In the News
Texas Tribune Festival: 2014 Tribune Festival: “Dark Money” vs. Donor Privacy
Moderated by Center for Public Integrity Senior Political Reporter Dave Levinthal. Featured were Sunlight Foundation Editorial Director Bill Allison, state Rep. Byron Cook, Baker Hostetler Associate Andrew Grossman, Center for Competitive Politics President David Keating and Texas Ethics Commissioner Chase Untermeyer.
Wall Street Journal (LTE): Lack of Privacy Limits Legitimate Conservative Activity
By Chris MooreWith regard to what we do know about political donations, the unions that sponsor the pension funds that are at the forefront of corporate-disclosure activism arguably are the largest institutional participants in the political process. Only heavily regulated and unionized businesses in the telecommunications, finance, health and defense sectors give unions a run for their money and most skew donations toward Democrats who otherwise might cause regulatory headaches. Mr. Primo’s exposure of the shareholder-value ruse of activists is valuable, but disclosure of foul intentions is unlikely to slow the transparency steamroller driven by unions and left-leaning heavy hitters as disclosed in political-spending databases.
Philanthropy Daily: Lies, damned lies, and polls
By Scott WalkerYet 51% of those polled refused to take the bait and say they support “more clear and fair rules,” along with baseball, mom, and apple pie. I’d say that’s evidence people are smart enough not to trust pollsters. The average American may not know much about section 501(c) of the tax code, but he or she is knowledgeable enough to know a pollster and his paymaster are probably trying to manipulate you for their own political purposes.And indeed, such manipulation is exactly what one finds in Public Citizen’s press release. In the paragraph before the laughable “speaking with a unified voice” one, the supposedly “good government” group gently notes that its “poll comes as the IRS works to redraft a proposal that could provide just the sort of clarity for nonprofit political activity that voters and nonprofits say they want.”Got that? Soon the IRS is likely to provide “just the sort” of thing that people who don’t know and don’t care want.
WGSO: Eyes will be on Senate campaign fundraising
“We think that’s a pretty good deal,” said David Keating, president of the nonprofit Center for Competitive Politics in northern Virginia and a plaintiff on the winning side of the SpeechNow case. “More spending means more information, and more voters turning out.“The rise in spending is because the courts have recognized that the First Amendment means something when it says, ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,’ ” Keating said.
CCP
Letter to FEC Commissioners on Rulemakings
We are writing this letter as individuals who, in various capacities but over many years, have experience with the interpretation and administration of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA”). While our professional backgrounds and perspectives on the law are diverse, we are united in our support for rulemakings, as recently announced by the Chair and Vice Chair, to conform FEC rules to recent Supreme Court decisions. We also believe that there are additional opportunities for the FEC to undertake similar actions, in the same spirit of these rulemakings, that would contribute significantly to the clarification of, and successful compliance with, the law.Much of the commentary on the FEC’s mission and performance has focused on controversial questions, such as the breadth of the definition of “political committee” or the line distinguishing protected issue advertising from regulated express advocacy. We recognize the importance of these and other issues; we appreciate the difficulties confronting the Commission in resolving questions of administrative authority and, when proceeding on its authority, reaching agreement on the design of workable rules.As these questions continue to be considered and debated, there remains unfinished work in assuring that the law as it now stands is clearer, more accessible and internally consistent. Progress toward these goals will promote compliance and respect for the law, lower the costs of engaging in protected political activity, and can help reduce ambiguity in rule and interpretation.
Is “campaign finance reform” about good governance?
By Brad SmithFrom a recent announcement about an upcoming appearance by FEC Vice-Chair Ann Ravel, co-hosted by The League of Women Voters and RepresentUs.org, two groups that advocate more restrictions of political funding and speech…
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Americans for Prosperity plows millions into building conservative ground force
By Matea Gold“We’ve got to get to the point where we’re a deeper part of a community, and the left has done that for a lot longer, with a much bigger footprint,” said Tim Phillips, the group’s national president. “It’s about building a brand in a community. Then when the attacks come, ‘Oh, you’re just part of a Koch network or some national network,’ it doesn’t really ring true with what people are seeing.”AFP still expects to be outmatched on the ground this year by the Democrats and their allies, such as labor unions, that are mounting major get-out-the-vote operations in top races.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NY Times: A Campaign Dollar’s Power Is More Valuable to a Challenger
By Lynn VavreckThe difficulty stems from a general pattern in House and Senate elections: On average, the more challengers spend, the more they win. But the same is not true for incumbents. The more incumbents spend, the more likely they are to lose.The question is not just whether spending affects election outcomes, but how spending might affect different kinds of candidates differently. Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego, first investigated these questions in 1978. He concluded that the marginal returns of each additional dollar candidates spent were markedly different for incumbents and challengers, a finding that has been subjected to healthy scrutiny and some skepticism over the decades.
The Hill: Dems retrench to protect incumbents
By Cameron JosephThe Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is shifting its ad spending plans to protect vulnerable incumbents and double down on a few top pickup opportunities, moving money away from a number of districts they’d once hoped to target.According to details shared with The Hill, the committee is adding resources to protect vulnerable Reps. William Enyart (D-Ill.), Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) and Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.) and add more resources to target Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Iowa’s open 3rd District seat.Democrats are waving the white flag in protecting the seat of retiring Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) and cutting ad reservations that had been planned to support of filmmaker Aaron Woolf (D) against former Bush administration staffer Elise Stefanik (R). The DCCC is also giving up on targeting Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), canceling reservations in their districts for the final two weeks of the campaign.
Lobbying and Ethics
AP: Court hears ex-lobbyist’s illegal fundraising case
A former Nevada lobbyist asked an appeals court Monday to toss out his conviction for illegal campaign fundraising for Sen. Harry Reid.A lawyer for F. Harvey Whittemore argued that $133,000 he transferred to family, friends and employees in 2007 that wound up in Reid’s campaign coffers were unconditional gifts with no strings attached.Prosecutor Elizabeth White countered that “what we have here are blatant, straightforward campaign contributions … it’s no coincidence that all of these people were financially dependent upon him.”
State and Local
Maryland –– The Gazette: Montgomery’s new public campaign financing bill explained
By Kate S. AlexanderMontgomery County became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to pass a local public campaign financing system Sept. 30. Here’s a breakdown of how the new system will work.
