Democratic Debate
Time: Democrats Brawl in Heated Brooklyn Debate
Philip Elliott
The increasingly acidic tone of the Democratic primary barreled into Brooklyn as the two debated for a ninth time. After months of benign—and, at times, banal—debates on substance, the Democrats have finally started to catch up with their Republican counterparts in terms of pointed jabs. The increasingly antagonistic timbre of the race mirrors Sanders’ increasingly difficult pathway to winning the nomination.
Talking Points Memo: Clinton: Sanders’ ‘Phony’ Attack On Campaign Finance Is Attack On Obama
Allegra Kirkland
After Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) questioned Hillary Clinton’s judgment for funding her campaign with Super PAC money during Thursday’s Democratic debate, Clinton framed Sanders’ comments as an attack on President Obama.
“President Obama had a Super PAC when he ran,” Clinton pointed out. “President Obama took tens of millions from contributors, and President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many a year.”
“So this is … a phony attack that is designed to raise questions when there is no evidence or support to undergird the insinuations that he is putting forward in these attacks,” she continued.
New York Times: Democratic Debate Serves as Clear Display of Love Lost
Maggie Haberman
Mr. Sanders, appearing on television after the debate, mentioned that Mrs. Clinton had support from a “dark money” group, known as a “C4” for its tax status. It indicated a new line of attack he might use. But it also indicated, plainly, that while Mr. Sanders is not growing his base of support, he is not shrinking it either, and he is likely to remain in the race through the convention.
Supreme Court
National Constitution Center: The Next Justice and the Future of Free Speech
New York Times Supreme Court Correspondent Adam Liptak sits down with National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. He discusses free speech, Citizens United, and the future of the Court.
Free Speech
American Spectator: The War on Speech Takes an Ugly Turn
Andrew Langer
Last week, Claude Walker, the AG for the U.S. Virgin Islands, subpoenaed the donor records for CEI — sending a clear signal to both CEI and its donors that such dissent simply will not be tolerated.
Let’s be clear here: Exxon has a fundamental right to support whatever non-profit organizations it wants to, and to do so privately. CEI has a right to accept donations from any U.S. Citizen or U.S. company it wants to. Both have the right to keep their donations private, a right that is protected under the First Amendment, and enshrined in the Supreme Court’s 1957 NAACP v. Alabama decision.
The high court understood then that one of the ways that government could harm people was by using the powers of officialdom to intimidate individuals into not supporting important, but perhaps unpopular, causes.
In other words, the Supreme Court knew then that the power of government could have a tremendous impact in suppressing dissenting speech, merely by having demanding access to an organization’s donor lists.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: The new Gilded Age: Close to half of all super PAC money comes from 50 donors
Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy
Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports.
In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.
Washington Post: Meet the wealthy donors who are funneling millions into the 2016 elections
Anu Narayanswamy, Aaron Williams and Matea Gold
Wealthy donors are giving record sums this cycle to super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. These groups are not allowed to coordinate their advertising with candidates or political parties, but often work in close proximity with the official campaigns. Here’s a look at who has given the most so far.
SEC
Wall Street Journal: Disclosure Is Just a Means to a Political End [LTE]
Daniel M. Gallagher
Frustrated by this dearth of shareholder support, special-interest groups have sought to pressure the SEC to adopt rules that they believe would curtail disagreeable corporate speech. Fewer than a dozen union, special-interest shareholders and partisan political groups flooded the SEC with 1.2 million mostly identical form letters demanding a rule-making.
Ultimately, the SEC isn’t the appropriate body to address this issue, primarily because the SEC has the authority to require disclosure only of information on material expenditures. Rational investors don’t consider this information material to their investment decision-making. Disclosure, untethered to materiality, becomes a political game inviting limitless potential for mischief. The SEC is ill-suited to regulate campaign finance and should instead focus on its mission of regulating capital markets and protecting investors.
Shareholder Activism
Acton Institute: Leftist Shareholders Attack Corporate Free Speech
Bruce Edward Walker
Let’s see if we can get this straight: Trinity presumes to know what type of lobbying is in Allergan’s best interests, but Allergan may not? Readers are free to hold any opinions they prefer regarding corporate tax inversions, but, ultimately, wouldn’t shareholder value benefit from the, currently at least, completely legal practice?
