calvan

Candidate Bill McChesney has been speaking out against big money in Montana politics, but he gave incumbent Gov. Steve Bullock a big financial favor just by entering the Democratic primary.

Bullock can now keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions that he would have had to return if he had run unopposed.

Montana law allows campaign donors to give a gubernatorial candidate a maximum of $1,320 — up to $660 in the primary and another $660 in November’s general election. However, without a primary challenger, candidates would have to send back any amount exceeding $660.

Most states have limits on campaign contributions, but Montana and South Carolina may be the only ones requiring candidates to return money when they run unopposed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures

Read more…

Brian Walsh

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap