In the News
USA Today: Supreme Court weighs limits on campaign donations
By Fredreka SchoutenMcCutcheon and his powerful allies in the case, which include the Republican National Committee, said there’s no evidence that allowing an individual give to a larger pool of candidates corrupts anyone.“They are conjuring up a zombie apocalypse,” Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman, said of groups that want to maintain the limit. There’s no real proof that politicians and parties even want to coordinate their fundraising so closely, said Smith, co-founder of the Center for Competitive Politics, which has filed a brief supporting McCutcheon.
CCP
Media Watch: Gaming the System
By Luke WachobIf you didn’t notice, the “loophole” Judis wants closed is the First Amendment, which prevents the government from restricting someone’s speech simply because they dislike how influential it is. Judis may think that the Koch brothers, Peter Thiel, and other wealthy people engaged in politics have too much influence, but to quote The Dude, “that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” To quote a slightly more reputable source, the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”Judis cites the Koch brothers and Peter Thiel, well-known supporters of libertarian causes, as examples of people with too much influence, but omits any mention of mega-rich donors on the Democratic side, such as George Soros. He implies that equalized influence in politics is necessary for the very survival of the republic, but then doesn’t hold his own speech to that standard. Consider Judis’ position: as a writer for The New Republic, his speech receives the benefit of a national media platform, which is unavailable to the vast majority of Americans. Why should Judis or George Soros be allowed to exercise their “inordinate” influence over voters, but not the Koch brothers or Peter Thiel? Judis’ approach to politics isn’t hygienic, it’s hypocritical.The First Amendment is, and always will be, the best means of addressing unwarranted influence in politics. If a speaker is in error or willfully advocating for policies that are bad for the country, other speakers will expose him, and the public will stop being swayed by his words. Elections are the ultimate test of which speakers have been most influential, and in elections we all get only one vote. If Judis disagrees with the speech that voters are finding influential, he’s free to try to change their minds, but he’s not allowed to silence the people that influenced them in the first place.
Independent Groups
Washington Times: Marriage group to sue IRS over donor leak, says list went to political enemies
By Stephen DinanThe National Organization for Marriage will sue the IRS on Thursday, saying it has evidence that someone within the agency leaked the organization’s private donor list to its political enemies in 2012 but that nobody has been held responsible.Release of confidential taxpayer information is a felony, but the organization’s leaders say the Internal Revenue Service and its internal auditor, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, have stonewalled their efforts to learn who was responsible.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Washington Post: Supreme Court case could give wealthy donors more latitude in elections
By Robert Barnes and Matea Gold“I’ve always understood base limits,” he said. “It’s the aggregate limits that were a surprise.“The whole thing is an important First Amendment free-speech thing,” McCutcheon added. “It’s about your right to spend your money however you choose on as many candidates as you choose. It’s freedom.”
Disclosure
Washington Post: State watchdogs band together to take on ‘dark money’
By Reid WilsonA group of watchdog organizations will roll out a new multi-state effort to share information and best practices on campaign finance legislation Thursday, the first step in an effort to force organizations that spend millions on political activity to disclose their donors.The States’ Unified Network Center will begin as a Web presence to highlight proposed legislation and standing campaign finance law. The group will also organize a database of nonprofit groups that spend money in state elections, in hopes of stitching together the state-by-state patchwork of campaign finance databases.
Lobbying and Ethics
The Hill: No shutdown for K Street as advocates blitz Capitol
By Kevin BogardusWhile the staffing furloughs have forced some last-minute venue changes and communications problems, trade groups say their events have mostly gone off without a hitch.“It’s not chaos by any stretch of imagination. But you could say it’s controlled confusion,” said Jerry Sanders, president and CEO of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.
FEC
Washington Post: Zombie Federal Election Commission still wants your quarterly reports
By Al KamenBut that doesn’t mean it’s a free-pass for campaign fundraising. The computers will be working there to receive your reports, we’re told. “Despite the shutdown, FEC reports will continue to be due,” former FEC chairman Dave Mason, now with political software and services firm Aristotle, advised in an e-mail to clients.“It is our understanding the FEC servers may remain online to receive filings,” Mason advised, even though “FEC staff will not be available to answer questions and provide assistance with technical or substantive issues regarding filings.”
State and Local
Wiley Rein: State lobbying/campaign finance developments in Hawaii, Iowa, and North Carolina
By Michael E. Toner and Samuel B. GedgeSeveral states have enacted lobbying or campaign finance changes over the past few months. A few details about these changes follow below. Hawaii. Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie has approved two bills enacting new disclosure requirements for political committees. Foremost, House Bill 1147 establishes disclaimer requirements for an array of political ads. Effective November 5, 2014, many ads by independent expenditure committees will need to identify “[t]he three top contributors for th[e] advertisement.” For purposes of this new requirement, a “top contributor” is one who has contributed $10,000 or more in the aggregate to the committee within the 12 months leading up to the purchase of the advertisement.
Alabama –– CPI: Supreme Court plaintiff McCutcheon exceeded campaign contribution limit
By Michael BeckelShaun McCutcheon, the lead plaintiff in a high-profile campaign finance challenge the U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider, made an excessive contribution to the Alabama Republican Party’s federal political committee last year, records show.
