In the News
Washington Examiner: Kill the ‘money buys elections’ cliche
By Bradley Smith
Consider that Hillary Clinton’s campaign outspent Trump by more than two-to-one. Pro-Clinton ads outnumbered pro-Trump ads by three-to-one. Independent groups (the “super PACs”) supporting Clinton outspent independent groups supporting Trump by three-to-one. The average contribution to Trump was smaller than the average contribution to Clinton. And on and on it goes.
We’re told by campaign finance “reformers” that we must restrict spending in politics so that “people” can have their voices heard. But voters in 2016 ultimately chose the candidate without even a “real” super PAC to speak of.
This tells us two things: First, that money is simply the facilitator by which candidates speak to voters, but that voters will make up their own minds. Second, it shows us that money simply can’t make up for a message that people aren’t interested in. After his defeat, the man in charge of Jeb Bush’s $100 million super PAC remarked of the voters: “They just weren’t buying what we were selling.”
Let’s hope the same goes for tired tropes on money in politics.
CCP
Trump Supporters (and Most Americans) Couldn’t Care Less About His “Self-Funding” Flip Flop
By Joe Albanese
Such staunch support for Trump when confronted with a significant policy reversal indicates a simple truth about campaign finance issues in elections: although voters claim that they care about who donates to whom, their support is primarily determined by other factors. When faced with evidence that their preferred candidate does not meet their expectations, they simply shift their attention to what the other side is doing.
Much like President Obama’s 2012 assertion that he needed to embrace big money politics as necessary for effectively getting his message out, voters always assume the best intentions of their own side and the worst intentions of their opponents. Indeed, partisan identification is a persistent factor in voter attitudes.
Given the apparent comfort of Trump’s base with a campaign fueled by traditional fundraising – so long as the right people are doing it – it appears that Trump’s victory is not a sign that money in politics has become a top issue with voters.
Instead, his reversal on self-funding seems to be a triumph for the notion that, absent endless free media coverage, money is still a crucial means of sharing ideas and engaging with voters. Most importantly, the results of the 2016 election showed that votes cast matter more than money spent, and that the two do not always match.
Free Speech
New Hampshire Union Leader: Our first responsibility: Free speech always needs defending
By Editorial Board
After nearly eight years with an administration that lied to the press and the public, doctored news conference transcripts, used the IRS to harass conservative organizations, and repeatedly pushed to eliminate First Amendment protections for corporations, liberal media organizations have rediscovered a commitment to free speech…
Trump is not the first or last politician to run against the press. Trump owes his election to the wall-to-wall campaign coverage, yet he encouraged his rally audiences to ridicule the traveling press corps. Some did so in obscene and threatening ways. Trump has said he would “open up libel laws,” which are fortunately controlled by states, and not the President.
We will fight for free speech under the Trump administration, just as we have for years. Our responsibility to promote transparency and accountability in government doesn’t wax and wane with partisan control of the White House.
The Federalist: Mainstream Journalists Don’t Care About Free Speech Until Donald Trump Attacks It
By John Daniel Davidson
Obama and the Democrats love to denounce Citizens United for allowing “dark money” to influence our elections, but recall that the case itself concerned a nonprofit that produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2008 Democratic primary. Democrats think the federal government should be able to muzzle such a group, according to which logic there would be no reason the government couldn’t also muzzle The New York Times, CNN, or HarperCollins-or any corporation engaged in “political speech.”…
We should of course be vigilant during Trump’s tenure in office, and criticize any efforts to silence the press, deny access, or otherwise trample on the First Amendment. Given his past statements and touchy temperament, there’s reason to believe Trump might indeed be hostile to critical news coverage.
But let’s not pretend we haven’t been living through a period of hostility to free speech. If the media are worried about that now, it’s only because it will be more difficult under the Trump administration to manipulate and control the narrative-a professional perk to which the Washington press corps has become all too accustomed.
Wall Street Journal: Social-Media Companies Forced to Confront Misinformation and Harassment
By Deepa Seetharaman, Jack Nicas, and Nathan Olivarez-Giles
Ongoing complaints about misinformation and hate speech on the internet are forcing social-media companies to confront whether they need to take more responsibility for the content on their sites.
Twitter Inc. on Tuesday said it would let users block notifications of tweets that include specific words, among other moves, in an effort to combat harassment on the short-messaging service.
On Monday, Facebook Inc. said it would bar websites that post fabricated or misleading news articles from using its ad-selling tools. But it is unclear how Facebook will identify those sites, and they might still appear in the more-heavily-trafficked news feed, a source of news for 44% of Americans, according to Pew Research.
Both the Twitter and Facebook moves may fail to address many users’ concerns. They show technology companies that have grown into powerful media voices struggling to find a balance between being havens for misinformation and censors of free speech.
SEC
The Hill: SEC should stay out of corporate political disclosure business
By Zachary Parks
After Trump vs. Clinton, conflicts over the inside baseball issue of whether corporations should disclose information about their political spending may seem trivial. But the issue could become a stubborn and unnecessary sticking point in efforts to avert a government shutdown when Congress reconvenes later this month…
Even if a corporate political disclosure rule was prudent, the SEC has no business regulating in this area when other regulators exist. Congress has already imposed its own corporate political disclosure rules on businesses and those rules are enforced by the Federal Election Commission. If, for example, a corporation spends its own money advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate, FEC regulations require the company to file a report with the FEC. To the extent that activists want corporations to disclose more information about their political activities, it should be Congress that makes that decision and the FEC that writes those rules. By leaving the politics to Congress and the FEC, the SEC can keep its focus on its core mission of protecting investors and maintaining fair markets.
Citizens United
Federalist Society: The Resurgence of Campaign Finance Regulation, Trumped?