As for ALEC and the lobbying groups with which Allergan is associated, it shouldn’t be terribly surprising that a pharmaceutical company would want a voice in the political sphere given the medical-industry confusion and turmoil wrought by ObamaCare – unless Trinity Health is onboard with the Affordable Care Act as it stands today, or wishes it legislatively morph into a single-payer system.
IRS
Washington Times: Federal judge calls IRS untrustworthy in tea party case
Stephen Dinan
Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said there is strong evidence that the IRS violated the constitutional rights of the groups when it delayed their nonprofit status applications and asked inappropriate questions about their political beliefs.
The agency’s insistence that it has retrained employees and instructed managers to behave better did not mollify the judges, who said past IRS behavior doesn’t lend itself to the benefit of the doubt.
“It’s hard to find the IRS to be an agency we can trust,” Judge Sentelle said.
Tax-Financed Campaigns
CRP: Public financing is available for presidential candidates. So what’s not to like about free money?
Jason Scott-Sheets
Even the candidates who advocate for an overhauled public financing system won’t take what the government already offers them.
Candidates on the Democratic side are integrating public financing for elections into their money-in-politics platforms — but both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders declined to use public financing themselves. Only former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley opted to use the money, accepting $846,365 of federal matching funds for the Democratic primary. A Democratic operative told Buzzfeed News it was “effectively the end of O’Malley’s campaign.”
The reason, the operative said, was that no candidate can win using that money because of the restrictions on deploying it.
Candidates and Campaigns
Guardian: Money influences everybody. That includes Hillary Clinton
Trevor Timm
Sure, even hardcore Sanders supporters will admit there is no evidence of direct quid pro quo when talking about large donations various parties made to the Clinton Foundation when Clinton was secretary of state. But it would be difficult not to worry about at least the potential for a conflict of interest, when weapons manufacturers and Saudi Arabia were making donations to the Clinton Foundation while their weapons deals were approved by the State Department, oil companies were doing the same before the State Department approved the oil sands pipeline project, and other fossil fuels donated at around the same time the secretary was advocating increased fracking abroad.
But of course there is no quid pro quo – that has never been the prime criticism of wealthy individuals using their vast resources to “buy” elections, push candidates in one direction, or influence office holders in much more subtle and nuanced ways than outright bribery.
The States
New Haven Register: A constitutional convention would damage our democracy, not fix it
Cheri Quickmire and Gloria Bent
But some activists are pushing an alternative — and dangerous — path to an amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, petitions from 34 state legislatures, or two-thirds of total, would force Congress to call a constitutional convention to add amendments. Here in Connecticut, they’re pushing Senate Joint Resolution 33.
The convention process for amending the Constitution has never been used, but some campaign finance reform advocates think it’s the best way — maybe the only way — to get Congress to act on money in politics reform. Unfortunately, the convention would be a huge mistake and set a dangerous precedent.
American Prospect: Did Cuomo Miss His Chance to Enact Ethics Reform?
Justin Miller
Critics say the budget deal was the legislature’s last, best opportunity to pass comprehensive ethics reforms since last year’s convictions of former Democratic Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver and former Republican Senate Leader Dean Skelos on federal corruption charges of profiting off the power of their public offices. Sentencing is expected Wednesday for Silver and later this month for Skelos.
The short-circuited ethics overhaul took some of the luster off what was otherwise a crowning moment for Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who is widely believed to have national—even presidential—ambitions, but who is sometimes accused by progressives of skewing too far toward the center.
Gotham Gazette: Campaign Finance Reform Bills To Be Heard
Samar Khurshid
The legislative package, scheduled for a hearing May 2, is aimed at making improvements to the New York City campaign finance system, including its landmark small-donor public matching program, ahead of the 2017 municipal election cycle.
While the system is already robust and held up as a national model by many, these bills aim to make it stronger. Among other things, the bills would prevent lobbyists who do business with the city from bundling contributions to candidates, provide public matching funds to candidates at earlier dates in the campaign cycle, and improve disclosure of donations from entities that do business with the city.
