In the News
Orlando Sentinel: Campaigns, however annoying, serve a higher importance
Allen Dickerson
But for all our love of elections, the business of campaigning for office leaves a bad taste in our mouths. We are bombarded by ads, become bored by the rote recitation of stump speeches, and cringe at the inevitable gaffes that accompany a world of smartphones and Internet access. Aside from a small cadre of dedicated political aficionados, few enjoy the campaign season. One might ask what we gain from that process, and be tempted toward cynicism.
But Kennedy offers a response: An election is only as good as the citizens whose votes are cast. And people who cast their ballots in ignorance cannot truly be described as having chosen freely.
NJ.com: Wall Street a complicated affair for a Christie presidential campaign, experts say
Matt Arco
But that doesn’t prevent candidates from engaging with super PACs, which are typically run by close associates, in “public coordination,” said Bradley Smith, chairman and founder of Center for Competitive Politics and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
“They know each others’ message, they know what each other is trying to do,” he said.
For example, anyone running a super PAC can easily find out where the candidate they favor and where their opponents are running television ads, and then pour the super PAC’s resources into that market.
“Candidates could just put up footage of themselves up on YouTube and then say, ‘Anyone who wants to use this, use it,'” Smith said. “It’s not like the political rivals are going to run their super PACs.”
First Amendment
Wall Street Journal: The Worst of Times
James Taranto
Recent news impels consideration of a troubling question: Should the New York Times Co. be stripped of its rights under the First Amendment? Let’s consider first the case for the affirmative…
Further, even apart from the contribution, what the New York Times Co. did in January 2008—spending corporate money in an effort to influence voters within 30 days of a primary election—was generally illegal at the time. The New York Times Co. was exempt under a statutory loophole, and at any rate the law itself was struck down by the Supreme Court almost exactly two years later in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. But that ruling has drawn fierce and voluminous criticism, including, ironically, from the New York Times Co.
FEC
The Hill: Working toward a fair, fast FEC
Commissioner Lee Goodman
Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center has written on The Hill’s Congress Blog that I have delayed enforcement matters based upon the partisanship of respondents. This is factually untrue. I have never decided the substance or timing of any matter based upon the partisanship of a respondent. A survey of my votes since joining the commission will confirm this fact.
In recent weeks, what my colleagues and I have done is engage in a constructive discussion about how to speed up our enforcement process overall. I have publicly supported expediting cases on the basis that respondents deserve swifter action and clarity from the commission. To that end, I have recommended the commission expedite consideration of all matters, without regard to the partisan affiliation of any respondent, while affording commissioners reasonable discretion to consider nonpartisan, objective factors:
Wall Street Journal: Working toward a fair, fast FEC
Byron Tau
The FEC first sent a letter to Stop Hillary in April requesting it change its name, and followed up with a phone call threatening enforcement action this week, according to an attorney for the group. But the group is standing firm, arguing the freedom of speech protections afforded by the First Amendment to the Constitution shield it.
Campaign Finance
Washington Post: This Web site allows political donors to give money based on how lawmakers vote. Just don’t call it bribery.
Steven Overly
Here’s how the website works: First, users select their preferred outcome for a specific bill. They then pledge a sum of money that will ultimately be divided among lawmakers or their challengers. Once lawmakers’ votes have been cast, the website charges the users’ credit card and distributes the money.
“One of the reasons why we don’t do anything about legislation until the vote happens, and that’s when we charge credit cards, is because we want to be incredibly far away from any question of bribery,” Zucker said.
All lawmakers who voted with the user receive a campaign donation, and those who swung the other way see that money go to the coffers of their opponent. That, in essence, is where the company derives its name.
CPI: White House race has already sparked $1 million in negative ads
Michael Beckel
Johanna Dunaway, an associate professor of political science and mass communication at Louisiana State University, said early advertisements are important for several reasons, including fundraising and establishing a candidate’s reputation.
“Early ads are critical to defining candidates and what they are all about — from their personal bio to their policy positions,” she said.
Independent Groups
NPR: Political Consultant To Be Sentenced For Violating Campaign Finance Law
Peter Overby
In 2012, he was hired by a first-time Republican candidate named Chris Perkins running against longtime Democratic congressman Gerry Connolly in Northern Virginia. Harber managed the campaign, and he controlled a super PAC to boost Perkins. He also took a big commission on ads the super PAC ran promoting the candidate. A local Republican official raised questions about Harber’s activities. The Justice Department got involved. Harber pleaded guilty last winter.
Candidates and Campaigns
National Journal: Bernie Sanders: ‘This Is a Campaign to Win.’
S.V. Date
“I don’t have a super PAC. I’m not going to have a super PAC. I don’t want the money of the billionaire class. Which is very easy for me say, because they wouldn’t give me money even if I wanted it,” he said….
Sanders said his campaign is in the process of hiring staff in the early states now. While agreeing that Hillary Clinton has a tremendous advantage because of name identification—”You’re not going to get people to support Bernie Sanders for president if they don’t know who I am, let alone what I stand for”—he said he is not running merely to make a statement.
The States
Houston Chronicle: Ethics Commission pushes to enforce subpoenas
David Saleh Rauf
The second complaint, which deals with whether Sullivan and Empower Texans failed to disclose corporate campaign expenditures, is still pending at the commission and now on the subpoenas. The complaint centers on the issue of dark money, as Empower Texans is a 501(c)4 tax exempt corporation is allowed to make independent electioneering expenditures without having to report its donors.
Along with looking into whether the alleged expenditures were properly reported, commission officials are trying to determine if the Empower Texans non profit’s political activity qualifies it to be regulated like a political action committee, which is required to disclose donors under state law.
Napa Valley Register: Bit by bit. “Disclose Act” becomes more real
Thomas D. Elias
The Disclose Act would require such committees to reveal the three leading donors behind each political newspaper, TV or radio ad, lifting the fig leaf that has long obscured who’s doing what. It would also compel nonprofits funneling money into campaigns from anonymous donors to reveal their identities…
The idea of disclosing top donors prominently has already gotten farther toward becoming law than ever before. It’s a tactic vitally needed in an era of unfettered spending by wealthy interests on all sides of the political spectrum. If spending can’t be limited, at least voters should know who’s doing it.
