In the News
MassLive: OCPF transparency rules could discourage donations, critics say
By Katie Lannan, State House News Service
Proposed campaign finance regulations governing non-profits’ disclosure of donors came under fire Tuesday from groups that called them overly broad and warned they could discourage contributions…
Allen Dickerson, the Institute for Free Speech’s legal director, said the proposed regulations do not help the public identify the “true speaker” behind a political message.
“If an individual gives money to a candidate’s committee, they do so for the purposes of supporting that candidate,” Dickerson said. “That association is clear and reporting them as a supporter is accurate…but telling the public that someone supports a particular political message even when they do not give to actually fund that message, doesn’t do this. Instead, such reports mislead the public by arbitrarily connecting individuals to granular political messages even when they give only to general causes.” …
Tad Heuer, a lawyer representing [Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance], said some of the changes were “impermissibly vague” and would prevent donors and organizations from knowing before a contribution was made whether disclosure would be required.
OCPF [Office of Campaign and Political Finance] plans to take feedback on the draft regulations into consideration before issuing a final version this spring.
New Boston Post: Nonprofit Fiscal Watchdog Fears Massachusetts Will Act To Make Donor ID’s Public
By Evan Lips
A series of proposed changes to state campaign finance regulations has organizations like the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance concerned that the public disclosure of those donating to nonprofits could happen seemingly overnight, with state statutes changing despite the Legislature not lifting so much as a finger.
Paul Craney, who heads the conservative-leaning Beacon Hill spending watchdog, spoke out against the proposals during a hearing held at the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance on Tuesday morning…
The latest proposal agency officials are floating would give the agency the power to rule unilaterally that a donor “had reason to know” how a donation would be spent, which under the rules would give the agency the authority to disclose that donor’s identity. A secondary measure would strip donors of the opportunity to challenge a decision by the agency to disclose a donor’s identity…
Craney said he thinks the proposal would set a dangerous precedent and noted that MassFiscal wasn’t the only outfit that spoke out against the proposal at Tuesday morning’s hearing – representatives from the Virginia-based Institute for Free Speech also voiced concerns.
No individuals spoke in favor of the proposals…
“The proposal is basically saying OCPF can mind-read,” Craney said.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
By Alex Cordell
You’ve probably heard the term tossed around over the past couple of years, but what exactly is a “super PAC”? These organizations have been given a bad name by their competitors – powerful politicians and media corporations – who previously held a monopoly on political speech. However, the reality is much different than what opponents of free speech would have you believe. Check out the Institute’s newest infographic to understand what super PACs are really about here.
Congress
USA Today: How to start fixing democracy with the $1.50-a-week tax cut Paul Ryan gave you
By Jason Sattler
A new study from political scientists Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen suggests a tidal wave of dark money in the last weeks of the election saved the GOP Senate and pushed Donald Trump over the finish line in 2016…
Fixing this doesn’t have to start with reversing Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United. Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., has proposed The Government By The People Act , which gives taxpayers a $25 tax credit for campaign donations and then turns a small donation into a meaty one with a 6-to-1 federal match.
Event
Cato: Political Speech at the Polling Place: A Preview of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Featuring Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Ginger Anders, Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP; Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Cato Institute; moderated by Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, an important First Amendment case that could clarify voters’ speech rights nationwide. Lead plaintiff Andy Cilek (executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance) voted in the 2010 election in a Tea Party T-shirt that said “Don’t tread on me.” Because Minnesota prohibits badges, buttons, or other insignia that promote a group with “recognizable political views,” at polling places an election official delayed Cilek from voting and took down his name and address for potential prosecution. Cilek sued to have the law struck down. Throughout litigation, the government has embraced the sheer breadth of Minnesota’s ban on political apparel. In addition to prohibiting Tea Party apparel, the ban extends to apparel featuring the logo of the Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, NRA, NAACP, and countless other organizations that might be associated with a political viewpoint. Cilek asks the Supreme Court to invalidate the law as an overbroad restriction on expression. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that the Court should look with skepticism at a law, like Minnesota’s, that targets core political speech. Please join us for a discussion of one of the most important First Amendment cases of the year a few days before argument.
