CCP
Are Plutocrats Really Uniting?
Paul Jossey
Researchers found majorities of rich and average people actually agreed on 89.6% of the bills in the data set instead of 78%. Where they disagreed, economic elites ‘won’ 53% of the time, the middle class 47%. And when the rich win it is not, as Hasen suggested, skewed toward economic issues: “The win rates for the two issue types [economic vs. social] are not statistically different from one another.”
Additional research found policy preferences of the economic elite and the middle class move in tandem. Thus if the rich are likely to strongly favor one policy over another the middle class will too. “[T]he policies you’d most expect to pass, based on rich people’s opinions, are also the policies you’d most expect to pass based on middle-class people’s opinions. So the actual policy outcomes you’d predict based on a model where only the rich matter aren’t very different from the ones you’d predict based on a model where only the middle class matters.”
Are the rich bamboozling the middle class and poor out their preferred policies? Are plutocrats uniting? Even in the original study this was a dubious claim full of unstated caveats and context. After the gaze of scholarly scrutiny, the available evidence suggests it is bogus. Given the primacy placed on this study, the public should question all the Henny-Penny claims and lofty solutions suggested by reformers.
Donor Privacy
Wall Street Journal: The IRS’s Donor Lists
Editorial Board
Sloppy handling of data that includes home addresses threatens donors with potential harassment. In his April order in AFPF v. Harris, the case challenging Ms. Harris’s appeal to see unredacted donor information from nonprofits, federal Judge Manuel Real noted that the disclosures included donors for Planned Parenthood of California. “An investigator for the Attorney General,” Judge Real wrote, “admitted that ‘posting that kind of information publically could be very damaging to Planned Parenthood.’”
That goes across the political spectrum, which may be why IRS head John Koskinen and Director of Exempt Organizations Tamera Ripperda have said even the IRS is debating whether the information is necessary for tax enforcement.
Bloomberg BNA: Petition Seeks to Stop Bill to Limit Donor Identity Disclosures to IRS
Aaron E. Lorenzo
The bill shouldn’t go any farther, said the petition, which was organized by an online advocacy group called Care2.
“The Koch Brothers and other corrupt organizations are backing this bill strongly because it would allow them to become the middle man for dirty campaign money without anyone knowing,” the petition’s author, Kelsey Bourgeois, wrote on Care2’s website.
The legislation would hide contributions from drug lords, foreign governments and terrorists, she said.
Orange County Register: Don’t threaten donor privacy for political expediency
Nicole Neily
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has staked much of her political identity on a crusade against so-called “dark money” in politics. For several years, Harris, who is running to replace Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate, has demanded that nonprofit groups provide her office with their IRS Form 990 Schedule Bs – the forms containing their full list of donor names and identifying information – if they wish to solicit donations in California.
A recent lawsuit, however, has exposed Harris’s political posturing for what it really is: a state-level campaign to use donor disclosure to pave the way for political intimidation of conservative groups and activists.
Independent Groups
Politico: Trump backers face ‘scam PAC’ charges
Isaac Arnsdorf and Kenneth P. Vogel
While conservative operatives in recent years have worried that a surge in so-called “scam PACs” has become a scourge on their efforts, the threat they pose to Trump is especially acute. The billionaire real estate showman mostly self-funded his primary campaign, boasting that — unlike his competitors — he wasn’t dependent on donors, and mostly eschewing efforts to create a fundraising operation. His supporters, many of whom are new to political giving and neither well-versed in election law nor attuned to the fine print of political solicitations, may be uniquely susceptible to fundraising appeals from unauthorized groups run by operatives with spotty reputations.
More than two dozen unauthorized groups have formed claiming to support Trump, and they’ve raised a total of $3.7 million this cycle, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission filings. But only six of the groups have actually bought ads supporting Trump.
RawStory: Trump super PAC goes the horse and buggy route — fights for Amish vote
Sarah K. Burris
Calling themselves, Amish PAC, the group aims to replicate what George W. Bush was able to accomplish during the 2004 election when 10 million evangelical voters came to the polls to support Bush’s reelection.
“The Amish and Mennonites are one of the most conservative blocs of potential votes you have in this country, and Republicans have done a very poor job over the years of doing that outreach.”
IRS
Washington Times: House to hold IRS ‘impeachment’ hearing for Koskinen over Lerner emails
Stephen Dinan
Impeachment is still very unlikely, particularly given the short amount of work days left in this Congress and in the Obama administration’s tenure overall.
But conservatives are intent on exploring Mr. Koskinen’s actions after the IRS was ordered to preserve and turn over documents related to targeting of tea party groups — and particularly emails from former senior executive Lois G. Lerner.
Mr. Koskinen’s accusers say he failed to comply with a congressional subpoena on those documents, and instead allowed backup tapes of the emails to be destroyed.
Influence
Politico: Sanders crashes into Democratic Party wall
Daniel Strauss
After piling up millions of votes and wins in 19 states, Bernie Sanders and his supporters are beginning to lay out their expectations for the Democratic National Convention — and they’re expressing deep frustration with what they see as a wall of party resistance.
The most recent flare-up occurred last week, when Sanders publicly released a letter to Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz accusing her of stacking the deck against him on the convention’s standing committees. “[W]e are prepared to mobilize our delegates to force as many votes as necessary to amend the platform and rules on the floor of the convention,” wrote Sanders, several days after a tense phone conversation with the chairwoman.
Wall Street Journal: Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends
James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus
Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.
All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.
