In the News
NY Times: No Compelling Government Interest in Limits
By Bradley A. SmithThe Supreme Court has always recognized that limits on campaign contributions infringe on First Amendment rights, just as limits on the size of a newspaper, the number of posts on a blog, or the number of speeches a candidate can deliver would limit speech. This is not controversial – every justice now on the court has recognized this.The controversial question is whether there is a compelling government interest in limiting the size of contributions that justifies the intrusions on First Amendment rights. While the argument that limits prevent corruption has some intuitive appeal, it is not borne out by the facts.For example, Governing Magazine and the Pew Charitable Trusts periodically rank the best-governed states. Utah and Virginia, two states without limits, have consistently topped Pew’s ranking. In the last ranking five of the top 10 states had no limits on individual contributions – rather remarkable given that only 12 states total have no restrictions. Meanwhile, nine of the 10 worst-governed states have limits.
USA Today: Lift campaign donations cap
By Eric WangIf aggregate limits are essential to battling corruption, how is it that nearly 40 stateshave no such limits for their state elections and are not bastions of corruption? In fact, rankings by Governing magazine and the Pew Center on the States found that seven of the eight best-governed states have no aggregate limits.So the justifications for the law appear to be a smokescreen. The limits were enacted by Congress, whose members have a vested interest in their own re-elections.Unlike the lack of a justification for the campaign spending limits themselves, there is ample evidence that members were quite mindful of the self-serving effects of McCain-Feingold as a whole.
Washington Post: Supreme Court can rescue another freedom in a campaign cash case
By George F. WillThe government’s brief defending the aggregate limits cites no instance of actual corruption associated with large aggregate contributions. And Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, notes that confidence in government is lower today than in 1974, until which there were no federal limits — base or aggregate — on contributions by individuals to candidates or parties.The original rationale for aggregate limits was to prevent the circumvention of per-candidate limits by the funneling of large sums to candidates through entities and maneuvers that have subsequently been outlawed. Therefore, no rationale remains for the “aggregate limits” burden on the individual’s rights of political expression and association.Such limits cannot withstand the court’s standard of heightened scrutiny. And two salient facts about all campaign finance regulations should be, individually, sufficient to trigger such scrutiny. First, all such laws implicate core First Amendment values by limiting the expressive activity of individuals associating with, communicating support for and enabling the speech of candidates they support. Second, all laws regulating the competition for elective offices are written by occupants of such offices, people who have a permanent and powerful temptation to shape the political process to favor incumbents.
CCP
What you need to know about McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
By Joe TrotterNote: this resource contains information on a number of arguments and documents pertaining to the case. Keep checking throughout the next several days for updates.By Joe TrotterNote: this resource contains information on a number of arguments and documents pertaining to the case. Keep checking throughout the next several days for updates.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the biennial contribution limits case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission Tuesday October 8th.The suit challenges the limits governing how much an individual may contribute in total to all party committees, PACs, and candidates in a two-year election cycle. For the 2014 election cycle, individuals are limited to contributing an overall amount of $74,600 to party committees and PACs, and $48,600 to federal candidates.These restrictions exist in addition to contribution limits for individual candidates, PACs, and parties. When these two limits are combined, the overall number of candidates that donors can give the maximum allowable individual contributions to is 18.The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, believes that if contributing the maximum amount to 18 candidates is not corrupting, what is so different about contributing the maximum amount to 19 or 20 candidates that Congress is justified in limiting his First Amendment rights? After all, the Supreme Court has already upheld individual contribution limits as an adequate method with which to prevent corruption.
“Political Speech and the IRS: Protecting the First Amendment”
By Joe TrotterIn his discussion, Smith clarified the misconception that “tax-exempt” organizations pay no taxes at all, or are receiving some kind of gift at the taxpayers’ expense. Contrary to misstatements by members of Congress and the media, the only tax these groups don’t pay is income tax on contributions, which has never been considered taxable income. Aside from this exemption, tax-exempt groups pay taxes much like any other corporation or business.They typically pay property taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, and so on. Smith also spoke to how the targeting neither began over night, nor did it begin in a vacuum. As you can see from the timeline below, the targeting was a result of a concerted effort by a number of organizations and politicians pressuring the IRS to take action against certain groups…
SCOTUS/Judiciary
NY Times (LTE): No Limit on Donations
By Paul ShermanSo why not get rid of contribution limits? Political contributions are an important and venerable form of political association. They allow candidates, particularly upstarts and insurgents, to acquire the resources necessary to challenge the status quo. That sort of peaceful political activity is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Washington Post: The question facing Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Stay or go?
By Robert BarnesWho dreamed up this bit of kismet? How did the stars align to make this spot of New Mexico desert the best place in the world on a late summer evening to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg?Ginsburg is doing what she always does this time of year. On a respite from one of her passions — the law — she is indulging the others: opera and family. Ginsburg considers the Santa Fe Opera the finest summer opera company in the world. For years, first with her late husband, Marty, and now with her children and grandchildren, she spends a week in Santa Fe, in the foothills of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and when she returns east she says to herself: “What happened to my sky?”
Lobbying and Ethics
The Hill: Lobbyists denounce push to limit their access in shutdown
By Kevin BogardusThe American League of Lobbyists on Thursday blasted a Democratic lawmaker for proposing that lobbyists be banned from congressional office buildings during the government shutdown.Monte Ward, the League’s president, said Rep. David Cicilline’s (D-R.I.) call to restrict lobbyists’ access runs counter to the Constitution.
State and Local
New York –– NY Times: Fund-Raising for de Blasio Soars, Aided by Big Lead in Polls
By David W. ChenEver since winning his party’s primary on Sept. 10, Bill de Blasio, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, has reduced his public appearances significantly, in part because he has been busy raising money for the general election.
