In the News
Sacramento Bee: Demand for nonprofits’ donor lists violates First Amendment
David Keating
The Supreme Court has – for nearly 60 years – protected nonprofits from being forced to hand the private information of their supporters over to state governments. In the landmark civil rights era case, NAACP v. Alabama, the court affirmed that the constitutional right of all Americans “to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others” free from “state scrutiny” is a long-standing and essential liberty.
If we are going to say that there is no privacy in our associations from curious governments, we ought to at least plainly consider what that means. Reversal of associational freedom would not merely apply to Harris, but to her successors, and to officials of every ideological persuasion in every state in the union.
USA Today: Two FEC officials implore agency to curb 2016 election abuse
Fredreka Schouten
Commissioners Ann Ravel, who is the agency’s chairwoman, and Ellen Weintraub are filing a formal petition, urging their own agency to write rules to clamp down on unfettered political spending and unmask the anonymous money flooding U.S. elections.
FEC petitions of this kind typically are made by outside supplicants — organizations or individuals trying to spur the nation’s top election regulators take up some matter. No sitting commissioner has ever filed such a petition in the agency’s 40-year history, Ravel said…
“American realize there are many more important issues than having politicians pass new laws to protect incumbents and stifle dissent,” David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said in a recent statement.
Pointing to the crowded field of Republican candidates — many of whom are backed by super PACs and other outside groups, Keating said the “ability of people to speak out in politics is giving voters more choices and encouraging more candidates to run … That’s good for our democracy.”
CCP
Comments to Texas Ethics Commission regarding proposed revisions to Tex. Admin. Code § 20.1(21) (“In connection with a campaign”)
David Keating and Eric Wang
With its latest proposed rulemaking, the Commission has taken a good step toward mitigating the damage done to Texans’ First Amendment rights by its political committee “principal purpose” rulemaking last October. The proposed rule would clarify and narrow the scope of what activities are “in connection with a campaign” and, therefore, may be subject to regulation as campaign “expenditures” and count toward a speaker’s “principal purpose” under the political committee registration and reporting requirements, or trigger direct campaign expenditure registration and reporting requirements. Nonetheless, the proposal’s attempt to reach speech beyond Buckley’s limited universe of magic words of express advocacy is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and deviates from the U.S. Supreme Court’s “functional equivalent” of express advocacy concept.
Independent Groups
CNBC: The returns are in: 2016 will be the Form 990 election
Daniel Libit
On Thursday, a group of 18 left-leaning campaign finance and open government groups sent a letter to the presidents of the major news networks imploring them to amp up their coverage of outside money in politics. This came on the heels a New York Times/CBS poll that showed American voters’ continued querulousness with the influence of wealthy donors on elections…
This effectively makes the Form 990 the holy grail of dark money—but an imperfect one at that. As a regulatory instrument, 990s simply can’t keep pace with an election cycle, let alone a news cycle.
Supreme Court
Washingtonian: Shaun McCutcheon Blew Up Campaign-Finance Law and Became a GOP Hero. Then He Set His Sights on Paris Hilton.
Luke Mullins
Five years ago, McCutcheon was just another American success story, running his own engineering firm near Birmingham, Alabama, and leading a fairly anonymous life, having never attended an event like this. He had, however, begun writing checks to benefit Republican candidates across the country. Before long, his ambitions for a more conservative America collided with the complex world of campaign finance, including the Watergate-era law limiting how much political money an individual can donate.
New York Times: Misconceptions About the Citizens United Ruling
Paul Sherman
It is not surprising that Americans are hostile to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C. and to private financing of campaigns in general (“Poll Shows American Favor Overhaul of Campaign Financing,” news article, June 3). The more interesting question is whether these attitudes are based on accurate views of campaign finance laws.
They don’t seem to be. Of the four people whose views this paper quotes, three may be surprised to learn that they live in states whose laws were not affected by Citizens United. These states, like a majority of states, had allowed corporate and union spending in elections for decades before that ruling. Moreover, there is not the slightest evidence that they were more corrupt or less well governed as a result.
IRS
Daily Caller: Federal Judge Gives IRS Until Friday To Explain Itself On Lerner Emails
Ethan Barton
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court of Columbia issued the order June 4 in response to a June 2 request from Judicial Watch – a nonprofit government transparency group.
“The Obama IRS obstructed and lied to a federal judge and Judicial Watch in an effort to hide the truth about Lois Lerner’s emails,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The IRS is out of control and Judicial Watch is happy that Judge Sullivan has taken this key step to remind the agency that it is accountable to the rule of law and the American people.”
FEC
Federal Election Commission Petition for Rulemaking
Ann Ravel and Ellen Weintraub
The Citizens United decision and its progeny in the lower courts have transformed the American campaign finance system by opening up substantial new avenues for outside spending. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor organizations could not be prohibited from making communications advocating for the election or defeat of particular candidates, reasoning that, as long as political spending is entirely independent of candidates—in other words, not coordinated—it does not raise corruption concerns. Subsequent related court decisions, combined with inaction on the part of the FEC, has led to a proliferation of super PACs and other outside spending groups—many of which appear to be closely associated with particular candidates and many of which do not disclose their donors—and has resulted in lingering uncertainty about other important issues concerning corporate and labor organization spending.
Wall Street Journal: Return of the Speech Police
The Editorial Board
Criticism of the FEC is part of the left’s strategy to turn the commission into its agent to intimidate conservative groups and limit their political speech. The letter writing campaigns use the same accusations about “dark money” that the groups used to lobby the IRS in the 2012 election cycle.
In September 2011, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center wrote to then IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner requesting an IRS probe into whether “certain organizations are ineligible for tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4).” Around the same time, the IRS created its process that targeted conservative groups. The same outfits are back at it, filling the FEC’s docket with complaints that target Republicans or GOP-leaning organizations 75% or more of the time.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
National Journal: How Do Presidential Candidates Spend $1 Billion?
Stephanie Stamm
Media spending dominated Obama’s budget, making up 65 percent of the 2012 campaign’s $736.9 million in expenditures. This includes outlays such as TV and radio airtime, digital marketing, and print advertising.
The States
AP: New York state lawmakers using campaign donations for car repairs, gas, attorneys and credit card bills, review finds
David Klepper
New York has long had a prohibition on using campaign funds for personal expenses. Until recently, however, it was up to lawmakers to decide whether an expense was related to their campaign or their work as an elected official, and some took an expansive view. Over the years, the state’s Board of Elections has given lawmakers permission to use campaign funds to pay for babysitters and official portraits of office holders.
