In the News
American Spectator: Gorsuch Understands How Bureaucratic Bullies Harm First Amendment Rights
By Luke Wachob
Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, appears to take seriously the threat to First Amendment freedoms posed by government intimidation. His ruling in a 2007 case should encourage defenders of donor privacy.
In Van Deelen v. Johnson, plaintiff Michael Van Deelen alleged that a sheriff deputy intimidated him during a meeting with a county appraiser. Van Deelen alleged that the sheriff deputy made intimidating gestures, bumped him, and warned, “They told me to do whatever necessary to put a scare into you. If you show up for another tax appeal hearing, I might have to shoot you.”
Van Deelen argued that these intimidation tactics infringed on his First Amendment right to petition government. Judge Gorsuch’s discussion of the case demonstrates a deep understanding that First Amendment rights are harmed when citizens can be bullied out of exercising them. “When public officials feel free to wield the powers of their office as weapons against those who question their decisions, they do damage not merely to the citizen in their sights but also to the First Amendment liberties and the promise of equal treatment essential to the continuity of our democratic enterprise,” Gorsuch explained.
Daily Caller: Trump is Right: Destroy The Johnson Amendment
By David Keating
Despite some hysterical reactions, the truth is that, as it stands, the Johnson Amendment is horribly written. It chills vital speech in violation of the First Amendment. Congress should repeal it, and pass a clear and sensible provision in its place.
The amendment was inserted into the law by a powerful senator – Lyndon Baines Johnson, who later became president. Johnson’s amendment aimed to silence groups he didn’t like. Today, the potential IRS penalty for even a minor violation of the amendment is a death sentence for any group – a complete loss of its tax exemption. That’s absurd…
No one wants churches or charities to become super PACs blessed with tax-deductible donations. That’s not what’s going to happen, and I very much doubt President Trump wants that outcome. Evangelical groups that sparked Trump’s concerns have no interest in this state of affairs either.
But do we want a law that places the IRS in a position to investigate what a preacher said from the pulpit the Sunday before Election Day?
Supreme Court
Washington Post: Judge Gorsuch attracts broad bipartisan support among legal elites
By Jonathan H. Adler
Last week, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch a unanimous “well-qualified” rating. This superlative ABA rating is no surprise. There is no dispute that Judge Gorsuch is supremely qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
While progressive activists may be itching for a fight over the Gorsuch nomination, many progressive attorneys and legal experts recognize the merits of the Gorsuch nomination. Writing in The Post last week, noted liberal lawyer David C. Frederick explained why “there is no principled reason to vote no” on the Gorsuch nomination…
Frederick is hardly alone. As the Gorsuch hearings approach, other prominent lawyers across the political spectrum have come out in support of President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee. On Feb. 28, for instance, more than two dozen leading Supreme Court advocates from across the political spectrum signed a letter endorsing Gorsuch’s confirmation.
Another letter, this one from more than 50 of Gorsuch’s Harvard Law classmates, released last week likewise includes signatories of all political stripes.
The Hill: Dems launch attacks ahead of Supreme Court showdown
By Jordain Carney
Senate Democrats are taking their opening shots at President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, ahead of a confirmation battle set to begin next week.
Democrats and outside groups are painting Gorsuch as anti-worker and questioning if he’ll be willing to stand up to the Trump administration…
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and outside groups are also taking aim at Gorsuch’s stance on campaign finances – a key issue for progressives who want the Supreme Court to overturn the 2010 Citizens United case that removed limits on what corporations can donate to political action committees.
Outside groups Every Voice, Demos and the NAACP are expected to give Whitehouse a letter from more than 100 organizations, including labor unions and watchdog groups, that asks senators to “scrutinize thoroughly Gorsuch’s record and views on money in politics,” according to Whitehouse’s office.
Political Parties
Huffington Post: House Democrats On Record-Breaking Fundraising Pace
By Matt Fuller
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee brought in more money this February than they have in any other previous February, continuing a record-breaking fundraising pace that is keeping up with Republicans and their own unprecedented totals.
While the National Republican Congressional Committee took in $10.5 million this February – topping the GOP high of $8.3 million in February 2003 – Democrats were just behind the NRCC with $9.8 million last month. That is almost double the DCCC’s previous February record of $5.1 million in 2015, and Democratic aides suggested their total is actually more impressive given the Republican control of Congress and the White House…
The record pace from both Republicans and Democrats could portend a number of high-dollar midterm races, as Democrats try to take back the House in a backlash to President Donald Trump and the GOP’s aggressive agenda.
