In the News
The Hill: Possible expansion of lobbying restrictions threaten First Amendment
By Eric Wang
For both policy and administrative reasons, most laws must set thresholds below which they do not apply. If every time someone acting below a regulated threshold prompts someone else to advocate lowering the threshold, the law’s scope will constantly expand until everything is regulated. This is both socially undesirable and practically untenable.
Indeed, we see this ill-advised trend in proposals to expand the federal and state lobbying laws, and many of which states have implemented. Last year the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics decided to regulate certain public relations consultants as lobbyists. After a wave of protest and litigation, brought in part by the Center for Competitive Politics on behalf of PR firms, the state legislature acted to reign in JCOPE’s overreach…
Many state and municipal lobbying laws and regulatory agencies also purport to impose no minimum threshold for lobbyist registration. In Missouri, the Center for Competitive Politics is representing Ronald Calzone, a concerned citizen who merely shared his views on proposed legislation with state legislators, against the Missouri Ethics Commission’s charges that he failed to register as a lobbyist.
The Intercept: Trump Denounced “Broken System” of Big Money Politics. Neil Gorsuch Could Make It Worse.
By Jon Schwarz
It’s particularly easy to imagine a Supreme Court with Gorsuch striking down all remaining contribution limits, since it’s already moving in that direction. In 2014, four years after Citizens United, the Court struck down something that Buckley had held was constitutional: a limit on the aggregate amount any individual could give to all candidates overall per election cycle. It was already set at a level almost no Americans could imagine donating, $48,600. But now the super-rich can give as much as they want to candidates across the U.S. as long as no single one gets more than $5,400.
Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to strike down the limit and wrote a concurring opinion stating that all contribution limits are unconstitutional…
So it’s no surprise that the places like the Center for Competitive Politics, a D.C.-area think tank that exists to dismantle all limits on money in politics, is thrilled by Gorsuch’s nomination – in particular because in his Riddle v. Hickenlooper opinion Gorsuch appreciates “the legal uncertainty surrounding levels of scrutiny” of contribution limits.
CCP
Advocacy Groups Strategize to Deny Free Speech to Other Advocacy Groups in Leaked Memo
By Joe Albanese
At the end of January, The Washington Free Beacon reported on a “private and confidential” memo obtained at a retreat hosted by progressive activist and Hillary Clinton supporter David Brock. Brock is best known as a founder, owner, and board member of numerous progressive activist groups, including American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Media Matters for America, and Shareblue…
Indeed, while direct references to campaign finance issues in the memo speak in broad strokes about “special interests” and “dark money,” they may potentially represent a major concerted effort through litigation, legislation, and good old-fashioned public shaming campaigns not just to oppose the president’s agenda, but also to exclude certain groups from participating in the political process…
Denying First Amendment rights to certain Americans is a powerful way to insulate those who already possess power. David Brock’s progressive organizations have every right to plan and carry out their opposition to those they disagree with. But his groups should also respect the right of everyone else to do the same.
Supreme Court
New York Times: Don’t Let Republicans Steal the Seat
By Sen. Jeff Merkley
Senate Republicans are in the middle of pulling off one of the great political heists in American history: the theft of a seat on the United States Supreme Court…
It is important to understand the motivation for this crime. The thing the Republican leadership feared most was that an Obama nominee would rule against the huge influx of “dark” money into political campaigns that is corrupting our system of government. They feared this outcome more than any other because it is that dark money, a vast amount of which came from the Koch brothers and their organization, that has played a huge role in putting the Republicans in the Senate majority…
Categorical opposition to this nomination is not retribution for the treatment of Judge Garland. It is a refusal to be party to a tactic that will deeply hurt the Supreme Court and, consequently, the rule of law. Yes, the outcome may well be that Senate Republicans strike another blow against our institutions by eliminating the 60-vote rule. But let it be their choice. I am not prepared to be complicit in the undermining of our government.
Independent Groups
CRP: As pro-Trump nonprofits rev up, regulators stall again
By Robert Maguire
With a new set of politically active nonprofits promising to pour millions into ads supporting President Donald Trump’s agenda and cabinet nominees, an FEC decision last month provides a telling reminder of how these groups push the legal limits on their activity – and how difficult it is for regulators to do anything about it.
For the second time in as many months, the Federal Election Commission deadlocked along party lines on whether or not to pursue a politically active nonprofit for its political spending in a single 2016 race…
Opting to transform a campaign apparatus into a nonprofit supporting the president’s agenda is not new. The Obama administration also turned its campaign into a (c)(4) called Organizing for Action. One big difference: OFA reluctantly disclosed its donors, allowing watchdogs like the Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation to report on the individuals and interests fueling the organization.
Neither of the two new pro-Trump groups have made any such commitment to transparency, which will encourage the arrival of big checks from those who may want to curry favor with the president but remain out of public view.
Congress
CPI: One simple way the Senate could embrace the internet in 2017
By Michael Beckel
Dubbed the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, Tester’s legislation, which the Center for Public Integrity has learned will be formally introduced today, would require U.S. Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically like all other federal candidates – not on paper, as is the current practice…
Yet the bill’s fate is likely controlled by just one man: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who campaign disclosure advocates accuse of blocking similar legislation in years past…
Tester said his goal now is to get a “good bipartisan push” for the bill so that McConnell “won’t be able to say no.”
