FEC
Bloomberg BNA: Conservative Group Appeals Ruling on FEC Enforcement
By Kenneth P. Doyle
The conservative nonprofit American Action Network (AAN) is appealing a federal district court decision reviving a Federal Election Commission enforcement complaint charging the group violated campaign finance law by refusing to disclose its donors (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, D.D.C., No. 14-cv-1419, memorandum opinion 9/19/16)
AAN filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the six FEC commissioners apparently deadlocked in deciding how to respond to the court decision. The FEC commissioners, including three recommended by Democrats and three Republicans, have been deeply divided over how to handle disclosure matters.
The court remanded to the commission the AAN matter and another enforcement complaint involving another nondisclosing conservative group, Americans for Job Security. Judge Christopher Cooper set an Oct. 19 deadline for the FEC to reconsider the case, but no action was announced by the FEC late that day.
Daily Signal: Think the First Amendment Protects Books and Movies? Government Officials Don’t Agree
By Fred Lucas
In the past, the FEC frequently would vote 6-0 in many cases that dealt with the First Amendment, giving the benefit of the doubt to media. Among them was a 2002 rejection of a complaint regarding two news organizations that sponsored a candidate debate. That consensus seems to have gone away, Goodman argues.
“Anyone who studies a series of cases on books and films must come to the conclusion there is a distinct difference of opinion on the definition of the press exemption,” Goodman said. “It’s not just on film, but on press in general.”…
Seeking to narrowly define media protected by the First Amendment could be a means of targeting alternative conservative media, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former FEC member.
“FEC Democrats don’t want an extended media exemption to include conservative websites,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.
Given the 4-4 split on the Supreme Court, one FEC ruling could set up litigation to work its way through the courts, he said.
Independent Groups
CRP: Dark money ads plunged when reporting requirement kicked in
By Ashley Balcerzak
According to a new report released Tuesday by the Wesleyan Media Project with the Center for Responsive Politics, dark money groups sponsored, on average, 42.5 percent of ads by outside spending groups in competitive Senate races this cycle through Sept. 15. In the month since then, they were behind just 11 percent of those ads.
One difference? As of Sept. 9 – 60 days before the election – the Federal Election Commission’s reporting “window” opened, meaning spending on all ads that mention candidates has to be divulged to the agency…
“We’re seeing dark money groups that have spent millions of dollars in Senate races fade away, rather than report their spending to the FEC as they’re required to do beginning two months before the election,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “It’s a way to get around telling the IRS next year that a great deal of their activity was political, which isn’t supposed to be the case with 501(c) groups.”
Washington Post: Hedge-fund manager S. Donald Sussman gave $21 million to pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA
By Matea Gold
The Florida-based investor said he has contributed $40 million to Democratic super PACs and allied groups in 2016, double what he had planned to spend at the beginning of the election. He said he was driven by the desire “to leave my children a better country” by helping elect candidates who will restructure a system that allows such huge donations in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
“It’s very odd to be giving millions when your objective is to actually get the money out of politics,” he said. “I am a very strong supporter of publicly financed campaigns, and I think the only way to accomplish that is to get someone like Secretary Clinton, who is committed to cleaning up the unfortunate disaster created by the activist court in Citizens United.”
Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: Hillary’s New Constitution
By Editorial Board
Then there’s the First Amendment, which Mrs. Clinton wants to rewrite by appointing Justices she said would “stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”
Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that found that unions and corporations can spend money on political speech-in that specific case for a movie that was critical of Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat seems to take the different view that while atomized individuals might have the right to criticize politicians, heaven forbid if they want to band together to do it as a political interest group.
As for “dark” money, she certainly knows that territory. Does money get any darker than undisclosed Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business magnates tied to uranium concessions in Kazakhstan?
Citizens United
By Trevor Burrus
If you’re a politically minded filmmaker, then you should be able to freely make films, advertise them, and try to influence how people think about political issues, right? This is America, after all, and the freedom to try to influence other people’s opinions, especially on vital questions of political importance, is precisely what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. And this has to be doubly true close to an election, especially an election where so much is at stake for the future of our country…
Yet, if Michael Moore’s new surprise film “Michael Moore in TrumpLand” is distributed in a certain way, he and his company may be required to register with the government and disclose their funding sources. And, before the Citizens United case, the film might have been forbidden entirely. It’s all very unclear, and that’s a huge part of the problem with our modern campaign finance laws.
Dangers of Disclosure
CPI: Whoops: Pro-Donald Trump super PAC publishes donor credit card numbers
By Dave Levinthal
Great America PAC on Thursday night erroneously published the credit card numbers and expiration dates belonging to 49 donors, a Center for Public Integrity review of its latest Federal Election Commission campaign finance disclosure discovered.
The screw-up comes one month after the super PAC, which aims to “help grow the burgeoning movement behind Donald Trump and merge the grassroots with the business community,” mistakenly revealed the personal cell phone numbers and/or email addresses of 336 of its donors.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: Clinton and Trump transitions must follow strict ethics rules, groups say
By Elise Viebeck
The presidential transition teams should adopt a rigorous code of ethics restricting participation from lobbyists and limiting financial conflicts of interest, a coalition of good-government and progressive groups said Wednesday…
Touted as the strictest rules ever applied to a presidential transition, the code barred people working on the transition from participating in matters that might affect their financial interests or those of a family member, client or business connection. Participants were barred from lobbying the federal government while working on the transition and for the following year on related matters.