Trump Administration
TIME: President Trump’s Lawyers Plan a White House Legal Attack on Federal Agency Power
By Zeke J. Miller
White House counsel Don McGahn has assembled a team of elite lawyers with the stated goal of leading Trump Administration efforts to roll back regulatory powers across the U.S. government…
Trump aides argue that these bureaucracies have become an independent federal power sources that sometimes works against the intent of the U.S. Congress and U.S. Constitution.
“Article I is the Congress, Article II is the President. Article III are the courts. And then there’s this administrative state, combining all three,” McGahn told TIME in an exclusive interview. “They make the law, they enforce the law, and then they decide who violates the law, destroying the constitutional separation of powers that was designed to protect individual liberty.”…
McGahn is no stranger to the struggle himself. A former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and an advocate against some campaign financial legislation, he led the charge in trying to rein in federal regulation of campaigns. “When I hear ‘deregulation,’ all that means is returning the power to decide policy back to those elected by the people, whether it is the House, the Senate, or the President,” McGahn said.
More Soft Money Hard Law: Ethics Issues and Resolutions: The Conway Case
By Bob Bauer
The President has to show that he can successfully deal with the conflicts presented by his and his family’s business interests. He faces deep doubts about the structure set up for this purpose, which includes control of his interests put in the hands of his own children, one of whom recently declared that the Trump brand is “the hottest it has ever been.” Then there is the ambiguous if not dubious trail of statements from the Administration about how Mr. Trump understands ethical constraints. Early on, the President said he had been advised that he was free of any limits under federal conflict of interest regulation, while his Chief of State averred that every step would be taken to avoid any “undue influence” of business interests over the Administration’s policies and actions…
So all who are involved in settling or overseeing the conclusion to the Conway episode- the White House, OGE and the Congress-have had special obligations to be clear about the issue and the reasons for the disposition. The public would then learn something about the ethics Standards and rules, about how the Administration will approach their interpretation and enforcement, and about whether there are holes to be filled or procedures to be tightened.
The States
Santa Fe New Mexican: House OKs campaign finance reform
By Steve Terrell
After six years of trying to require “dark money” organizations and other independent-expenditure groups to report their political backers, supporters of campaign-finance reform got their bill through the state House of Representatives on Monday night.
The House on Monday passed Senate Bill 96, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, and Rep. Jim Smith, R-Sandia Park. The bipartisan vote was 41 to 24. Six Republicans joined with the 35 Democrats to vote for the bill.
The Senate had already passed the bill, but it will have to go back there for consideration of House amendments. If the Senate doesn’t oppose any of the changes, it will go to Gov. Susana Martinez for signature…
The bill would require any independent-expenditure group – such as a corporation, union or dark money group – that spends more than $1,000 campaigning during an election cycle to report expenditures and provide information about certain contributors.
Yankee Institute: Connecticut bill threatens to force government reporting on the causes you support
By Marc E. Fitch
As American politics becomes increasingly divisive and at times violent, two bills threaten to force nonprofits that take issue positions to report the names of their supporters or members to the state government…
The legislation would result in a list of people who have donated to nonprofit groups that support causes in Connecticut. Critics believe government reporting of private giving could result in harassment of people across the political spectrum who take controversial positions…
It could also set up Connecticut for a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has previously ruled that donor privacy is part of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
The 1958 Alabama v. NAACP decision held that advocacy groups cannot be forced to disclose the names of their supporters because it violates the right of free speech and free assembly.
NJ.com: N.J. election law commission back in business again
By Brent Johnson
The watchdog panel that enforces New Jersey’s election laws is now able to meet again — for the first time in a year.
The state Senate voted Monday to confirm two of Gov. Chris Christie’s nominees to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission — Eric Jaso, a former federal prosector, and Stephen Holden, a retired state Superior Court Judge from Camden County.
The action ends a year-long period in which the panel was unable to convene.
The four-member commission oversees campaign fundraising and lobbying of elected officials in the Garden State. But a behind-the-scenes fight between Christie, a Republican, and the Democratic leaders of the Legislature left three of the commission’s seats unfilled for the past year. Chairman Ronald DeFillipis was the only member remaining.
Left without a quorum, the commission was forced to cancel every monthly meeting since last March.
