CCP
Roosevelt Institute Study on “Political Money” is Not the Revelation It Claims to Be
By Joe Albanese
The authors of this paper – and its enthusiastic backers – declare it to be a groundbreaking work that definitively proves the relationship between political money and policymaking. An examination of what spending the authors consider to be political and how they measure changes in policymaking shows that this contention is far from true. Even more objectionable is how the authors conduct themselves in a fashion that can aptly be described as demagogic, problems with their analysis notwithstanding.
Uproar in New Jersey after Congressman Names and Shames a Critic
By Luke Wachob
Rep. Frelinghuysen defended his actions by objecting to the number of calls his office has been forced to deal with as a result of NJ 11th for Change’s efforts: “I’m not suggesting people don’t have a right to speak and let their views be known, but some of this is highly orchestrated and it’s unfortunate.”
Frelinghuysen’s comments suggest a disappointingly hollow view of the First Amendment – and one more common on the left. Many Democrats in Congress regularly argue that restricting how political advocacy is organized and funded does not infringe on First Amendment rights. But the First Amendment protects the right to associate as well as the right to speak. Organizing to increase the impact of speech is as natural to politics as stump speeches and voter guides.
Free Speech
Washington Post: Is projecting “Pay Trump Bribes Here” onto a wall of the Trump Hotel a trespass?
By Eugene Volokh
Is this criminal trespass – or perhaps grounds for a civil lawsuit? It turns out that the answer is probably not, whether it’s anti-Trump messages, anti-Islam protesters projecting a Muhammad cartoon on a mosque wall, antiabortion protesters projecting an image of an aborted fetus, or (as is more common) unions projecting critical or offensive messages on the walls of businesses that they are protesting.
I think a specially designed law might well be able to forbid all projecting of text or images onto others’ property. But existing law likely doesn’t, at least unless the projection so interferes with the business (and for a considerable time) as to constitute an actionable “nuisance.”
Federalist: Companies Should Stand Up To Shakedowns From Activists Like Greenpeace
By Seth Kursman
For too many executives, the goal in dealing with bad actors like this is to appease and accommodate, to avoid any hint of controversy, to keep the target off their backs. Never mind that irresponsible activists are making up facts or acting for unprincipled and self-serving motives. It’s easier to give in, pay up, and appease.
But there is no substitute for doing the right thing. In this case, “not to condemn is to condone.” As business leaders, we have a collective responsibility not only to protect the future of our companies, but also to defend the long-term futures of our home communities and the livelihoods of our employees. These are some of the cornerstone principles of good corporate governance.
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Look who wants a ‘safe space’ now
By A. Barton Hinkle
What is a flag-burning amendment, but an attempt to turn the entire country into a safe space? It is, in fact, the epitome of political correctness: National flags designate political entities, and flag-burning expresses a particular opinion about the American polity.
Is it an odious opinion? Sure. But then there are many odious opinions. Some of them were on view Saturday night in Charlottesville, when white supremacists held a torchlit rally around a statue of Robert E. Lee. By what standard would supporters of a constitutional amendment define flag-burning as so odious it lies beyond the protection of the First Amendment, without concluding the same about assertions of white supremacy?
FEC
KRTV: Pro-Quist group filing FEC complaint; says Gianforte circumventing contribution limits
By Mike Dennison
Tiffany Muller, president of the PAC, said in a statement that the FEC should investigate Gianforte’s recent comments on a telephone call to prospective donors and “take appropriate action.”
The Gianforte campaign has denied any wrongdoing, saying Gianforte was merely telling donors they could give to Montana Republican Party if they wanted to help “get-out-the-vote” efforts for the May 25 special congressional election.
Independent Groups
The Week: The Hypocrisy of Hillary
By Edward Morrissey
If Clinton has changed her mind about the Citizens United decision, that would make Onward Together understandable. Citizens United is the law of the land, and Clinton is as
eligible to operate within the law as anyone else. However, she has given no indication of any such reconsideration. On her official website – still up and operating – Clinton still lists overturning the court’s decision as the first step in a new campaign-finance regime.
Heat Street: Dark Money Opponent Hillary Clinton Forms Group to Handle Dark Money
By Emily Zanotti
She’ll be following in President Obama’s footsteps, working as a “community organizer” to help empower other community organizers to “get involved.” According to Onward Together’s about page, she and her group will aim to “resist bullying, hate, falsehoods, and divisiveness, and stand up for a fairer, more inclusive America.”
But Clinton’s new organization isn’t a selfless, 501(c)(3) charity designed to help further democracy out of the goodness of her and her donors hearts. It’s a 501(c)(4), better known by Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters as a “dark money” organization.
Candidates and Campaigns
HuffPost: Potential 2020 Candidates Are Already Spending Big On Online Ads. Here’s Why.
By Sam Stein, Paul Blumenthal
A Harris strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted that the presidency is “not the motivation” for her digital expenditures. Rather, the strategist said, Harris is simply looking to shore up her finances. The atmosphere of activist energy permeating Democratic politics during the turbulent early days of the Trump administration has given Harris’ team an opportunity to dramatically upend their traditional fundraising structure.
“I had never seen anything like it,” said the strategist. “This may be a once-in-a-lifetime moment from the standpoint of not just the short-term opportunity to raise money, but how we increase our reach…”
The States
Colorado Independent: Another Colorado ‘social welfare’ nonprofit just got fined for improperly playing in elections
By Corey Hutchins
At issue were a half dozen flyers a group created and distributed during a May 2016 board election for the Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District in the small community about 15 miles northeast of downtown Colorado Springs. The five-member board is a quasi-municipal political subdivision that handles things like water and utilities for residents.
According to the ruling from Administrative Law Judge Matthew Norwood, during last year’s election season a nonprofit 501(c)4 “social welfare organization” called Citizens for Reasonable Rational and Responsible Governance (CRRRG), paid for the flyers that negatively targeted candidates for the board.
New York Post: Top Dem under fire for funding pol who opposes gay rights
By Carl Campanile
A top national Democratic Party official is coming under fire for making a $1,000 campaign contribution to a New York City Council candidate who opposes gay rights…
“This is a career-ender. Blake should be removed. You can’t support a bigot like Ruben Diaz and be a vice chairman of the national Democratic Party,” said Allen Roskoff, head of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club…
Diaz is known for his vocal advocacy of charter schools and services for the needy. But he’s a social conservative who opposes abortion as well as same sex marriage.
