In the News
Learn Liberty: Anonymity: The Greatest Weapon Against Oppression
By Learn Liberty (script prepared by CCP Chairman and Co-Founder Bradley A. Smith)
Does our right to freedom of speech also guarantee our right to be anonymous? When most people think of anonymity, they usually think of the internet, the trolls who dwell in the comments sections on articles or on Reddit, but the importance of anonymity in America goes back further than you might expect. Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and other political activists during the American Revolution used anonymous pen names while writing politically controversial books and essays. They concealed their identities to protect themselves from retaliation and ensure that readers judge their work based on the merits of their arguments, not their identity…
The first amendment protects speech and privacy regardless of whether the speech is culturally accepted or rejected. Every American has the right to privacy and anonymity. Without it, anyone with unpopular things to say would feel less safe saying those things.
CCP
What would happen if the media talked about itself the way it talks about “dark money” groups?
By Luke Wachob
A shadowy organization based in Washington, D.C., recently spent an undisclosed sum attempting to swing elections in far-off places such as South Dakota and California. Due to a loophole in campaign finance law, this spending does not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission. That means the public will never know who is funding these efforts to secretly influence elections from out of state, despite the fact that the secretive group funneled their expenditure through an LLC – also known as a for-profit corporation.
Searching for the original source of these funds sends researchers down a rabbit hole of vague, generic-sounding organizations. Organized anonymously under the moniker “Editorial Board,” the mysterious group uses the for-profit The Washington Post as a front for its true intentions: secretive political activism without restriction. But it doesn’t stop there. The Washington Post is owned by little-known Nash Holdings LLC, which purchased the paper in 2013 for nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Nash Holdings is itself owned by one of the three richest men in the world, Amazon.com founder and chairman Jeff Bezos.
Donor Privacy
Wired: Anonymous Speech Is More Important Than Ever. TED Proves It
By Eric Peterson
As TED President Chris Anderson wrote in his Medium post about this new project, “What matters is only what can be shared: an idea that matters.” Explaining further why some might choose to anonymously share their ideas, he asked: “How many people have an important message but refrain from ‘going public’ out of fear of losing their jobs or hurting loved ones? How many ideas worth spreading remain hidden because some speakers simply can’t publicly be associated with the very thing the world needs to hear?”…
But despite its clear importance to America’s founding and its enshrinement in the First Amendment, the ability of Americans to anonymously advocate ideas they care about is under attack at the state and federal level…
Voters in South Dakota and Washington will be asked next week to vote on ballot initiatives requiring supporters’ personal information be reported to the government. Public officials in Missouri and Oregon, meanwhile, are backing legislative measures implementing this free speech-chilling policy. Similar efforts are underway, or will be soon, in other states.
Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: Kaine’s Filibuster Threat
By Editorial Board
The future of the Supreme Court hangs in next week’s election balance, and Tim Kaine has usefully underscored the political stakes of a Republican Senate majority…
“If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘We’re not going to let you thwart the law.’ And so we will change the Senate rules to uphold the law that the court will be nine members.”
Translation: Democrats will again change Senate rules on a purely partisan vote to kill the filibuster when it suits their political purposes. They did it to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013, and they’ll do it to get a fifth, sixth or seventh liberal onto the Supreme Court.
Citizens United
Wall Street Journal: Despite Citizens United, Corporate Super PAC Contributions Trail Individuals, Study Finds
By Theo Francis
A study by the Conference Board’s Committee for Economic Development found that individuals made about 80% of all super PAC contributions in the 19 months through July 31. Companies contributed just 8% in the period and unions a mere 1.9%, according to the report slated for release Wednesday.
“It’s wealthy individuals that are really driving the large sums” being spent on elections, said Anthony Corrado, Colby College professor of government, who carried out the analysis. “There wasn’t this big pent up supply of corporate political spending that was looking for some way to be unleashed.”…
Meanwhile, only 33 public companies have contributed to super PACs, the report said, and those funds-a total of $5.3 million-accounted for less than 1% of all contributions through July 31, the report said.
MacIver Institute: Let’s Celebrate Michael Moore’s Latest as a Victory For Free Speech
By Brett Healy
It’s a good thing for Moore that Hillary Clinton and campaign finance “reform” groups don’t have their way or the two production companies behind TrumpLand, Dog Eat Dog Films and IMG Films, would be in deep doo-doo.
Clinton is in favor of appointing Supreme Court Justices that would vote to overturn the Citizens United decision. This Supreme Court decision said, yes, corporations can spend money to influence elections. Ever since, the First Amendment case has become the bête noire of the left wing, even they though they actually benefit from the case decision, too…
So instead of being irritated by Michael Moore’s latest documentary, let’s celebrate it as a victory for free speech. With Donald Trump threatening to sue media companies that criticize him, Hillary Clinton wanting to have our free speech protections overturned by the courts, organizations determined to amend the First Amendment to ban speech they don’t like, and Universities banning politically incorrect free speech, creating “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” the First Amendment could use a little celebrating right now.
