Supreme Court
U.S. News & World Report: A Threat to Democracy
By Karen Hobert Flynn
The Supreme Court should allow “we the people” to protect our democracy from big money and special interests. Instead it has issued a series of misguided decisions that have systematically struck down common-sense protections against big money in politics and enabled the wealthy and privileged to decide who runs for office, who wins and what issues get their attention…
Though Judge Gorsuch’s record on money in politics is sparse, it raises significant concerns among legal experts. Specifically, his troubling concurring opinion in Riddle v. Hickenlooper suggests he is open to a higher level of constitutional protection to a donor’s right to make political contributions than to every American’s right to vote. Applying this rigid “strict scrutiny” review would likely allow the Court to declare campaign contribution limits unconstitutional, and therefore allow the wealthy to donate unlimited sums directly to our representatives. In other words, far from limiting big money, Gorsuch is open to eliminating one of the last remaining checks on the power of big donors.
Washington Times: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch ‘made a positive impression,’ Dick Durbin says
By Alex Swoyer
A top Senate Democrat emerged from a meeting with Judge Neil Gorsuch Tuesday saying he “made a positive impression” – but Sen. Richard J. Durbin stopped short of backing the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation.
Mr. Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said Judge Gorsuch seemed “sincere” in their meeting, answering “as many questions as he was able to.”
It was a strikingly different tone than the more combative approach taken by Democrats’ floor leader, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, who emerged from his own meeting saying Judge Gorsuch ducked all the big questions he was asked…
“When it comes to some fundamental issues, issues relating to freedom of religion, issues related to Citizens United and the like, I have some basic differences with his approach,” the Illinois senator said…
“We’ve had a handful of Democratic senators who’ve already announced they’re voting no. Many people in some parts of the base think we should all make that announcement. I just don’t think that’s appropriate,” Mr. Durbin told the New York Times.
FEC
Washington Free Beacon: Dem FEC Commissioner Potentially Violated Federal Ethics Laws With Trump Demand
By Joe Schoffstall
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said that investigating voter fraud is “certainly” outside of the FEC’s jurisdiction.
“The commissioners on the FEC are subject to a Standard of Conduct that the FEC adopted that is codified at 11 CFR Part 7. Investigating or regulating the voter fraud issue is certainly outside the jurisdiction of the FEC,” Spakovsky said. “Part 7.13 of the Standard of Conduct states that commissioners are not allowed to directly or indirectly use Commission property ‘for other than officially approved activities.'”
“Using FEC letterhead and her authority as a commissioner to issue comments on this issue could be considered a violation of this provision since I doubt this is an ‘officially approved’ activity,” Spakovsky continued. “She certainly is entitled to make such comments on her own time and in her personal capacity, but not as a commissioner on the FEC according to this regulation. Anytime she appears on television, she is obligated to say she is appearing in her personal capacity and not as an official representative or member of the FEC. If she is not doing that, then that is a potential violation.”
The Courts
IVN News: Federal Judge Reinforces Decision That FEC, Debate Commission Acted “Contrary to Law”
By Presidential Debate News
Five days after its stunning defeat in U.S. District Court, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asked Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to clarify and reconsider her order. Four days later the judge responded – and not in a way that would make the FEC very happy.
In her new order, the judge reminds everyone that she found the FEC had “acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law by failing to notify respondents, failing to consider evidence, failing to articulate its legal analysis, and failing to engage in reasoned decision-making with respect to its conclusion that the CPD’s polling criterion was objective.”…
After reiterating the reasons she found in favor of LPF and against the FEC and the CPD, giving short shrift to the request for reconsideration and clarification, the judge granted the FEC an extra 30 days to respond (the new deadline is April 3), but not without some strong words:
“The FEC requests additional time to make its reason-to-believe determinations because it must provide respondents with at least fifteen days to submit written responses to the allegations. The FEC further points out that reconsidering the complaint and over 700 pages of exhibits from Plaintiffs “takes some time.”
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Group urges New York AG to put Trump out of business by revoking charter
By Jonathan O’Connell
Free Speech for People, one of the backers of a nascent campaign to try to impeach Trump, planned to deliver a 24-page letter Wednesday calling on Schneiderman to “investigate whether to bring proceeding to dissolve and revoke the charter of Trump Organization Inc.,” the New York-based company overseeing the president’s real estate, golf, hotel and other businesses that Trump founded and continues to own…
Ron Fein, legal director for the group, said that the combination of past legal abuses and current conflicts of interests constituted such a pattern of corporate misbehavior that the attorney general ought to revoke the company’s charter. Among Free Speech for People’s other efforts is a push to overturn the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission…
The letter marks the start of what could become a second legal attack on Trump generated from his continued ownership of a vast business empire while in office, following a suit filed last month by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Trump Administration
Roll Call: Harris Was Only 2016 Senate Democratic Candidate to Get Cash From Mnuchin
By Eric Garcia
Mnuchin gave Harris’ campaign $2,000 last year, according to records from the Federal Election Commission, making her the only Democrat who ran on the national level to receive money from him that cycle.