The code also explicitly banned bribes and gifts from anyone whose work might be affected by transition planning.
Bloomberg BNA: TV Advertising in Presidential Race Half of 2012 Level
By Kenneth P. Doyle
The 2016 presidential race is seeing less than half the level of television advertising witnessed in the last presidential campaign in 2012, according to the latest analysis by the nonprofit Wesleyan Media Project.
The ongoing study of TV ad data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG found 117,000 presidential ads aired between Sept. 16 and Oct. 13, compared to 256,000 ads during the same time period in 2012…
In spite of the lower ad volumes overall, the Wesleyan study found that pro-Clinton ads outnumber pro-Trump ads by more than 3-to-1.
The difference in TV advertising, which historically has been the largest budget item for major presidential campaigns, largely reflects the difference in campaign funding between the Clinton and Trump campaigns. Overall, Clinton’s campaign and allied groups have raised more than two-and-a-half times the amount raised by Trump and his allies.
Politico: Clinton campaign, allies took $80 million lead into October
By Isaac Arnsdorf
Hillary Clinton and her allies started October leading the money race by some $80 million, cementing in its final phase the most lopsided race in modern campaign finance.
The Clinton campaign finished September with $59.7 million in the bank even after unleashing an $82.6 million volley, much more than in any other month of the campaign, according to a new report filed with the Federal Election Commission. Together with her joint fundraising committee and allied super PACs, the Democratic nominee had a whopping $177.9 million to start the last full month of the campaign.
That’s within striking distance of lapping Donald Trump, who had $34.8 million in his campaign coffers as of Sept. 30, plus $59.2 million in his joint fundraising ventures and the super PACs supporting him, according to POLITICO’s analysis of the most recent FEC filings.
Clinton has built the biggest money machine in modern politics with an army of megadonors and bundlers.
The States
Chicago Tribune: Trump, you think Illinois elections are rigged? Here’s what you don’t know
By Editorial Board
Illinois politicians in power write laws to keep themselves in power. Just getting on the ballot is a challenge – by design. The Democrats, because they’re in charge, oversee the election code and insert plenty of tripwires that disqualify challengers. Even candidates who follow the rules with precision can get tossed from the ballot if attorneys get involved and the goal is exhaustion: Exhaust the time, money and resources of opponents before the campaign even begins.
In the last few years, the Democratic-controlled legislature has changed the election code and required more signatures for independent candidates; toughened criteria for petition circulators and write-in candidates; made it harder to know when vacancies on the ballot occur; capped signature requirements for legislative candidates – all to make it more difficult for newcomers to run for office.
Raleigh News & Observer: NC should restore public funding for judicial elections
By Melissa Price Kromm
Bob Hunter and Abe Jones are pitted against each other in a tough election for a seat on North Carolina’s Court of Appeals. Each would likely bring a different approach and legal perspective to the bench than the other, but both agree on at least one issue critical to the integrity of our courts: North Carolina should reinstate its system of publicly financed judicial elections to help ensure our judges are free from any outside pressure from big campaign donors…
To be sure, our system of public financing judicial elections was not perfect since, with or without the program, judges will still have to contend with outside groups spending hundreds of thousands or millions on ads for and against them. But when the program was in place, 80 percent of candidates participated and were able to run competitive campaigns without creating potential conflicts of interest down the road.
Bergen Daily Record: Money still root of political evil
By Editorial Board
A record-setting amount of campaign money is poisoning the waters of New Jersey’s congressional races this year, enhancing incumbent dominance in already non-competitive races.
Or, you could say that the record-setting amount of campaign money is an inspiring display of political free speech enhancing the public debate with meaningful messages.
We’ll opt for the former interpretation. And it’s a big problem.
The ramped-up spending is fueled in large part by outside groups, a manifestation of the infamous Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010 that has unleashed virtually unlimited corporate spending on elections. While such spending is supposed to be entirely independent of candidates and their campaigns, the agendas are obvious – and it certainly isn’t difficult for some wink-and-a-nudge coordination between those groups and their preferred politicians.
New Jersey Spotlight: Outside Interest Groups Infiltrate Political Process, Parties Losing Grip
By Chase Brush
The strength and influence of New Jersey’s major political parties is on the wane, they are impeded by federal and local campaign finance laws, and they are being replaced by outside special-interest groups whose involvement in the political process is increasing.
That’s the takeaway from an analysis released yesterday by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, ELEC, the state’s elections’ watchdog. It found financial activity by state party committees – including the two state parties and four legislative leadership committees – continuing a decade-long decline. As of the latest third quarter reports for 2016, the six committees raised $2.2 million and spent $2 million on campaigns in the state.
That’s compared to $4.5 raised and $3.5 million spent in 2008, a similar year when there were no statewide elections, ELEC said.
