CCP
Demos Study Doesn’t Prove Donors Control Politics, But it Suggests Government Should
By Joe Albanese
The progressive advocacy group Demos released a study examining the demographics of the “elite donor” class, arguing that its makeup unfairly shapes policy formation in America.
Their study finds that the biggest political contributors are proportionally more white and male than small and non-donors, that their policy preferences are more conservative than Americans as a whole, and that their influence therefore tilts U.S. politics more to the right than voters would like. From this, the study concludes that dramatically greater political speech regulation is necessary for American democracy to truly represent the will of the people.
We can divide the major flaws of this study into a few categories: (1) the methodology determining donor demographics and policy preferences is lacking; (2) the presumption that large campaign contributions directly influence policy outcomes is unfounded; and (3) the implications for free speech rights are dangerous…
Demos’s study fails to prove the underlying need for its “reforms,” and the proposals themselves represent an ugly identity politics that prioritizes progressive-friendly outcomes over the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Free Speech
The Hill: This Presidents’ Day, defend the First Amendment
By Mark Lucas
Time and again, the government has silenced those it disagrees with by using citizens’ private information against them. Which makes it all the more concerning that a growing number of states are now trying to get more information about Americans who exercise their First Amendment rights.
In South Carolina, legislation was recently filed in the state Senate that would force essentially every nonprofit organization that educates citizens about public policy to disclose to the government the names, addresses, and employers of supporters who donate more than a certain dollar amount. Similar efforts have surfaced in both Nebraska and South Dakota. Touted under the banner of transparency, these so-called “disclosure laws” are nothing more than thinly-veiled attacks on free speech…
All too often today, our free speech right that was designed to hold the government accountable is being used by the government to harass, intimidate, and silence the very citizens the right is meant to protect.
FEC
New York Times: Dysfunction and Deadlock at the Federal Election Commission
By Ann M. Ravel
It pains me to report that the agency remains dysfunctional, more so than ever, as I prepare to depart at the end of this month as my term nears its end. This is deeply worrisome, because the F.E.C.’s mission is to ensure fairness in elections. One of its core responsibilities is to make sure that all money in political campaigns is disclosed. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is “the best of disinfectants.” This quotation graces the street-facing window of the F.E.C.
Unfortunately, a controlling bloc of three Republican commissioners who are ideologically opposed to the F.E.C.’s purpose regularly ignores violations or drastically reduces penalties. The resulting paralysis has allowed over $800 million in “dark money” to infect our elections since Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums to elect or defeat candidates.
These commissioners have been enabled by the commission’s very structure. By law, no more than three of its six members can be from the same party. Four must agree to begin an investigation.
This breakdown has been purposeful.
Washington Post: FEC commissioner’s departure sets up test of how Trump will approach money in politics
By Matea Gold
Ann Ravel, one of the three Democratic appointees on the deeply divided Federal Election Commission, announced Sunday that she will leave her post March 1, setting up one of the first tests of how President Trump will approach campaign finance regulation.
The departure of Ravel, whose term was set to expire this spring, puts the three Republican commissioners in the majority until her replacement is selected and confirmed by the Senate. But since federal law requires at least four votes on the six-member commission to take official action, there is little the FEC can accomplish until Trump names her successor…
The opening at the FEC provides Trump with an opportunity to demonstrate the tack he plans to take toward the growing reach of the wealthy in politics. There was a surge of massive donations by the super-rich in the 2016 presidential race, with just 10 mega-donor individuals and couples contributing nearly 20 percent of the $1.1 billion raised by super PACs by the end of August, according to a Washington Post analysis.
Trump made denouncing big donors a centerpiece of his presidential bid, lambasting the role of super PACs and promising to “drain the swamp.”