Presidential Debates
Daily Beast: How Big Business Kills Third Party Candidates
Lawrence Lessig
When America views this year’s general election debates, it will be easy to miss the scandal brewing just off stage. For decades, corporations have used debate sponsorships as a way to skirt the clear purpose of campaign finance laws—and to influence presidential campaigns. That evasion will happen again this year, as corporations work with the debate commission to effectively assure that any independent presidential candidate will be shut out.
Campaign finance law prohibits corporations from contributing to federal election campaigns. That prohibition is meant to limit corporate influence in Washington while avoiding any appearance of quid pro quo corruption.
The law, however, permits corporations to support “nonpartisan activity,” so long as that activity is “designed to encourage individuals to vote or to register to vote.”
The FEC has interpreted this law to permits corporate sponsorship of presidential candidate debates—because, in the FEC’s view, these debates are “nonpartisan.”
Candidates and Campaigns
NBC News: Trump Campaign Could Use New Donations to Pay Donald Trump $36M for Loan
Ari Melber
After this article was published Friday, Trump said he is ruling out the possibility, telling MSNBC, “I have absolutely no intention of paying myself back for the nearly $50 million dollars I have loaned to the campaign.” Trump’s estimate appears to include additional money he loaned the campaign that has yet to be filed with the FEC, and he told MNSBC all of the loans are “a contribution made in order to ‘Make America Great Again.'”
The Trump campaign has not actually converted the loans into a contribution, according to the FEC. After this article was published Friday, aides told msnbc they expect to make that formal change “in the near future.”
Atlantic: The Lie of Trump’s ‘Self-Funding’ Campaign
David A. Graham
In 2000, Trump told Fortune, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” Raking in donations and then paying himself back—with interest—would be one good way to do that, in addition to payments to himself for services rendered.
In reality, self-funding a general-election campaign for president was never plausible. Trump has managed to skate through the primary with less money than his rivals because of his ability to get free media attention. That won’t work as well in a general election, and Trump has estimated he’d need around $1.5 billion for the general.
Reuters: Trump’s about-face on fund-raising seems unlikely to dent his popularity
Michelle Conlin
Most of those interviewed applauded the way the celebrity businessman billed himself as a “blue-collar billionaire” who didn’t need other people’s money, but said they understood Trump would need far more resources to compete in the general election.
They would have no problem donating to the billionaire, albeit in the same kind of small increments that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has used to build his nearly $200 million fundraising juggernaut.
“Even though I’m on welfare, I would donate to Trump,” said Pamela Thompson, a 46-year-old mother of three school-age kids from Tulsa, Oklahoma. “And my kids would run a lemonade stand to help elect him.”
The States
Courthouse News Service: California Giving Voters a Say on Citizens United
His bill places an instructional measure on the November ballot. If passed by voters, the measure authorizes California’s elected officials to use any constitutional means necessary to overturn Citizens United — including proposing and ratifying an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Allen’s bill passed the Assembly on a 48-26 vote.
This is not the first effort of Golden State lawmakers to take down Citizens United. In 2014, they passed an identical bill that would have appeared as Proposition 49 had the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association not challenged it, arguing the Legislature has no authority to place advisory measures on the ballot.
Sacramento Bee: Brown vetoes bill requiring advocates for state contracts to register
Jeremy B. White
Assembly Bill 1200 would have required people to register as lobbyists if they are paid to communicate with state officials about securing contracts. The measure pitted state lawmakers, who called it a needed source of transparency, against the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which would have had to enforce a law it called confusing and ineffective.
In past veto messages, Brown has rebuffed campaign finance proposals under the premise that they would create more paperwork without meaningful public benefit. The Democratic governor made a similar argument in his veto message for AB 1200.
“Given that the laws regulating state procurement are voluminous and already contain ample opportunities for public scrutiny,” Brown wrote, “I don’t believe this bill is necessary.”
Register-Guard: Make political candidates back campaign finance reform
Kappy Eaton
To help voters assess how candidates measure up to the agenda, a questionnaire sent to all the candidates asked for their stances on six core issues: establishing contribution limits; amplifying the voices of small donors through public financing; increasing transparency and requiring “paid for by” disclaimers on campaign ads; expanding the right to vote and opposing barriers to voting; preventing gerrymandering by taking responsibility for redistricting out of the hands of politicians; and calling for a federal constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and corporate personhood.
Seattle Times: Judge tosses state AG’s lawsuit accusing Freedom Foundation of breaking campaign laws
Jim Brunner
The state’s lawsuit, prompted by union complaints, claimed the Freedom Foundation didn’t properly report what the group estimated was about $14,000 worth of legal representation for the activists.
The dismissal was a victory for the conservative foundation in its ongoing war with state labor unions.
In a news release, Freedom Foundation leaders said the judge’s ruling came in a pretrial hearing that any reasonably strong case should have been able to get past.
Arizona Daily Sun: Anti-Dark Money petitions start circulating
Howard Fischer
Opponents of changes approved earlier this year by the Republican-controlled legislature filed the necessary paperwork Friday to begin circulating petitions to refer the two new laws to the ballots.
The two measure would create new exceptions to existing statutes that require certain groups that try to influence elections to disclosure the true source of their cash. That would bar both the secretary of state and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission from demanding they open up their books.
Foes have until Aug. 5 to gather 75,321 valid signatures on each of two petitions.
If they are successful, both measures are would not take effect until voters decide in November whether to ratify what lawmakers have approved or reject it.
