CCP
Democratic AGs Double Down on Criminalizing Opposing Views
Joe Albanese
By suggesting that Exxon is committing fraud by protecting those interests, the AGs are essentially arguing that certain interpretations of climate science or pending legislation are not only wrong, but prosecutable offenses. In short, they are arguing that businesses can be sued for speech that the government disagrees with.
…the AGs’ collective goal is not only to use Exxon as a scapegoat for a specific political agenda, but also to punish a wide range of ideological opponents while establishing a lasting precedent that the government can investigate and prosecute political speech that those in power dislike. If this effort succeeds, even by merely forcing Exxon to settle out of court, then it will have been a resounding success likely to be replicated again – with activists of all ideological persuasions pushing their own agendas through the courts. Such a thought should be frightening to all who value free political speech and a vigorous public debate, regardless of one’s ideological views on various issues.
Free Speech
City Journal: The Silencers
Fred Siegel
Perhaps Strassel’s most powerful points concern campaign-finance disclosure laws, which were supposed to lead to cleaner, more accountable politics. Instead, she notes that “the laws that were designed to keep the political class in check are being used to keep the American people in check,” and that the “entire concept of disclosure designed to shed light on special interests buying political favors had been flipped on its head.” Indeed, instead of the electorate gaining greater insight into the workings of government through increased disclosure, “disclosure is trained on the electorate,” with the government gathering extensive information on citizens’ political activities. In practice, this means that donors to conservative organizations whose names are made public are subject to intimidation by “social-justice warriors.” Strassel’s Intimidation is a bleak but essential tour of contemporary liberals’ affinity for repressing free speech.
Reason: Army Veteran Hangs U.S. Flag Upside Down to Protest Eminent Domain, Gets Arrested
Anthony L. Fisher
Homer Martz, a 63-year-old U.S. Army veteran from Iowa, was unhappy about the oil pipeline being built on his property by a private company which had been granted access to the land through eminent domain. Among Martz’s concerns were the risk the pipeline presents to his water supply and the fact that the pipeline could have been placed — much less disruptively, a few hundred feet away from its current path — where it wouldn’t disturb anyone’s home or water supply.
So he decided to protest this public-private intrusion into his home by hanging a U.S. flag upside down.
Then the police arrived.
Martz told The Messenger that two members of the sheriff’s department showed up at his door last week holding his flags and informed him that he was in violation of an Iowa state statute banning “flag desecration,” a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail. Defiantly, Martz walked past the officers and hung the flag upside down once more. He was promptly arrested.
Independent Groups
Chicago Sun-Times: States have power to curtail ‘dark money’ in politics
Editorial Board
The South Dakota effort, Initiated Measure 22, calls for several other political reforms as well, such as a new twist on the public financing of campaigns, but we are most enthusiastic about the provision to limit dark money. The proposed reform would put no limit on how much money a corporation or individual could spend to influence any election from dog catcher to president — a right established in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of 2010 — but it would eliminate their ability to do so anonymously.
Opponents, beginning with the billionaire Koch brothers, warn this would have a “chilling effect” on political discourse, which is exactly what internet trolls say whenever a website blocks their wretched anonymous comments. We predict it would lead to a slightly more fact-based and high-minded debate.
Congress
Washington Post: The more outside money politicians take, the less well they represent their constituents
Anne Baker
About a quarter of the members of the House of Representatives raise a large share of their campaign funds from donors outside of their districts. And my research suggests that the more they depend on those donors, the less they represent the voters in their districts…
The more money a member of Congress gets from donors outside the district, the less that member represents his or her constituents’ preferences. And all that outside funding may be leading to a more polarized Congress, as it appears to encourage members to pay attention to donors whose ideologies are more extreme than voters’…
Would donors from inside the district counteract this effect? No.
I examined the relationship between the total amount of in-district contributions and member ideology. Paradoxically, constituent contributions do not bring members closer to their districts.
Citizens United
BillMoyers.com: From Corporate Lawyer to Corporate Critic: Ciara Torres-Spelliscy Dissects Citizens United
Kathy Kiely
Since the justices “were literally giving corporate entities First Amendment rights, which I think a lot of people think of as protecting the free speech of individuals, as in human beings,” Torres-Spelliscy said. “So I sort of had to dust off my corporate knowledge and apply it in election law.”
In her book, Torres-Spelliscy makes the case that the decision to extend First Amendment protections to corporate “persons” — who, unlike real ones, can’t be jailed and never die — is the latest chapter in a long history that has seen clever lawyers turn laws that were meant to defend individual rights to the advantage of moneyed interests.
San Jose Mercury News: Vote yes on Prop 59 to fight Citizens United ruling
Editorial Board
If you think California should take a stand on the Supreme Court’s outrageous Citizens United ruling, Proposition 59 is for you.