Tyrone Gayle, Harris’ press secretary, questioned the idea that a campaign contribution would influence her vote.
“Sen. Harris thoroughly evaluates each nominee based on their record and confirmation hearing – nothing else,” Gayle said in an email…
Outside of Schumer and Harris, the only other Democratic senator who voted on Mnuchin’s nomination and also received a donation from him was Maria Cantwell. Washington’s junior senator, who voted “no” Monday night, received a $1,000 donation from him in 2006.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Hill: Congressional candidate forms Impeach Trump PAC
By Lisa Hagen
A Democratic congressional candidate filed paperwork with the the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to create the Impeach Trump Leadership PAC.
Boyd Roberts, a California Democrat, submitted paperwork to the FEC that was received on Monday to establish the leadership PAC, a political action committee meant to raise money that will be donated to help other candidates and lawmakers.
It’s not clear from the filing whether Roberts intends to use his PAC to back candidates who support impeachment.
Roberts also filed paperwork with the FEC to run against Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) in the 2018 midterm elections.
The States
NorthJersey.com: N.J. election agency could soon fill key posts
By Salvador Rizzo
Gov. Chris Christie and Democratic senators have struck a deal to reactivate New Jersey’s election watchdog agency, which has been toothless for nearly a year, unable to hold meetings or punish candidates who violate campaign-finance restrictions.
Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they expect to fill all of the vacancies by March 13 on the Election Law Enforcement Commission, an independent agency charged with policing campaign finance, lobbying and pay-to-play issues across the state. Restoring the election regulator to its full power is key to ensuring the integrity of this year’s election for governor, all 120 legislative seats and hundreds of local races, experts said.
Three persistent vacancies on ELEC’s four-member board have prevented it from holding meetings since last March – an unprecedented 11-month stretch of inactivity since the agency was founded in 1972.
Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Republicans prepare for court battle over out-of-state spending caps
By Dana Ferguson
South Dakota Republicans aiming to limit out-of-state money used in ballot measure contests are tailoring their bills to withstand a U.S. Supreme Court examination.
As legislators consider a handful of bills that would set caps for out-of-state groups or require disclosure from dozens of top donors, many said they anticipate the bills, if approved, could get the state sued. And they’re working to ensure that the proposals meet constitutional muster in hopes of keeping them on the books.
The bills are a direct reaction to a multi-million dollar flood of out-of-state money used to bankroll committees that supported and opposed 10 ballot measures on the state’s 2016 ballot…
Lawmakers are set to take up a pair of proposals Wednesday that deal with the issue. House Bill 1074 is set to be hoghoused to cap spending to ballot question committees from out-of-state at $100,000 for the election cycle. And House Bill 1200 will aim to require that certain groups disclose their top 50 donors if they want to contribute more than $25,000 to a ballot question committee or independent expenditure in a one-year period.
CT News Junkie: Election Regulators Look to Clean Up Connecticut’s Clean Election Laws
By Christine Stuart
The federal investigation ended with no charges being brought, but Connecticut’s election regulators are trying to quickly close a loophole that allows banned state contractors to give money to publicly financed candidates.
The State Elections Enforcement Commission is seeking to erase the gray area that exists between state and federal election law with a legislative proposal that restricts the amount of money a state party can receive from its federal account.
State contractors, who are banned from giving to state candidates participating in the Citizens Election Program, can give money to the Republican and Democratic Party’s federal account, which is used to fund Congressional campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts…
The proposal also combats dark money in Connecticut by revealing persons behind political committees and persons behind the contributors to those committees and incidental independent spenders.
While there hasn’t been a lot of dark money used in Connecticut, there’s been an increase in the use of independent expenditures, which has been a concern mostly for the Democratic majority.
Montana Daily Inter Lake: House Votes to Eliminate Commissioner of Political Practices Office
By Sam Wilson
The Montana House of Representatives on Tuesday narrowly approved a Kalispell lawmaker’s bill to eliminate Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices, following a heated floor debate Monday evening.
House Bill 340 passed 54-45 on second reading, with five Republicans joining the Democrats to vote against the measure. It now heads to the Senate for consideration.
Sponsored by Rep. Derek Skees, R-Kalispell, the measure would vest the political practices office’s responsibilities for executing and enforcing Montana’s campaign finance, ethics and lobbying laws with the Attorney General and Secretary of State. The Commissioner of Political Practices is appointed by the governor to a six-year term and subject to a confirmation vote by the state Senate…
Skees called his legislation “the quintessential clean-up bill” during his comments on the floor. He argued that the office had been created decades ago as a response to corruption at the state and federal levels, but had since transformed, along with the larger political climate, into one that is “hyper-partisan.”
