In the News
Politico Influence: Eric Wang launches political law practice
By Byron Tau“I wanted to provide legal services that political clients need and deserve, while giving them personalized attention comparable to the level of constituent service that the best elected officials aspire to,” Wang said in a statement. “Political law practices should be every bit as nimble, driven, responsive and dynamic as the political clients they serve, while focusing on the mutual goal of winning. For me, this isn’t just business — it’s politics.” Wang is a former counsel to FEC commissioner Caroline Hunter, a former attorney at Americans for Prosperity and has served as a senior fellow with the Center for Competitive Politics.
Independent Groups
LA Times: A mythical Citizens United is the liberals’ Obamacare
By Michael McGoughLast week, Obama said that “I continue to believe that Citizens United contributed to some of the problems we’re having in Washington right now. You have some ideological extremists who have a big bankroll, and they can entirely skew our politics.” Again, this is misleading. Citizens United and a federal appeals court decision that built on it did allow corporations to spend money on political ads and make large contributions to super PACs. But wealthy individuals have been free to use their bankrolls to influence elections for almost 40 years.In the same appearance, Obama warned that a case currently before the court, McCutcheon vs. FEC, “would go even further than Citizens United. I mean, essentially it would say anything goes, there are no rules in terms of how to finance campaigns.”Obama, the former constitutional law teacher, should know better. The McCutcheon case is a challenge to so-called aggregate limits on political contributions: that is, ceilings on how much an individual can give overall to candidates and party committees. McCutcheon is not challenging the more familiar “base” limits on what a donor can give individual candidates (though supporters of campaign-finance laws worry that a ruling striking down the aggregate limits would presage the end of the base limits as well). A victory for McCutcheon would not mean “anything goes.”
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Daily Caller: McCutcheon v. FEC: Why it matters
Daily Caller: McCutcheon v. FEC: Why it matters
By Jerad Najvar and Dan BackerThe speech in McCutcheon is at the core of the First Amendment, and the aggregate limits are subject to an exacting — if not yet the highest — scrutiny of government restraints on speech. They received a bit of that scrutiny in oral argument Tuesday, and did not fare well. The government has hung its hat on a single, wildly implausible scenario. Since Congress has permitted candidates and political parties to raise money through joint fundraisers, the government imagines a member of Congress soliciting a $3.5 Million check from a single contributor to be divided among all the participants — all within the base limits — and then raising the quite improbable specter of all those participants transferring their scarce funds to a single candidate, who would then be grateful to the original contributor.Set aside the fact that current regulations already require this entire scheme to be accomplished without any prearrangement or discussion with the contributor, lest it violate the earmarking rules and bans on contributions in the name of, or with the funds of, another. The government’s fanciful scenario actually illustrates precisely why the aggregate limits are unconstitutional.There are narrower means of addressing the Government’s far-fetched hypothetical that do not involve blunt restrictions on all contributions, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with any joint fundraiser. Most obviously, Congress is free to regulate the joint fundraising committees it established. Congress could limit the amount that federal officeholders may solicit to a joint fundraiser. It could go even further and prohibit contributors from giving more than a certain amount to a joint fundraiser. What it may not do is use a blunder-buss approach, indiscriminately restricting the rights of Americans without an articulable justification, or take a sledgehammer to constitutional rights where a scalpel will do. The Court cannot uphold this over-broad regulation at any level of scrutiny.
Washington Post: The Supreme Court might strike down overall contribution limits. And that’s okay.
By RAY LA RAJABut the biggest reason McCutcheon won’t be exploited is that the smart money already has a better alternative. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only 646 individuals in 2012 hit the maximum overall contribution limit of $117,000. Wealthy donors can currently give unlimited amounts to outside organizations, like Super PACs, which can then spend unlimited amounts to campaign independently for or against a candidate. By giving to outside organizations, megadonors such as the Koch brothers, Michael Bloomberg, and George Soros can set the political agenda and scare politicians from compromising on policies and budget deals — and not a single contribution to a candidate is necessary. (See the recent Koch-funded ad to cut spending here.)In fact, the flood of money to outside groups actually signals that we need higher, not lower, limits on donations to candidates, PACs, and parties. The failure to peg contribution limits to inflation since the 1974 post-Watergate reforms is a likely cause for so much money flowing to outside organizations. This has resulted in seriously diminished value of a contribution to conventional PACs and political parties. The inflation-adjusted limit for a contribution to a PAC should have risen from a base of $5000 in 1974 to $23,460 in 2012. Its value in 2012 is just over $1000 relative to the 1974 limit put in place after the Watergate scandal. Similarly for political parties. The inflation-adjusted value of a contribution to a party should have risen from a base of $20,000 to $93,460. Instead its actual value relative to 1974 is just $5,328.
More Soft Money Hard Law: What to Do About the Court: Two Views
By Bob BauerA scan of recent days’ writing reveals two lines of argument about the Supreme Court’s failings in campaign finance. One holds that the Court’s understanding of politics is weak and leaves it helpless to grasp, in practical terms, the issues presented. It is suggested that Congress knows best; its members, also political candidates, are experts in the electoral process. Others argue that there is hope for the Court but it would require an improvement in the arguments it hears, and Professor Lessig and his allies continue to urge that the Justices be pressed on his “originalist” argument for an expansive view of the corruption—“dependence corruption”—that Congress should be empowered to control.There is more to add in each instance to round out what the proponents of these points of view have chosen to offer.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
CPI: Political fundraising boosted by shutdown, default
By Dave LevinthalBut as both sides negotiate atop Capitol Hill to reopen federal offices that’ve been closed for more than two weeks, politicos are trying to score every last partisan point — and suck in every last political dollar — by blasting their across-the-aisle adversaries and flooding supporters with hysterical, shutdown-centric fundraising pleas.Such activity illustrates how political fundraising machines, regardless of the issues or stakes at hand, rarely pause in an age when the next election season begins as soon as the previous one ends.
Politico: Obama email list used to boost Booker, McAuliffe
By Byron TauPresident Barack Obama’s massive campaign email list is finally being deployed on behalf of other Democrats.In two email blasts to voters this week, Democratic campaigns in Virginia and New Jersey were boosted by the list — which is still under the control of the Democratic National Committee.
State and Local
Virginia –– Washington Post: Controversial Liberian shipping registry a top donor to McAuliffe gubernatorial campaign
By Matea Gold and Alice CritesThe largest in-state corporate donation to Terry McAuliffe’s gubernatorial campaign was made by a Vienna-based company whose low profile belies its influence on global trade: It runs Liberia’s shipping registry, overseeing nearly 13 percent of the world’s commercial fleet.The Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry (LISCR) contributed $120,000 to McAuliffe’s gubernatorial bid, placing it among the top 20 donors to his campaign — beating out even former president Bill Clinton, who gave $100,000 to his longtime fundraiser, the former Democratic National Committee chairman.
Virginia –– Washington Post: Star Scientific chief thought McDonnell was helping firm get state funding
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol D. LeonnigE-mails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act also show that researchers and scientists working with the company thought that McDonnell (R) and his wife, Maureen, wanted the company to receive the funding from the state’s tobacco commission. The researchers were in communication with Star Scientific Inc. officials during the same months that Chief Executive Jonnie R. Williams Sr. said he believed McDonnell was helping, the e-mails show.Records show Star did not ultimately get funding from the tobacco commission. And a spokesman for McDonnell’s attorney and an attorney for Maureen McDonnell denied that either the governor or his wife agreed to try to help Star get the money.