Independent Groups
Bloomberg BNA: Nonprofits With Secret Donors Spend Millions in Key Senate Races
By Kenneth P. Doyle
Nonprofits that keep donors secret but are closely linked to Democratic and Republican Senate leaders have spent more than $10 million on television, radio and mail ads in key races that may determine control of the Senate, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
The spending included nearly $3 million in recent weeks by the Democratic-linked nonprofit Majority Forward for television and radio ads in Senate races in Missouri, Nevada and Pennsylvania. The Republican-linked nonprofit One Nation spent nearly $3.2 million on mailings in the same races, as well as those in Indiana, New Hampshire and North Carolina.
The spending on “express advocacy”-calling for votes for or against candidates-came in addition to the groups’ unreported spending earlier in the campaign of about $25 million for “issue ads,” which referred to Senate candidates but didn’t explicitly call for votes.
Common Dreams: Battle for Senate Leads to ‘Precipitous Rise’ in Dark Money Spending
By Deirdre Fulton
According to an analysis released Tuesday by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, outside groups-free from contribution limits and sometimes able to conceal their donors from the public-are outspending both political parties and candidates “in the battle for control of the U.S. Senate.”
In fact, of the $557 million spent so far in 10 key Senate contests, the Brennan Center says such groups are responsible for $282 million, or 51 percent. Further, in each of the four most expensive contests-Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Pennsylvania-candidates account for 37 percent or less of total spending.
“This may be a new high for non-party outside spending, although direct comparisons to past cycles are hindered by a lack of available data,” the report states.
Variety: Joss Whedon, Other Hollywood Figures Use Super PACs to Make Political Videos Pop
By Ted Johnson
On Tuesday, Joss Whedon is unveiling the latest of his videos tied to this year’s presidential campaign. It features Chris Pine as an out-of-control, misogynistic boss who is stopped by only one thing: Voting.
The 3-minute video, “Leonard,” below, is one of a slew of video shorts that have debuted as election day approaches. Whedon, however, is among a handful of Hollywood creatives who have taken their political efforts to another level.
Whedon set up his own super PAC, Save the Day, to direct and produce “Leonard,” as well as a series of other shorts. In his latest, “Leonard” represents Congress, and there are references to the influence of lobbyists.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Times: John Podesta’s shakedowns goosed super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton
By Stephen Dinan
The election season was in full swing in December when John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, had a conversation with billionaire philanthropist Herb Sandler about doubling his giving to Priorities USA, the chief super PAC supporting Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Podesta quickly told his campaign to let Priorities know that the money was coming, according to emails purloined from his account and posted online by WikiLeaks. Two days later, the check came through: $1.5 million.
For a campaign whose official position is antipathy toward big-money political action committees, the Clinton operation was incredibly adept at using them – and may even have crossed the line into illegal coordination. The WikiLeaks emails hint at that kind of activity, and show the campaign breaking the spirit of the rules, though it would be up to the Federal Election Commission to determine whether a provable violation took place.
The States
Moyers & Company: A Certain Victory for Campaign Finance Reform Looms in Missouri
By Jo Mannies
Campaign finance reformers appear set to celebrate a big win next Tuesday in Missouri, where voters are expected to approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would, among other things, reinstate campaign-donation limits in a state that, this year alone, has seen more than $120 million poured into campaigns by writers of six- and seven-figure checks.
A victory is expected because opponents of the measure, known as Amendment 2, aren’t even bothering to campaign against it.
It’s not that those who favor keeping Missouri’s current rules – which the legislature changed eight years ago to remove any limits on campaign donations – have given up. Instead, they’re waiting until after the election. That’s when they hope to return to court and get the amendment revised or tossed out. Opponents maintain that several of the amendment’s provisions are unconstitutional.
Wall Street Journal: New York City Council to Consider Contribution Limits on Political Nonprofits
By Josh Dawsey
The New York City Council plans to consider legislation aimed at regulating political nonprofits, a move that comes months after Mayor Bill de Blasio disbanded his nonprofit amid criticism from ethics groups, a person familiar with the matter said.
The bill would limit how much money a group directed or affiliated with an elected official can take from contributors who have city business, this person said. The limit is likely to be in the hundreds of dollars, the person said.
It would also require organizations affiliated with the city or public officials to report their contributors annually, this person said.
Just for Fun
The Onion: Do you think there’s too much money involved in the electoral process?
The Onion asked Americans the questions that matter most this election. Today: Do you think there’s too much money in the electoral process?