Date: February 22
Time: 12:00PM to 1:30PM EST
FEC
New York Times: Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s Longtime Lawyer, Says He Paid Stormy Daniels Out of His Own Pocket
By Maggie Haberman
“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.” …
Mr. Cohen said that he had given a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause, which contended that the payment, made through a limited liability company that Mr. Cohen established, was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign…
“The complaint alleges that I somehow violated campaign finance laws by facilitating an excess, in-kind contribution,” Mr. Cohen said in his statement. “The allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit, and my counsel has submitted a response to the F.E.C.”
Candidates and Campaigns
BuzzFeed News: Kirsten Gillibrand Pledges To Stop Accepting Donations From Corporate PACs
By Ruby Cramer
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is pledging to refuse contributions from corporate PACs – a move that puts her in a small group of national Democrats and sets a new bar on the issue of campaign finance for other potential presidential candidates in 2020.
Gillibrand stopped accepting corporate PAC money on Jan. 1, an aide said.
The New York senator made the pledge in conjunction with End Citizens United, a Democratic group named after the 2010 Supreme Court decision…
Other sitting senators who decline corporate PAC money include Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Maria Cantwell of Washington…
Ahead of the midterm elections, 18 candidates have taken End Citizen United’s No Corporate PAC pledge, including high-profile challengers such as Rep. Beto O’Rourke, the Democrat running against GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas, and Randy Bryce, running against House Speaker Paul Ryan in his Wisconsin home district.
The States
Spokesman-Review: Campaign finance reform bill introduced, over objections from Reps. Giddings, Scott
By Betsy Z. Russell
After an hour-long hearing and lots and lots of questions, the House State Affairs Committee [Tuesday] morning voted to introduce campaign finance reform legislation proposed by a legislative interim working group. Two committee members – Reps. Priscilla Giddings, R-White Bird, and Heather Scott, R-Blanchard – voted against introducing the bill, which requires more frequent and more detailed campaign finance reporting, extends reporting requirements to local elections, and requires entities doing independent campaign expenditures and out-of-state entities donating large sums to Idaho PACs or candidates to identify the source of the money…
Many of the questions that State Affairs committee members asked Secretary of State Lawerence Denney and Chief Deputy Secretary of State Tim Hurst focused on things they saw in the bill that already are in current state law. Others focused on confusion over how often they, as candidates, would have to file reports…
Giddings told Denney she was “taken aback” by reading the terms “dark money” and “grey money” in the bill’s Statement of Purpose, “Because nowhere in these 29 pages have I seen those words. I almost feel like it’s implying something about our current elected officials and our current process.” …
Denney said after the hearing, “It is a large bill – I don’t think most of them understood the way it is drafted.”
Arizona Daily Star: House votes to block efforts to seek disclosure of ‘dark money’ in local elections
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
State lawmakers voted Tuesday to block any efforts by cities and counties to find out – and inform the public – who is funneling money into local elections through nonprofit groups.
On a 33-25 vote, the Republican-controlled House voted to prohibit local governments from requiring organizations declared to be tax-exempt by the IRS from registering as political action committees, even if they are putting money into races.
It would preclude any requirement that these so-called “dark money” groups identify donors. And it would bar local governments from auditing the books of these groups or requiring them to respond to subpoenas…
HB 2153 now goes to the Senate, which also is dominated by Republicans.
Gotham Gazette: De Blasio Promises Fairness, Democracy in State of the City Address
By Samar Khurshid
De Blasio said he will call a Charter Revision Commission to create a plan for expanding public financing of city elections and reducing donor contribution limits to candidates. Typically, the City Council has legislated reforms to the city’s campaign finance system, which includes generous public matching, already incentivizes small-dollar donations, and is considered a national model. A charter commission would propose ballot referenda for New Yorkers to vote on, and the mayor plans to have them done in time for this year’s election in November, he said.
The commission will also be tasked with finding ways that the city government can disseminate information and conduct outreach for elections, which is currently the purview of the Board of Elections, a quasi-state agency that has long been criticized for its dysfunction…
Warning of the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, de Blasio also set aside $500,000 to bolster the BOE’s cybersecurity efforts…
The mayor also spoke of new lobbying disclosure requirements for city agency heads and officials that report directly to him, which will take effect March 1.