It’s not going to affect the court; it’s just a chance to vent. But if you think much harm has come from Citizens United, which essentially says corporations have the same free speech rights as individual people, we’d suggest a yes vote.
FEC
CPI: How Bernie Sanders beat the clock — and avoided disclosure
Dave Levinthal
On June 30, Sanders’ campaign requested a second 45-day extension, saying the senator had “good cause” to delay because of his “current campaign schedule and officeholder duties.”
Again, regulators approved Sanders’ punt.
Now that Sanders’ second extension has expired, spokesman Michael Briggs confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that the senator won’t file a presidential campaign personal financial disclosure after all.
“We were told that since the senator no longer is a candidate there was no requirement to file,” Briggs said.
Candidates and Campaigns
Daily Caller: Shady Foreign Lobbying Effort Implicates Trump AND Clinton Campaign Chairmen
Chuck Ross
Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort reportedly helped route more than $1 million in secret from a pro-Russian group in Ukraine to a Washington D.C. lobbying firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.
Manafort and an associate, Rick Gates, who also advises the Trump campaign, helped direct funding to the Podesta Group and another lobbying firm, Mercury LLC., from a group called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine.
The payments were doled out in a way that “could not be traced to Ukrainian politicians,” the Associated Press reports.
LifeZette: ‘Bernie the Bundler’ Struck by Scandal
Kathryn Blackhurst
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders may soon find himself the subject of an investigation into whether he broke campaign finance law in order to hand big bucks to a friend and political ally in Vermont.
Brady Toensing, a litigation attorney and campaign finance expert, asked Vermont’s attorney general in a letter Monday to open an investigation into reporting violations and “campaign finance violations involving an in-kind donation.”
In the letter, Toensing details how Sanders used his massive campaign email list to raise funds “far in excess” of state contribution limits for Vermont State Rep. Christopher Pearson. Toensing asked for accountability in the matter, claiming that in addition to possibly violating campaign finance regulations, Pearson may now be unduly accountable to Sanders.
The States
Missoulian: State: Montana Shooting Sports Assn violated campaign laws in 2014
Associated Press
Commissioner Jonathan Motl says in the findings released Wednesday that the group did not provide enough detail about its contributors.
The association’s federal political-action committee took in $4,744 in contributions that weren’t attributed to individual donors. In 2014, the group only spent money on Montana elections.
The group said the money came from fundraisers such as rifle matches. Motl says political committees must report collections made at fundraising events.
Fairfield County Public Radio: New York Reform Group Urges Fix Of Super PAC Measure
Karen Dewitt
The final bill, passed in the middle of the night on a Friday in late June, also included requirements for small, not-for-profit groups to more fully disclose all of their donors. The threshold for groups having to disclose their donors to the state’s ethics panel was lowered from groups spending $50,000 a year to advocate for an issue, to groups spending over $15,000 each year. Any donor who gives more than $2,500 would need to be reported, compared to the previous limit of $5,000.
Government reform groups say that provision would have a chilling effect on the ability of small organizations to lobby state government. Susan Lerner, with Common Cause, says, “What we don’t have is a balancing between the public’s need to know, and First Amendment and privacy rights.”
Texas Tribune: Unaccountably Free Political Speech, for a Few Weeks in Texas
Ross Ramsey
This all began with a question from Texas Right to Life, which asked if it was required to put its name on radio ads urging people to vote for a particular candidate for state office.
Emily Kebodeaux Cook of Texas Right to Life told the commissioners that the current rules are causing confusion for groups like hers that are trying to figure out what should go into their ads. Trey Trainor, an attorney on the same side, said political advertisers who don’t disclose run the risk of “frivolous challenges from political operatives.”
He said they would suffer if forced to disclose authorship in the body of their commercials…
Miami Herald: After #StartCounting didn’t work, Miami-Dade group sues Elections Dept.
Douglas Hanks
At issue is timing, with the Accountable Miami-Dade group insisting the county can complete a count quickly enough for printing ballots in September. County officials say there isn’t enough time after the Aug. 2 delivery of 1,273 boxes of petition forms in the midst of a primary election and the coming scramble to get ready for November’s presidential election.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Campaign-contribution debate centers on free speech
Bevis Schock
In one local situation a candidate for Congress named Jeff Smith went to prison because he spoke to his supporters about “coordinating” their supposedly “independent” message with his “authorized” message. It appears that Jeff Smith went to prison for talking to people.
The bureaucracy creates its own nightmare. An industry has risen up to assist politicians in interpreting ever more complicated rules. Entrenched politicians master the game, but good-hearted first-time candidates drown in paperwork. The compliance rules thus preserve the status quo and make incumbents more secure.
