In the News

South Florida Sun Sentinel: Rubio, Murphy Senate race attracting big campaign dollars

By Andy Reid

The money keeps flowing into this year’s race because both Republicans and Democrats think winning Florida’s seat can help them win control of the Senate, according to David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics.

“Florida is probably one of the biggest competitive states. There are a lot of media markets all over the state. It costs a lot money to run in Florida,” said Keating, whose organization advocates for easing limits on campaign spending…

Keating, of the Center for Competitive Politics, said the outside money isn’t likely going to change how Rubio and Murphy would act if elected. Instead, the money and where it comes from gives an indication of how the candidates’ existing positions on the issues, he said.

“It’s pretty unlikely that either one is going to change their views on the issues,” Keating said.

Free Speech

Wall Street Journal: Facebook and Free Speech

By James Taranto

Some employees argued that “certain posts about banning Muslims from entering the U.S. should be removed for violating the site’s rules on hate speech, according to people familiar with the matter.”

In the end, those employees did not prevail: “The decision to allow Mr. Trump’s posts went all the way to Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who ruled in December that it would be inappropriate to censor the candidate.”…

We should note that when we discuss free speech in this context, we are not making an argument about the First Amendment. The Constitution limits only the government’s power; it recognizes no obligation on the part of a private company to permit its customers to speak or publish freely. But the imposition of a corporate monoculture can jeopardize the culture of free speech, even (or especially) if there is no legal recourse. 

FEC

CPI: Republican Aaron Schock fined for excessively soliciting super PAC funds

By Michael Beckel

If Schock had only asked for $5,000, he would have been fine. But his apparent five-figure solicitations drew complaints from the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, election watchdogs in Washington, D.C.

The Federal Election Commission agreed that Schock broke the law, according to new documents released today by the Campaign Legal Center.

The documents indicate Schock admitted to illegally soliciting an excessive amount from Cantor, though he did not admit to excessively soliciting the 18th District Republican Central Committee.

The agreement further states that the bipartisan FEC didn’t find reason to believe that Schock’s violation was “knowing or willful.”

Politico: Complaints allege House Democrats’ Trump ads break campaign finance law

By Scott Bland

The FEC complaints center on some of the growing number of Democratic TV ads linking Republican House candidates to Donald Trump. It’s a potentially devastating line of attack given Trump’s unpopularity, and the DCCC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in coordination with some candidates to help them air the ads – well in excess of the normal $48,100 limit on coordinated expenditures in most House races.

Some candidates have legally exceeded the party-coordination limits in recent elections by making carefully worded “hybrid” ads, which justify the unlimited cost splitting by making generic references to the parties as well as mentioning local candidates. But the DCCC is sharing massive campaign costs on ads directly naming a presidential candidate as well as local House candidates, which have prompted a series of FEC complaints from the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.

Intimidation 

Huffington Post: Gay Couple Say They’ve Received Death Threats For Supporting Trump

By Curtis M. Wong

The Wall Street Journal’s Jason Bellini interviewed Dewey Lainhart, 31, and Cody Moore, 23, at an Oct. 13 Trump rally in Cincinnati, Ohio…

The newly engaged couple’s remarks were in line with others who’ve backed the GOP nominee, but as Bellini reported Friday, they seemed to infuriate many LGBT people in particular, who overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton. In the comments beneath Bellini’s original video, readers blasted Lainhart and Moore as “rednecks” and “dumber than dirt.” Yet another sniffed, “Poppers kill brain cells.”

Even worse, the men told Bellini they’ve been asked to stay away from gay-friendly establishments and have received death threats from people angered by their praise for Trump. One message in particular, they said, told them to drink bleach.

Independent Groups 

The Telegraph: Exclusive investigation: Donald Trump faces foreign donor fundraising scandal

By Investigation Team

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is facing a fundraising scandal after a Telegraph investigation exposed how key supporters were prepared to accept illicit donations from foreign backers.

Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading “independent” groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.

In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.