CPI: FEC’s Ann Ravel: resigning, but ‘not going away’
By Dave Levinthal
Her immediate plans include teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and joining the boards of “several” nonprofit organizations, two of which primarily advocate for campaign finance reforms. Ravel, whose resignation is effective March 1, declined to name the nonprofits because her appointments there are not yet official…
Since joining the FEC in October 2013, Ravel had little trouble finding limelight. Her unabashedly left-leaning campaign reform agenda found high-profile platforms that ranged from the New York Times’ op-ed pages to segments on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”
Ravel rarely missed an opportunity to accuse fellow Republican commissioners of disregarding election laws…
Current Vice Chairwoman Caroline Hunter most publicly clashed with Ravel, who Hunter accused of gross political overreach – attempting to enforce campaign laws that don’t exist, instead of regulating and ruling on ones that do. A “progression from foolishness to nihilism” is how Hunter in August described Ravel’s FEC tenure.
The Hill: FEC commissioner: ‘I will not be silenced’
By Mallory Shelbourne
The FEC commissioner who asked President Trump to produce proof of his voter fraud claims on Tuesday said she will not be silenced by a watchdog’s attempt to investigate her for the request.
“But let there be no doubt: It is absolutely within my official duties as a federal election official to comment publicly on any aspect of the integrity federal elections in the United States,” Ellen Weintraub said in a statement. “I will not be silenced.”…
Cause of Action, a 501(c)(3) which promotes government accountability, requested on Tuesday that the FEC Inspector General launch an investigation into Weintraub to see if she violated ethics regulations by calling on Trump to provide evidence of his claims.
Weintraub on Tuesday said that the president’s allegation is within her jurisdiction as the commissioner…
“As it happens, this particular allegation falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission, since the expense of these buses has not been accounted for on any campaign-finance filing. Accordingly, I have asked the President evidence.”
Citizens United
The Federalist: Trump Proved Citizens United Doesn’t Let Big Money Control Democracy
By Kyle Sammin
A funny thing happened on the way to repealing Citizens United: it ceased to matter.
It ceased to matter in terms of money buying elections goes, at least. As a First Amendment matter, the principles of the Citizens United decision are still important. Preserving free political speech will be the Court’s gift to America for years to come.
But as a tactical matter? As far as elections are concerned? All the hyperbole from the Left about Big Money buying our elections turned out to be completely untrue, as the 2016 presidential election demonstrated. For all of the tears shed by Berniebro millennials about Citizens United, its practical effects turned out to be exactly what advocates have claimed all along: more free speech, less censorship, and a continued tradition of free and fair elections…
Money is just the lever that partisans on the Left would use to limit speech. Now that money has been shown not to matter, that lever is broken. Anyone still opposed to Citizens United wants censorship for its own sake. Thankfully, the Supreme Court won’t let them have it.
U.S. News & World Report: Silent Scandal of Big Money in Politics
By Ian Vandewalker
In congressional elections, the major political parties have outsourced much of their financing to super PACs and secretive nonprofits run by trusted former aides and funded mostly by a handful of million-dollar contributions. Big money prefers these groups because they aren’t subject to contribution limits, unlike the parties and the candidates themselves. And they’re making the most of their fundraising advantage: In the three most expensive Senate races last year, spending by the candidates accounted for only about one out of every four dollars spent.
This flood of outside money was caused by the Supreme Court’s misguided Citizens United ruling. That opinion depended on the fairy-tale assumption that outside spending poses no risk of corruption because the money is never under the direct control of the candidate. But the reality is much less clear…
The outsize importance of unlimited-contribution groups, whether affiliated with parties or not, shows up how much the current system allows a small number of wealthy people to influence politics. Contrary to the notion that big money matters less in elections after the surprising successes of Trump and Bernie Sanders, money from the biggest donors now makes up a greater portion of campaign cash than any time in recent decades.
Independent Groups
Daily Beast: Pro-Trump Group is M.I.A.-Just When He Needs It Most
By Gideon Resnick
In the days immediately after Donald Trump’s surprising electoral win, his aides began to publicly express interest in creating a political operation outside of the White House that would help keep his grassroots support alive. Such an outfit could help push his agenda-and potentially help him win re-election in the future.
Two and a half months later, on Jan. 30, six campaign aides who previously worked for President Donald Trump announced the start of that nonprofit group, calling it “America First Policies.”