Tester added that he will also introduce two other campaign finance-related measures today. One targets politically active “dark money” nonprofit groups and the other seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to clamp down on corporate politicking. Both face long odds in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Trump Administration
New York Times: Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ Law Banning Political Endorsements by Churches
By Mark Landler and Laurie Goodstein
President Trump vowed on Thursday to overturn a law restricting political speech by tax-exempt churches, a potentially huge victory for the religious right and a gesture to evangelicals, a voting bloc he attracted to his campaign by promising to free up their pulpits.
Mr. Trump said his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status…
“Americans don’t need a federal tax agency to be the speech police of churches or any other nonprofit groups, who have a constitutionally protected freedom to decide for themselves what they want to say or not say,” said Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal defense group that has opposed the Johnson Amendment…
Separately, the Free Speech Fairness Act was introduced in the House and the Senate on Wednesday. The bill would modify the Johnson Amendment by allowing churches and other charities to engage in political expression.
Washington Post: Trump wants to force you – the taxpayer – to pay for campaigning from the pulpit
By Ellen April
Current law already permits religious leaders and religious organizations to express their views about candidates without undermining our campaign finance laws. What they can’t do is express those views on the taxpayer’s dime. Doing away with the Johnson Amendment would undermine the principle that all campaign finances are taxed at least once, placing taxpayers in the unreasonable position of subsidizing the partisan agendas of religious entities…
Even if the law has its intricacies, the principle behind it is straightforward: If an organization, such as a house of worship, accepts favorable tax treatment, they’re being underwritten by the taxes you and I pay. Which is fair enough, but then we, the taxpayers, shouldn’t have to pay for their partisan political speech that we may not agree with…
And to engage with the political process, religious organizations don’t need to change the law. They already have the option of starting affiliated 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations that are tax-exempt, but not allowed to receive deductible contributions.
Huffington Post: Here’s How Much Betsy DeVos And Her Family Paid To Back GOP Senators Who Will Support Her
By Paul Blumenthal
The nomination of billionaire heiress Betsy DeVos to head the Department of Education is one vote shy of failing in the Republican-controlled Senate. One thing that could come to her aid is that she and the entire DeVos family are massive Republican Party donors who helped fund the election of the remaining senators who will decide her fate…
Campaign finance reform groups have called on senators who received money from DeVos and her family to recuse themselves from voting on her nomination.
“Most people can see that Betsy DeVos lacks the experience needed to succeed as Education Secretary, and it’s easy to assume under the circumstances that she is only up for the job because of her family’s history of generous political giving,” Laura Friedenbach, spokeswoman for the reform group Every Voice, said in a statement. “The only way for senators who have received donations from DeVos and her family to rid themselves of the appearance of corruption is to recuse themselves from voting on her nomination.”
The States
Pierre Capital Journal: Daugaard signs Initiated Measure 22 repeal
By Scott Waltman
Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed House Bill 1069 Thursday afternoon, wiping out IM 22.
“The circuit court enjoined Initiated Measure 22, finding it unconstitutional ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ It has not been in effect, and it is extremely unlikely that it would ever come into effect,” Daugaard said in a news release. “For that reason, it makes sense to repeal this unconstitutional measure.”
In the release, he said that he will work with state legislators on bills that will “honor the will of the voters” and will address gifts from lobbyists, ethics reform and campaign finance.
Republican state lawmakers raised concerns about IM 22 almost immediately after it was approved. They said that its poor wording prevented them from, among other things, attending constituent events at which food was served and working some non-legislative jobs.
A civil lawsuit was filed against IM 22, leading to the injunction. Eighteen Republican legislators were plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
HB 1069 has an emergency clause meaning it cannot be referred to a public vote.
Hartford Courant: Democrats Say U.S. Probe Of 2014 Campaign Financing Is Closed With No Charges
By Edmund H. Mahony and Jon Lender
David Golub, the party’s lawyer, and other lawyers representing top party functionaries and candidates, said they were told in separate telephone calls from federal prosecutors that the wide-ranging probe, at least a year old, had been shut down…
Other sources said the investigation focused on how the state party used money collected from its donors to pay expenses on behalf of the 2014 campaigns of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and state Sen. Edward M. Kennedy Jr…
Trumbull First Selectman Timothy M. Herbst, an aspiring 2018 gubernatorial candidate, bemoaned the closing of the federal investigation.
“While I have tremendous faith and confidence in our law enforcement officials,” Herbst said, “I have serious questions as to how no charges are being brought in this matter. A few years ago, a former governor was convicted over a purported $35,000 sham contract that violated federal election laws. In this case, the citizens and taxpayers of Connecticut were defrauded out of $6.5 million of taxpayer money in a deliberate attempt to circumvent and ignore clean election laws.”
Daytona Beach News-Journal: Stop campaign finance shell game
By Editorial Board
Perversely, the desire to limit the amount spent on elections has created the current shell game of obscuring sources of contributions. Just as water will seek its own level, attempts over the years to dam the flow of money from individuals shifted it to PACs and LLCs, which has made it more difficult to track exactly who was writing the checks.
Even after the Legislature in 2013 raised the limits on individual contributions for most state and local races, Florida campaign limits are below the national average for state elections. The result has been a loss in transparency. A 2015 report written by Integrity Florida and the LeRoy Collins Institute concluded that “the limits on direct contributions to candidates empower the outside committees and the political parties because they can accept unlimited contributions and better hide their spending.”…
The goal should be to increase public knowledge of the campaign finance system, either by tightening disclosure rules for all entities or by increasing, or eliminating, limits on individuals.
