In the News
Jackson Clarion Ledger: Report: Mississippi among top states for political speech rights
By Joe Albanese
The Institute’s Free Speech Index scores and ranks all 50 states on their laws governing political giving, grading them from A+ to F. Fortunately, Mississippi ranked as one of the top states in the country, earning an A grade. This places it alongside 10 other states that earned an ‘A’ or higher. One crucial trait these states have in common is that they don’t limit the freedom of individuals to give to candidates, parties, and political committees, as well as the ability of parties and political committees to give to candidates.
Why is it so important that states like Mississippi allow freedom in political giving to and between these groups? Because the main effect of government-imposed restrictions on political giving is to limit the amount of speech individuals, organizations, and political actors can express. Giving money is not just a show of support. It also enables candidates and groups to spread their message further…
Lawmakers in Mississippi deserve praise for preserving their constituents’ First Amendment freedoms. Many politicians find it easier to pass laws that make it harder for voters or rival candidates to criticize them. They do so while claiming they are protecting voters from the rich when really, they are protecting themselves. Mississippi is one of 11 states that has done an exemplary job of avoiding this trap. Hopefully, the Institute for Free Speech’s Index will shed light on how such states can continue producing pro-First Amendment policy – and will push others to do the same.
The Oklahoman: Time for Oklahoma to take cue from other states on campaign finance?
By Editorial Board
It’s worrisome any time Oklahoma lands at the wrong end of national rankings, particularly when an independent group determines the state imposes more burdensome regulations than most. Thus, a report from the Institute for Free Speech, which reviews states’ campaign finance regulations, warrants Oklahoma policymakers’ attention…
The institute gave Oklahoma an F and ranked the state 41st nationally. The only praise Oklahoma received was for a change made in 2014 when officials eliminated the “per family” contribution limit…
But the institute stresses that Oklahoma “has a lot more work to do,” pointing out we’re one of just 15 states to impose limits on contributions from individuals to political parties and from parties to their candidates. The state also “severely curbs” the ability of political action committees to contribute to parties…
In comparison, the institute notes 28 states allow unlimited donations to parties; 22 permit parties to provide unlimited support to candidates; 32 allow unions, corporations or both to give contributions directly to candidate campaigns; and 11 have no limits on how much individuals may contribute to candidates or parties. (Neighboring Texas, dominated by Republicans, landed in the institute’s top 10 states, but so did liberal Oregon.)
If so many other states can operate with far less restrictive campaign finance limits, without creating any notable problems, then there’s no reason to think Oklahoma can’t do the same.
Sarasota Herald-Tribune: The flip side of the campaign-finance coin
By Editorial Board
The Institute for Free Speech, or IFS, founded by Bradley Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, assembled the Free Speech Index, which graded each state on its laws governing “political giving.” …
Florida resided right in the middle: graded a C and ranking 25th…
Florida registered its highest marks for not limiting individual and PAC contributions to parties, and not putting a ceiling on what individuals can give to PACs.
Florida’s worst scores came on individual and PAC donations to candidates for governor and the Legislature. Capping citizen and PAC contributions for gubernatorial candidates at $3,000 per election placed Florida 48th nationally. Limiting individual and PAC donations to legislative candidates to $1,000 per election put Florida between 47th and 49th, depending on the contest…
All of us think too much about who’s giving rather than considering their right to be heard, and with little thought about whether all this strict regulation of financing produces better government.
The IFS report is a welcome resource to help us see that we might need to rethink our alarmism over money in politics. Spending gobs of money to get a message out there is only half the battle. It still must be a message that wins over voters.
The Hill: Congress should raise PAC contribution limits
By Geoff Ziebart
Sixteen years ago this week, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). In hindsight, many recognize BCRA was a mistake and that our federal campaign finance system now is rife with unintended consequences…
I represent the National Association of Business Political Action Committees (NABPAC) and my 220 members operate under the most restrictive regulations of any donors. They are painfully aware of the need for change as contribution limits under which political action committees (PACs) operate have not increased since the Ford administration. Unlike individuals, PAC limits were neither increased nor indexed for inflation under BCRA. This means a married couple today can give more to a candidate for Congress than a PAC with thousands of donors. What’s more, inflation over the last four decades has eroded the current value of a $5,000 PAC contribution to just over $1,000…
Even in “reform” minded California, a PAC can contribute up to $58,400 to a candidate for governor. Under Federal law, however, a PAC can only contribute $10,000 over six years to a U.S. senator from California. Thirty-two states have set PAC contribution limits for some statewide candidates equal to or significantly higher than federal limits. Thirteen states allow unlimited PAC contributions to some statewide candidates and 11 currently allow unlimited personal contributions. According to the Institute for Free Speech, 17 states have raised contribution limits since the Citizens United decision.