McClatchy DC: ‘Social welfare’ PAC is hiding its true political identity, ethics watchdog charges

By Tony Pugh

An ethics watchdog group on Monday asked the federal government to investigate a super PAC, the Government Integrity Fund, claiming the group had violated its tax-exempt status as a “social welfare” group by taking “extraordinary steps” to disguise its work as a political group.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate claims that the Government Integrity Fund is a “dark money” group that spent millions to influence elections in Georgia, Arkansas and Rhode Island in 2014 but didn’t disclose its donors.

Such groups have proliferated following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision,which allowed businesses, unions and nonprofit groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in political races.

The watchdog group wants the IRS to revoke the Government Integrity Fund’s tax-exempt status and treat the organization as a taxable corporation or a political organization. 

Influence 

Observer: No Consequences From Media Peers for Reporters Caught Colluding With Hillary

By Evan Gahr

Elsewhere in America, when emails that the author assumed would never see the light of day became public he suffers some form of consequences-you know, stuff like plummeting poll numbers, possible jail time or forced resignation. This goes for everybody from Hillary Clinton and the former head of Sony Pictures on down.

But if you’re a Politico or New York Times scribe or CNBC anchor John Harwood and hacked emails emerge that reveal you outright colluding with Hillary Clinton campaign-by giving advice or providing the communications director “veto” power over what to include from your interview with the candidate or allowing campaign chair John Podesta veto power over your stories-that is another matter.

Candidates and Campaigns

Wall Street Journal: Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife

By Devlin Barrett

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records.

Daily Beast: Donald Trump’s $100 Million Money Bomb Is a Dud

By Olivia Nuzzi

“I will have, in my race, more than $100 million put in of my money,” Donald Trump said during the second presidential debate in St. Louis. “By the time it’s finished, I’ll have more than $100 million invested.”

Except, judging by his filings with the Federal Election Commission, Trump has donated just over half that amount to his campaign with just two weeks left to go until Election Day.

At this rate, he will fall short of his pledge by about $44 million, or the cost of six of his private helicopters, unless he cuts himself a check sometime in the next 14 days, something his past financial behavior this election suggests is unlikely.  

Common Dreams: Clinton Campaign Mulled Embracing Sanders’s Agenda Against Corruption

By Kevin Gosztola

Neera Tanden, the president of the think tank, Center for American Progress, produced a memo on government reform and public corruption that was sent to John Podesta, campaign chairman, and Jake Sullivan, a senior policy adviser to the campaign on March 1…

Support for public financing of elections was minimal. Only 30 percent felt it would be effective. In fact, Tanden acknowledged “some traditional progressive solutions do not answer voter concern. Merely increasing “democratic participation” or “government efficiency” was not viewed as enough to fix the system.

Tanden recognized, “In this way, Sanders’s appeal is not in his campaign finance solution. It is in the fact that he can’t be bought because he has small donors. And [Donald] Trump’s appeal is similar though inverse: he can’t be bought because he’s rich enough to have no donors.”

The States

Orange County Register: Proposition 59 reminds legislators who they work for

By Derek Cressman and Trent Lange

Money talks, but the Supreme Court got it wrong in saying that unlimited campaign contributions and spending are the same thing as free speech.

While we can hope that a new Supreme Court will someday revisit its misguided rulings, a future court could reverse itself once again. The most permanent solution would be to check and balance a highly partisan court with a constitutional amendment.

We have amended our Constitution 27 times. More than a century ago California sparked a movement to pass the 17th Amendment to give us the right to vote for U.S. senators by using a voter instruction measure similar to Prop. 59.

Like a political party platform, the voter instructions outlined in Prop. 59 are not legally binding, but they represent more than just casual “advice.”      

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Nixon says he will vote `yes’ on campaign contribution limit ballot question

By Kurt Erickson

Mark Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon as a “yes” vote when it comes to reinstating campaign contribution limits.

With two weeks to go before voters head to the polls, Nixon told reporters that he supports a statewide ballot initiative that would impose caps on contributions for the first time in eight years.

He said the number of mega donations being raked in by candidates in the run-up to the election needs to end.

“That corrodes confidence in democracy,” said Nixon, who is not running for re-election because of term limits.

Nixon has been an advocate for limits on contributions during his two terms as governor and in his 16 years as attorney general.

“I’ve been for limits the entire time I’ve been involved,” he said.