By Steve Klein
Well, as of Tuesday, making Citizens United into toast will have to wait. That is, it is likely that the reverse-Citizens-United part of the campaign finance regulatory movement is now stalled indefinitely.
Donald Trump utilized strong rhetoric throughout his campaign, some of it echoing the anti-corruption hyperbole wielded by those opposed to Citizens United, but he has not aligned himself with stalwarts of increased campaign finance regulation. Though it is possible Trump may be amenable to so-called reform, many factors point against this. On Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees, those who have ruled in campaign finance cases have shown fidelity to the same free speech principles affirmed in Citizens United…
For the moment, there is every indication that the censorship overturned in Citizens United will not be returning in the next four years, or perhaps much longer given the makeup of the Supreme Court in the coming decades. This is not the end of campaign finance regulation, but it will keep political speech and “the right to do politics” on a rightful perch above Congress and administrative whims.
Independent Groups
Politico: Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, ‘take back power’
By Kenneth P. Vogel
The DA, its donors and beneficiary groups over the last decade have had a major hand in shaping the institutions of the left, including by orienting some of its key organizations around Clinton, and by basing their strategy around the idea that minorities and women constituted a so-called “rising American electorate” that could tip elections to Democrats.
That didn’t happen in the presidential election, where Trump won largely on the strength of his support from working-class whites. Additionally, exit polls suggested that issues like fighting climate change and the role of money in politics – which the DA’s beneficiary groups have used to try to turn out voters – didn’t resonate as much with the voters who carried Trump to victory.
“The DA itself should be called into question,” said one Democratic strategist who has been active in the group and is attending the meeting. “You can make a very good case it’s nothing more than a social club for a handful wealthy white donors and labor union officials to drink wine and read memos, as the Democratic Party burns down around them.”
Supreme Court
Toledo Blade: Finance law limits speech
By Editorial Board
Those who doubt that campaign-finance reform laws actually regulate speech, not just money, should look at one case on its way to the Supreme Court. In Republican Party of Louisiana vs. Federal Election Commission, the state GOP actually has the money it wants to spend – and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law says it can’t spend it on the speech it wants to spend it on.
The case focuses on section 323(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. That section restricts how state and local parties spend “nonfederal” or “soft” money, that is, money raised outside the federal limits on who can donate and how much. It forbids them to spend that money on “federal election activity.”
The Louisiana GOP has that sort of money, and it’s suing for the right to spend it on that kind of activity – for example, speaking in favor of Republican candidates for Louisiana’s seats in Congress.
New York Times: Trump’s Supreme Court List: Ivy League? Out. The Heartland? In.
By Adam Liptak
Mr. Trump’s seemingly set-in-stone list has important clues about the president-elect’s judicial priorities, and it has a few surprises. The list manages both to reassure the conservative legal establishment and to represent a rebellion against it.
In important ways, Mr. Trump’s candidates represent a sharp break from the current conservative justices, who all went to law school at Harvard or Yale and who all served on federal appeals courts in the Northeast or in California.
If the list has a main theme, it is that there are plenty of good judges who went to law school at places like Notre Dame, Marquette, the University of Georgia and the University of Miami…
The résumés of the current justices, by contrast, reflect a legal profession that is deeply hierarchical, obsessed with credentials and dominated by lawyers on the two coasts. Mr. Trump’s list, like his campaign, is a revolt against the elites.
Political Parties
Vox: How Democrats lost the high ground on money in politics
By Jeff Stein
It’s easy for left-wing critics to be cynical and dismissive of Democrats’ decision to make peace with big-money donors.
But it’s worth remembering that many of the Democrats who bent to the new rules of campaign spending did so because they genuinely thought it was the best thing for the country. Democrats on the Hill I’ve spoken to expressed real terror that if they ceased doing the very fundraising they themselves condemned, the party, and the country, would face the worse outcome of Republicans spending their way to a sweep of government.
But even if they hated it, the Democrats made peace with big money’s role in politics. And that, in turn, weakened their credibility to stand against it…
Clinton outraised Trump by an impressive margin, and was even able to spare money for cash-strapped down-ballot Democrats. Her party picked up two Senate seats and a handful of House seats, and won the popular vote. But they lost the brand as the party of clean government, and lost just enough Obama voters in the Upper Midwest to lose the presidency.
Trump Administration
Roll Call: Campaign Finance Laws Poised for Rollback Under Trump
By Kate Ackley
As a candidate, President-elect Donald Trump railed against the political money system, saying it offers big donors outsized clout. But the changes he is likely to enable would roll back campaign finance regulations, allowing contributors to give even more.
The Republican’s victory in the presidential contest has given new hope to opponents of current donation limits and other restrictions, while it has jolted fear into those who want to overhaul political money laws to put ordinary Americans on more equal footing with megadonors.
“You can expect the Republicans to be very aggressive in lifting a lot of the regulations that are currently not only on political parties but on the system generally,” said James Bopp Jr., an attorney who supports campaign finance deregulation. “Everybody agrees the system is dysfunctional, but that is caused by the legal restrictions.”
Washington Examiner: Sanders to call on Trump to ‘drain the swamp’
By Anna Giaritelli
Two U.S. senators who did not support President-elect Trump during the election plan to hijack the Republican leader’s “Drain the Swamp” motto on Tuesday in a call to keep lobbyists out of the GOP-run White House.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI., will tag-team a “Drain the Swamp” media call Tuesday afternoon urging the incoming president “to keep his promises to reduce the influence of lobbyists and corporate special interests in his administration,” according to a media advisory issued late Monday…
The senators will demand Trump “at the very least” implement the type of ethics rules President Obama enacted during his 2008 transition and throughout his administration.
