CCP
Blatant Partisanship and Outright Misinformation: Public Citizen’s Press Conference
By Joe Trotter
We were told by members of the panel that when it came to political spending, “All you need to know from this is that politics are risky” for shareholders, and “If [the SEC] decides not to enact the rule because of effects on politics, that would be an inappropriate political consideration.” Of course, the risk they were referring to is the ginned up smear campaigns by anti-corporate speech activists against companies whose money ultimately wound up being used by independent groups to support candidates these activists don’t like. The panel conveniently forgot to mention that, historically, not only were their peers responsible for these smear campaigns, but that they also didn’t have any sort of significant impact on shareholder value. The “effect on politics” that we’re all supposed to be blind to is that this proposed regulation, which is designed to discourage businesses from engaging in First Amendment-protected activities, has no effect on unions. It’s a shame to see self-described “good government” advocates sully their name by injecting political favoritism into a debate about protections that should apply to everyone. Truly non-partisan public interest groups should know that politics has no place in debate; this is a discussion about civil rights applying equally to all associations and individuals. Read more…
In the News
Albany Times-Union (LTE): Give citizens more chance to speak
By Luke Wachob
Also the Times Union’s characterization of McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission in which you say that it seeks to strike “down campaign donation limits” could be misunderstood. In fact, Mr. McCutcheon is not challenging the current limit of $2,600 per candidate. He is challenging the number of candidates he is allowed to support at the maximum. The editorial decries that “our politics are increasingly overwhelmed by a relatively few loud voices that can afford to drown out ordinary citizens,” but fails to recognize that the corporate-owned Times Union is one of those loud voices. Citizens United and McCutcheon create more opportunities for speech from citizens who don’t own media corporations. Read more…
Daily Orange: Former dean helps repeal ordinance preventing political free speech
By CHARLIE MASTOLONI
The town didn’t respond to it, Rubin said. So in August, he and the center filed a suit in federal court and asked it to issue an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced, he said. He said the lawsuit got the town board’s attention, as “they knew they would lose in court.” In September, the town board called a meeting to discuss the ordinance and voted to repeal it. Rubin and the center then dropped the lawsuit, and town officials said they have no plans to consider any new ordinance until 2014 at the earliest, according to an Oct. 23 Newhouse news release. Read more…
Washington Post: Republicans target minor parties after election losses
By Reid Wilson
“The best way to analyze laws of this nature, and any campaign finance restrictions, they generally come from whichever side thinks they have the most to gain,” said David Keating, of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group that advocates against restrictions on money in politics. “A lot of the laws that we see pass in the states are reactions to political environments.” Read more…
Acton Institute: Religious Left’s Mendacious, Deceptive, Astro-Turfing Kabuki Dance at the SEC
By Bruce Walker
Ms. Berry was joined by a host of other liberal/progressive representatives working hard to undermine First Amendment rights bolstered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United. Berry and her cohorts – Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); Professor Robert Jackson, Columbia Law School; Professor John Coates, Harvard Law School; Pat Doherty, Office of the New York State Comptroller; Heidi Welsh, Sustainable Investments Institute – argued that 600,000 letters were submitted to the SEC backing up their demands for more corporate disclosure. As noted by the Center for Competitive Politics, a non-profit, tax-exempt organization in Alexandria, Va., that works to protect free speech, this assertion – and the underlying premises that are employed to defend – are completely false… Read more…
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Forbes: Will The U.S. Supreme Court Defend Free Speech For The Little Guy?
By Paul Sherman
Most campaign-finance cases that make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court involve big money. Citizens United v. FEC concerned the right of a well-funded nonprofit—and, ultimately, all corporations and unions—to spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy. McCutcheon v. FEC, which the Court heard earlier this month, concerns the right of wealthy individuals to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions. Proponents of strict campaign-finance laws point to these facts as evidence that the benefits of robust protection for free speech in elections redound primarily to the wealthy. But this Friday, November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private conference to decide whether to grant review in a case that challenges that assumption, and demonstrates the severe burden that campaign-finance laws impose on ordinary, grassroots groups of Americans. Read more…
Washington Post: The judiciary and free speech
By George Will
Brick by brick, judges are dismantling the wall of separation that legislators have built between political activity and the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and association. The latest examples, from Mississippi and Arizona, reflect the judiciary’s proper engagement in defending citizens from the regulation of political speech, a.k.a. “campaign finance reform.” In 2011, a few like-minded friends and neighbors in Oxford, Miss., who had been meeting for a few years to discuss politics, decided to work together to support passage of an initiative amending Mississippi’s Constitution. The amendment, restricting the power of the state and local governments to take private property by eminent domain, was provoked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo ruling that governments could, without violating the Fifth Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”), take property for the “public use” of transferring it to persons who would pay more taxes to the government. Read more…
State and Local
Florida –– CBS: New Campaign Finance Laws Take Effect Friday
Some of the biggest changes in a sweeping campaign-finance bill, approved last spring by the Legislature, take effect on Friday. That includes a boost in contribution limits to candidates. Statewide candidates and retention campaigns for Supreme Court justices will be able to accept $3,000 from each contributor for each election, while legislative candidates and other campaigns can take up to $1,000. The previous limit for both was $500. Read more…
Nevada –– AP: Sandoval pulls plug on perks for campaign donations
By Sandra Chereb
Launched earlier this month and first reported by the AP, the Nevada Strong recurring donor program offered various levels of access and face time with the governor depending on monthly contributions. The campaign said the strategy was intended to entice small donors to be active in the political process. “When you ask for money so much, you have to kind of come up with new ways to get people involved,” Hughes said when questioned about a campaign email that referenced “exclusive benefits” for members. He said it was no different than charging people to attend a campaign fundraiser. Read more…
New York –– NY Daily News: NYC Campaign Finance Board Green-Lights $1.47M To Mayoral Candidates In Home Stretch
By CELESTE KATZ
The city Campaign Finance Board released nearly $1.5 million in public funds to mayoral rivals Bill de Blasio and Joe Lhota Thursday, giving them an extra infusion of cash in the final days of their bitter contest. Read more…
New York –– NY Daily News: Queens Council Candidate Fuming About Campaign Finance Board’s Flag-Pin Photo Ban
By CELESTE KATZ
The Queens City Council hopeful is an Air Force vet, a retired NYPD captain, and — thanks to the city Campaign Finance Board’s rulebook — pictured without his American flag lapel pin in his official candidate photo. “This is the United States of America, not some banana republic. What’s the problem with wearing the flag?” fumed Concannon, who’s running against incumbent Democrat Mark Weprin as a Reform Party candidate. Read more…