But so far in these crowded opening weeks of the Trump administration, America First doesn’t appear to be all that active. Its first major potential funder walked away from the project. It has a vague website with little information. If it has concrete plans to support Trump, the founders are keeping them rather close-at least for now. Could the situation change? On a dime. But The Daily Beast spoke with four sources in Trump’s orbit. Not one of them seemed to know exactly what the group is up to.
The Media
Reason: Fake News, Misleading News, Click-Bait and the Media’s Biases
By John Stossel
“Fake News!” shouts our president, calling out CNN, The New York Times and others.
I love it.
Although it’s not really true-not the way President Donald Trump means it. The media rarely “fake” anything. Over time, they generally get the facts correct.
But the president makes a good point: The smug lamestream media spin left but won’t admit it…
Trump could be the infantile, petulant authoritarian some of us fear. Terrible things may happen. But they haven’t yet, and much of what’s written deserves the label “fake news.”
The press is depressingly shallow. They blow up little things, speculate about conspiracies and constantly obsess about “who’s winning?” Offensive remarks are taken out of context and amplified. Days later, it’s forgotten and the media move on to the next sensational accusation. They rarely explain the policies at stake, what those policies cost, past success or failure or the laws of economics.
As a result, we miss the real news: the big, important changes that happen slowly.
Trump Administration
Vox: Why President Trump is already fundraising for his 2020 reelection campaign
By Jeff Stein
“A newly elected president has never raised money right out of the box like this,” said Bob Biersack, who served on the nonpartisan staff of the Federal Elections Commission for nearly 30 years…
“His supporters are fired up and ready to go – and to raise this kind of money now via donations on the web is cheap and easy,” Biersack says. “It basically costs the campaign nothing to do, so they probably said, ‘Why not?'”
In other words, the most obvious explanation for why Trump is already fundraising is because he can…
The other reason Trump is free to break with precedent, Biersack suggests, is that other presidents focused more on helping other candidates from their party….
Trump, the consummate outsider who didn’t become a Republican until right before he ran for president, is different.
“His connection to the party is pretty casual – one of convenience but not necessarily commitment,” Biersack says. “Normally, the president’s goal is to help everybody around you because you can do that. But Trump doesn’t care about that.”
The States
Topeka Capital-Journal: Kansas House knocks down bill raising campaign contribution limits
By Jonathan Shorman
The House rejected a measure Tuesday raising campaign contribution limits, which supporters had argued would help candidates fight the influence of dark money groups.
Lawmakers voted 22-101 against the bill.
Kansas hasn’t increased its contribution limits in nearly three decades, and both its $2,000 limit for candidates for governor and its $500 limit for state House candidates are well below the median for all 50 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Six states, including neighboring Missouri, have no contribution limits, according to the group.
Under the bill, individuals would be able to donate up to $4,000 to gubernatorial candidates and $1,000 to House candidates. Limits on Senate candidates would rise from $1,100 to $2,500.
“This gives people more options to try to individually run. Money is a form of speech. Money is a thing you need to be competitive,” said Rep. Tom Cox, R-Shawnee.
Portland Press Herald: Republican lawmakers want to remove gubernatorial candidates from Maine’s Clean Elections Act
By Scott Thistle
Reps. Joel Stetkis and Paula Sutton have co-sponsored a bill removing candidates for governor from the list of those who can become eligible for taxpayer support for an election campaign.
Stetkis, R-Canaan, told the Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on Friday that the program was a failure as it stands even though he supports the underlying goal of the state’s Clean Election Act, which was to remove special interest money from political campaigns…
Stekis and Sutton also have an ally in Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who wrote in support of their bill, L.D. 300, saying he twice ran privately financed campaigns, spending less than his opponents while first winning the Republican primary in June 2010 and then twice winning a general election.
“Despite being (outspent) almost 2:1 during my (2014) re-election, I won with the highest number of votes ever (cast) for a Maine governor,” LePage wrote. “Statewide campaigns are usually large and well-funded. Providing millions in public funding to gubernatorial candidates is simply a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”
