CCP
Group Files Lawsuit Challenging Delaware Voter Guide Restrictions
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) filed a lawsuit in federal court today seeking to overturn a new Delaware law that violates the First Amendment by placing unconstitutional burdens on groups that publish nonpartisan voter guides.“The law requires groups to choose between publishing a voter guide or submitting to substantial regulatory burdens while violating the privacy of even their small-dollar supporters,” said Allen Dickerson, CCP’s Legal Director. “The result is less objective and useful information about Delawareans’ representatives in Washington and Dover.”The Delaware law, which took effect in January, creates a new form of regulated speech known as a “third-party advertisement.” The law appears to subject groups that publish voter guides to the same regulatory and disclosure burdens as political committees and candidate committees.The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Delaware Strong Families (DSF), which published a nonpartisan voter guide in 2012 and hopes to publish a similar guide next year. The lawsuit says “[a]bsent a declaratory judgment [by the court], DSF will not publish and disseminate its voter guides in 2014, for fear of risking enforcement of the Delaware Elections Disclosure Act. Thus, Delaware’s campaign finance regime—left untouched—will chill speech in a manner found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court” in the landmark 1976 decision of Buckley v. Valeo.
In the News
The Libertarian Republic: Knowledge is Power
By Joe TrotterOf course, where there’s power, there are politicians trying to regulate it. Today, Delaware Strong Families (DSF) is taking the state of Delaware to task for their unconstitutional push to regulate the flow of information about political candidates.Last year, Delaware enacted a sweeping law that created a new form of regulated speech known as a “third-party advertisement.” According to the law, “third-party advertisements” includes any communications distributed through the mail or posted on the Internet that mention any “clearly identified candidate” within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary.Groups that run such “third party advertisements” are forced to hand over the names and addresses of each individual who contributed more than $100 to the group during the election period. As a result of these and other provisions of the Delaware Elections Disclosure Act (Act), if any group spends more than $500 just mentioning the existence of a candidate for office in a communication, Delaware law essentially treats—and heftily regulates—that group as a political action committee.This is a serious problem for DSF, which, as part of its mission, creates and disseminates voter guides on issues of importance to Delawareans. Although the group does not endorse candidates and the voter guides are neutral and nonpartisan, the law would force the group to turn over contribution lists and make detailed filings about their activities to the state.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Constitution Center: Why Professor Lessig’s “dependence corruption” is not a founding-era concept
By Seth Barrett TillmanHere, what is important to note is that both Lessig and Teachout agree that they have identified a stable, unified meaning as to how the Framers (and the public during the Framers’ era) understood corruption in relation to the Constitution of 1787-1788: the Constitution of the Framers and Ratifiers.I contest their position: No such unified concept existed in 1787-1788. (See Tillman, “Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle” (2012).)And if it did exist, Lessig and Teachout have failed to excavate its details from our long lost past; they have failed to delineate the concept’s contours; and they have failed to explain its precise implications for election law and, more importantly, for all the other areas of law which any such newly resurrected constitutional concept would necessarily impinge on.
Disclosure
Independence Institute: Is there a constitutional right to privacy (anonymity) in political contributions?
By Rob NatelsonI did have some questions about mandatory disclosure, however. So several months ago I begin a historical and legal investigation to determine whether the First Amendment, properly understood, permits federal laws requiring that campaign advertisers disclose the names of financial contributors. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence does concede that in some cases forced disclosure may result in free expression being unconstitutionally “chilled.” But the Court does not protect anonymity per se—as the holding in Citizens United demonstrates.The results of my investigation are contained in a new draft paper, tentatively entitled, Does “The Freedom of the Press” Include a Right to Anonymity? The Original Understanding.
Politico: App grades companies on their political bent
By Tal KopanCurious whether your preferred car company leans conservative or liberal? Or which restaurant chain most closely aligns with your views on abortion? You guessed it — there’s an app for that.A new app called 2nd Vote is designed to allow conservative voters to see how companies score on five issues: gun rights, abortion, the environment, same-sex marriage and federal subsidies — though it’s even attracted some liberal fans. Giving each company a score from 1 to 10, the app rates everything from the airline industry to Internet businesses as actively liberal, passively liberal, passively conservative and actively conservative.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NY Times: Politicians’ Extortion Racket
By PETER SCHWEIZERConsider this: of the thousands of bills introduced in Congress each year, only roughly 5 percent become law. Why do legislators bother proposing so many bills? What if many of those bills are written not to be passed but to pressure people into forking over cash?This is exactly what is happening. Politicians have developed a dizzying array of legislative tactics to bring in money.Take the maneuver known inside the Beltway as the “tollbooth.” Here the speaker of the House or a powerful committee chairperson will create a procedural obstruction or postponement on the eve of an important vote. Campaign contributions are then implicitly solicited. If the tribute offered by those in favor of the bill’s passage is too small (or if the money from opponents is sufficiently high), the bill is delayed and does not proceed down the legislative highway.
AP: U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson KKK Tea Party email controversy: GOP calls Democrat’s email ‘unacceptable’
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — The Republican Party of Florida is describing a fundraising email sent out by U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson as “unacceptable and deplorable.”
The email has a photo depicting a burning cross with Klansmen in white robes in the background. The words “Tea Party” are transposed on the image with the burning cross serving as the letter “T.”
Read more…
Roll Call: Democratic Donors Surge Amid GOP Slump
By Eliza Newlin CarneyNot only have the Democratic campaign committees that back House and Senate candidates outraised their GOP counterparts, but unrestricted super PACs that support Democrats have pulled in close to three times what GOP super PACs have so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.That’s a dramatic reversal from 2012, when conservative super PACs spent roughly 70 percent of the non-party outside money in the elections. In the first six months of this cycle, Democratic super PACs raised $23.9 million, compared with $8.9 million for GOP super PACs, according to the CRP. That’s almost a mirror image of the same point in the previous election, when Republican super PAC receipts stood at $29.5 million, swamping the $7.7 million that Democrat-friendly super PACs had raised.
State and Local
Arizona –– AZ Daily Star: Horne denies campaign finance wrongdoing
By Howard FischerPolk said there is “convincing proof that Horne and Winn coordinated on the development of the political message to be conveyed by the Business Leaders for Arizona anti-Rotellini advertisement.”The Yavapai County Attorney also said that Horne, in giving information from his campaign to Winn, “intentionally and blatantly” violated the law.“This is just an allegation,’’ Horne said Monday. By rejecting Polk’s demand to return money spent in excess of campaign finance limits, he said he will force a court hearing.
New Jersey –– Courier Post: Legal bills rise for N.J. congressman facing ethics probe
By Jim Walsh
HADDON HEIGHTS, N.J. — A congressman representing this area has paid $25,000 for his legal defense before a panel probing his campaign spending.Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., now has paid about $195,000 since December 2011 to Brand Law Group, a Washington firm that represents legislators with legal problems.
New York –– NY Daily News: Member of Cuomo’s anti-corruption commission calls New York state legislators corrupt
By Kenneth Lovett“Thirty members of the Governor’s staff haven’t been walked out in handcuffs in the last five years,” William Fitzpatrick said during a public radio interview. “Thirty members of the attorney general’s office haven’t been walked out in handcuffs in the last five years.”“The problem is, clearly, that there is a systemic corruption within the New York state Legislature that needs to be addressed,” he said — making it clear that’s where the main focus of the Moreland Commission’s investigation lies.