U.S. News & World Report: Former Utah Official Seeks Dismissal of Donations Lawsuit
By Associated Press
Former Utah Attorney General John Swallow has asked a judge to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing him and an imprisoned businessman of illegally funneling donations to the campaigns of Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and others.
Swallow’s lawyers also asked a federal judge Tuesday in Salt Lake City to invalidate the rule he’s accused of breaking, arguing it violates free speech.
U.S. District Judge Dee Benson had not yet ruled on the requests.
The Federal Election Commission sued Swallow and businessman Jeremy Johnson, alleging the former attorney general helped Johnson skirt federal laws by giving money to friends and employees who then donated $170,000 to political campaigns…
Allen Dickerson, a lawyer with the Virginia-based Institute for Free Speech, argued that the election rule doesn’t allow someone to be held legally responsible for helping another person break laws.
FEC attorney Sana Chaudhry disagreed, saying the rule is part of the FEC’s broad authority to regulate elections…
The lawsuit could leave Johnson and Swallow facing thousands of dollars in fines if the judge sides with the FEC.
Center for Public Integrity: Stormy Daniels’ payoff an illegal contribution? FEC ruling could take years
By Dave Levinthal
Two former FEC leaders offered dim views of the FEC aggressively pursuing the Trump/Daniels matter, albeit for different reasons.
Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith, a Republican who now leads the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, says that while the FEC’s role is to investigate credible complaints, there may be little for the FEC to investigate as it relates to Trump and Daniels.
That, he says, is because Trump has a long history of paying for people’s silence and the Daniels payment didn’t directly fund a campaign activity, such as get-out-the-vote efforts or campaign committee overhead.
Ravel, herself a former FEC chairwoman, disagrees that there’s nothing for the FEC to investigate – there’s plenty, she says.
“But with the way the commission is now, the likelihood of them really even investigating it is pretty slim,” Ravel said.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
In Case You Missed It! Media Coverage of the Free Speech Index
On Tuesday, Institute for Free Speech President David Keating appeared on “Fox & Friends” to promote IFS’ recently released Free Speech Index. The Free Speech Index ranks all fifty states based on how restrictive their political giving laws are. Keating offered this summary of the goals of the Index:
“The big problem with these laws is it makes it more difficult for new ideas to get injected into state capitals, makes it difficult for new candidates to emerge. And that’s why we wanted to put a spotlight on this.”
Click here to view the whole video.
The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board also highlighted the Free Speech Index on Monday:
“America’s media are obsessed with Washington, but in our federal system much of the law-writing takes place in the 50 states. This is one reason to welcome a new index detailing how well each state protects the First Amendment right to engage in political speech.” …
“The index notes that 17 states have raised or repealed contribution limits since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, and the trend toward freedom of speech is encouraging. Yet one of the central contributions of the Free Speech Index is to gather disparate data that can inform further academic study and debate in state legislatures.”
Click here to read the whole editorial.
Supreme Court
Bloomberg BNA: Video: Free Speech Case Could Affect Primary Season
By Melissa Heelan Stanzione
Primary season for 2018 is underway, and a case pending at the U.S. Supreme Court could affect state laws about what voters can wear to the polls.
If the court determines that a Minnesota law banning political apparel in polling places on election days is unconstitutional, similar laws in Delaware, Kansas, Montana, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont could also be struck down.
Bloomberg Law’s Melissa Heelan Stanzione attended oral arguments and said the justices were very interested in testing where the line was for permissible apparel under the law.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether voters dressing in white to support a political issue was allowed. Or what about a shirt that said #metoo, he asked.
“How about a shirt that says ‘Parkland Strong’?” Alito asked.
The Supreme Court will likely issue an opinion before the end of June.
Only Texas and Illinois have already held primary elections. Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia are up next on May 8.
The case is Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435.
Forbes: In Free Speech Case, Pro-Life Centers May Have Unlikely Ally In Justice Kagan
By Brian Miller
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra. At issue is a California law that seems to target the speech of pro-life pregnancy centers by burdening their ability to advertise and by making them promote state abortion services…
While a law professor at the University of Chicago, Kagan wrote a now widely cited article arguing that a state’s motive in passing a law is crucial to First Amendment analysis. According to Kagan, even when a law is facially neutral, it can be declared unconstitutional if it was motivated by dislike of a religious or political belief. She believes “the application of First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting” where courts must find and “flush out illicit motives and to invalidate actions infected with them.” …
When it came time to question California’s attorneys, she asked him directly about the state’s motivation:
“There is a — a sense when you read this statute, Mr. Klein, there’s at least a question that arises as to whether this statute has been gerrymandered. So would you speak to that? Because if it has been gerrymandered, that’s a serious issue. In other words, if, you know, it’s like, look, we have these general disclosure requirements, but we don’t really want to apply them generally, we just want to apply them to some speakers whose speech we don’t much like.”
FEC
Bloomberg BNA: Bitcoin Campaign Donations Pose Potential Fraud Risks
By Michaela Ross and Lydia Beyoud
Rising bitcoin values have launched a new type of campaign donor: suddenly -wealthy cryptocurrency holders who want to support candidates that value the technology.
These virtual currency donations are raising concerns among campaign finance transparency groups who worry bitcoin’s potential for anonymity combined with a flawed reporting system could mask a wave of fraudulent campaign giving.
The Federal Election Commission last offered guidelines – but not rules – on how to report bitcoin donations in May 2014…
Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub told Bloomberg Law March 14 it would be hard for the FEC to trace bitcoin to ensure its donor’s true identity is known.
“My concern about all of that is that the whole basis of it is it is more anonymous,” she said.
Others disagree that bitcoin could somehow be easier to abuse than other forms of donations. “I just never bought into that argument,” former Republican FEC Chairman Lee Goodman told Bloomberg Law, adding that cash and prepaid debit cards can also be manipulated.
The FEC and the Justice Department have “plenty of tools” available to look behind the use of this property, including subpoena powers of bitcoin wallets and computers if necessary, Goodman said.
The States
Arizona Daily Sun: Senate blocks cities from requiring dark money disclosure
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
Saying they’re protecting people from harassment, the state Senate on Wednesday voted to block cities and counties from requiring “dark money” groups from disclosing their donors.
HB 2153 bars any local ordinance that requires non-profit groups seeking to influence local elections to register as political action committees. And it specifically prohibits any mandate to identify contributors…
If it becomes law, it most immediately would override a recent vote in Tempe to force public disclosure of the spending on local races. More to the point, that ordinance requires the public be told who is behind any effort that spends more than $1,000…
Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said she sees the issue from the perspective of protecting what she said are constitutional rights.
“Citizens have a right to privacy,” she said. “They have a right to give their money to whatever cause they deem is right.” …
The measure, which already has been approved by the House, now awaits a final Senate roll-call vote before going to the governor.
U.S. News & World Report: New Mexico Outlines Future Limits on Federal Campaign Cash
By Morgan Lee, AP
The detailed conclusions of law were submitted last week by attorneys for Pearce, Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver and the state attorney general’s office.
Funds to be transferred from a federal campaign account must meet individual contribution limits and disclosures about the identity of donors that are at least as stringent as those under the New Mexico Campaign Reporting Act. The state law limits campaign contributions to $5,500 in a primary election and again in the general election.
Meanwhile, Pearce’s campaign for governor is seeking to recover $160,000 in legal costs it sustained in the dispute, campaign spokesman Kevin Sheridan said Wednesday.
Sheridan said it was appropriate for the state to pay those legal costs based a decision by the Secretary of State’s Office to block transfers from a federal election campaign account.
Everett Daily Herald: Inslee signs campaign finance bill
By Jerry Cornfield
Gov. Jay Inslee on Wednesday signed a new law transforming how Washington administers and enforces its campaign finance laws.
The legislation, House Bill 2938, aims to make clearer for filers how to follow reporting rules and avoid mistakes that can incite a complaint against them.
Under the new law, every complaint must first be filed with the Public Disclosure Commission. Staff will have greater ability to deal with minor errors and technical corrections, and authority to refer large and complex cases to Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
Ferguson asked Inslee to veto the bill because it eliminates his ability to independently file complaints against suspected violators.
Inslee instead encouraged the commission to adopt rules to allow for expedited referrals to the attorney general.
The new law takes effect in June.
Tennessean: Bill requiring more transparency for political campaigns’ social media accounts passes Senate
By Jordan Buie
A bill that would require more transparency for social media accounts run by Tennessee political campaigns passed in the Senate…
The measure, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, and Rep. Jason Powell, D-Nashville, will require political communications through social media to indicate the candidate or political committee who has either paid for or authorized the communication.
