In the News
Courthouse News Service: Voters Lose Protest of Campaign-Contribution Ceilings
By Daniel W. Staples
Upholding contribution ceilings in federal election law, the en banc D.C. Circuit rejected claims Tuesday from Florida voters who wanted to forgo campaign donations in the primary season to double up in the general election.
In 2014, the election year that prompted the underlying challenge, federal base limits prevented any individual from contributing more than $2,600 to a candidate in each election for which the candidate was competing.
Primary and general elections are considered separate elections, however, so the same donor could contribute $2,600 to the same candidate for each contest.
Laura Holmes and Paul Jost, a married couple living in Florida, challenged the scheme as an unconstitutional bifurcation of what they construed as an overall $5,200 cap…
Allen Dickerson, an attorney for Holmes and Jost with the Institute for Free Speech, called the ruling a disappointment and said they might appeal.
“The FEC has never shown that restricting campaign contributions on the basis of the time of year they are given prevents corruption,” said Dickerson, who is legal director of the institute. “Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals deferred to Congress, and left intact a situation that is illogical and unfair to both candidates and donors.”
JURIST: Federal appeals court rejects challenge to campaign finance law
By Jennifer Suder
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday rejected a challenge to a campaign finance law that set limits on federal donations to primary and general elections.
The law placed a per-election donation cap: $2,600 for primary elections and $2,600 for general elections.
A Florida couple, Laura Holmes and Paul Jost, brought an action against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2014, arguing that they should be able to donate $5,200 during the general election, rather than being forced to split the maximum donation between the primary and general elections. Further, they argued, if spending $5,200 over both elections does not raise undue prospect of corruption, then donating all of the money during the general election should similarly be permitted.
Supreme Court
Common Dreams: Future of Free Speech at Risk as Supreme Court Hears Critical Digital Privacy Case
By Julia Conley
The case, known as Carpenter vs. United States centers around Timothy Carpenter, who was convicted in 2011 of several robberies after the police, without a probable cause warrant, gathered data from his cell phone company…
In op-ed in The Guardian earlier this week, however, civil liberties attorneys Jameel Jaffer and Alexander Abdo argue that case is about much more than privacy rights alone.
The implications are far-reaching, argue Jaffer and Abdo, because citizens who know they are under constant watch by a powerful government will certainly alter their behavior.
The two attorneys represent a group of 19 techonologists who filed their own amicus brief regarding the case, arguing that “with very few data points, an analyst can learn whether a given person attended a public demonstration, attended a political meeting, or met with a particular activist or lawyer. With more data, an analyst can identify social networks and learn not only whether a given person was at a public demonstration but who else attended the demonstration with her.”
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also argued ahead of the case that journalists must be protected from warrantless seizure of cell phone records.
First Amendment
ACLU: Can a Government Official Block You on Twitter?
By Vera Eidelman
First, individuals do not lose their First Amendment rights just by virtue of gaining public office, no matter how powerful they are. Second, when they act on behalf of the government, elected officials are also subject to the limits that the First Amendment imposes on them as government actors.
To answer this conundrum, courts must begin by asking which role a public official embodies on a given social media account: that of a private speaker or a government actor. If the answer is “private speaker,” she can limit her audience and curate the messages on the page, just like any other member of the public. But if the answer is “government actor,” the First Amendment dictates that she can’t prohibit access to her social media in three specific circumstances.
First, once she intentionally opens up her social media for public conversation, she can’t stop people from joining in because of the views they express on the topics at hand. Second, if she generally allows individuals to ask for government services through her social media account, she can’t block critical voices from doing so. And, finally, if she uses her account to publicly share government information, she can’t prevent people from actually being able to see her posts because of their viewpoints.
The Courts
CT Post: Judge denies public campaign money for Ganim
By Ken Dixon
While his 2003 conviction for public corruption sent him to federal prison, U.S. District Court Judge Michael P. Shea’s quick ruling from the bench on Wednesday means Ganim’s long-shot run to possibly win the 2018 governor’s race – and the millions of dollars in campaign funds – just got tougher.
Sitting impassively behind his legal team, Ganim listened to Shea’s litany of reasons why he should not receive public financing that could total well over $7 million for the candidates who emerge from next year’s Democratic and Republican conventions, to qualify for the governor’s race…
Shea, reading from pages that he apparently wrote before listening to both sides re-enforce their written arguments, ruled in favor of the state’s 2013 prohibition on convicted felons from access to the Citizens Election Program (CEP). Ganim had asked that it be overturned as unconstitutional…
“I agree with the defendant (the State Elections Enforcement Commission) and I therefore, deny plaintiff’s (Gamin) request to a summary judgment,” Shea said. “The CEP itself imposes limits on participating candidates’ total expenditures, while non participating candidates, such as Mr. Ganim can spend unlimited amounts. As a non-participating candidate Mr. Ganim has more freedom to obtain contributions.”
The Media
Politico: N.Y. Times editorial board issues rare call to action to oppose GOP tax bill
By Cristiano Lima
The New York Times editorial board openly urged voters to contact their congressional representatives to express opposition to the Senate GOP tax reform bill on Wednesday, a rare move by one of the most prominent editorial boards in the country.
“This morning, The New York Times Editorial Board is tweeting here to urge the Senate to reject a tax bill that hurts the middle class & the nation’s fiscal health,” the board wrote on The New York Times opinion section’s official Twitter account.
The @nytopinion account’s Twitter bio was changed to say the editorial board was “temporarily taking over” the platform.
In a series of tweets, the account listed the phone numbers for the congressional offices of several key Republican senators in the ongoing debate over the GOP tax bill…
It was not immediately clear whether The New York Times editorial board, which is separate from the news division, has ever directly called on constituents to oppose a bill by listing the phone numbers for their representatives. But the move signaled a rare call to action by the group, which has grown increasingly antagonistic to Republican efforts on tax reform.
Hot Air: NYT Goes The Full Democrat In Anti-Tax Reform Campaign
By Ed Morrissey
Old and busted New York Times: Corporations using their influence in politics via Citizens United represents the end of democracy! New hotness: Feel the power of our fully operational corporate power! The Paper of Record’s editorial board decided to take over its opinion page Twitter account this morning to engage in some corporate political activism…
For those who wonder, the New York Times is owned by the New York Times Company, which trades on the New York Stock Exchange. It is every bit a for-profit corporate entity as those which the paper insists will undermine democracy if allowed to exercise First Amendment free speech rights. Five years ago, the same editorial board lambasted Justice Samuel Alito for defending Citizens United, noting that media corporations fill a different role which justified a carve-out in campaign finance regulations. Media corporations exist to inform people, not to pursue their own interests in information dissemination, they claimed…
And yet here we are today, with the editors blithely campaigning with their corporate resources. That’s actually fair play; if anything, it underscores the wisdom of Citizens United and the rejection of the BCRA’s speech restrictions. If Comcast can campaign about net neutrality, for instance, then the NYT can campaign on its hobby-horse agenda items, too. This action goes well beyond “informing the public” and into political activism, but then again, both are equally covered by the First Amendment, too.
The Federalist: The New York Times Finally Admits It’s Just A Democrat Super PAC
By David Harsanyi
Perhaps I’m forgetting instances of similar politicking, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a major newspaper engage in the kind of partisan activism The New York Times is involved in right now-not even on an editorial page. The Times’ editorial board isn’t saying, “Boy, that Republican bill is going to kill children,” it’s imploring people on social media – most of whom don’t even subscribe to their paper or live in Maine – to inundate a senator with calls to sink a tax reform they dislike…
Like many others, the Times’ board likely feels a moral obligation to act because they see everything Republicans engage in as an apocalyptic event. So, like political norms, journalistic ones fall every day on both sides.
What makes this kind of activism (which is likely to be ineffective, anyway) particularly hypocritical and distasteful, though, is that the Times has long argued in favor of empowering the government to shut down corporations – just like them – that engage in campaigning by overturning the First Amendment via Citizens United. This is worth remembering as the board turns into the equivalent of a super PAC.
The States
Santa Fe Reporter: Nearing Donor Darkness
By Matt Grubs
The city is faced with the potential of a court battle that city attorneys think they are likely to lose, and officials appear ready to back down. The City Council is set to vote next month on a bill that would completely eliminate the requirement for “independent expenditure groups” to report on contributions that pay for ballot measure advocacy…
Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez sticks to his guns in a phone call with SFR. He says the CLC and Common Cause are picking the very best cases for their side. He doesn’t begrudge them that-he expects it from advocates, he says-but “they’ve kind of glossed over the adverse authority out there.”
The Tenth Circuit Appellate Court has ruled that a $3,500 threshold for disclosure is too burdensome for such groups. Anything above that doesn’t mean zero chance of a court challenge, he points out. In fact, the only thing that guarantees no challenge is the bill that’s going in front of the council that completely strikes the requirement. Then, the city can go back to the drawing board and see if any pending federal cases set an acceptable threshold.
Martinez says it’s a strategy advocates should understand.
“I wonder why Common Cause … didn’t talk about the fact that they supported these kinds of arguments in Colorado, but lost the appeal there,” he says.
Arizona Daily Sun: Ducey opposes initiative that would bar dark money from funding political campaigns
By Howard Fischer
Gov. Doug Ducey signaled his opposition to a new initiative to forbid anonymous funding of political campaigns, saying it would interfere with the ability of people to participate in campaigns without fear…
“I think people have a First Amendment right as well to participate and not be bullied,” he said…
The initiative, formally launched Wednesday, would add what amounts to a “right to know” provision in the Arizona Constitution.
It would require public disclosure of all “original sources” of money. It is specifically aimed at those who provide more than $10,000 in any two-year election cycle.
It also is designed to address “chain” donations, where a person gives money to an organization which then funnels it to yet another group that ends up buying the attack ads. The measure says the group making the expenditure has the responsibility of finding that original source.
The campaign is being spearheaded by former Attorney General Terry Goddard. He has until July 5 to get at least 225,963 valid signatures on petitions to put the issue on the 2018 ballot.
NJ.com: N.J. governor’s race spending topped $79M. Here’s how much came from your pocket.
By Samantha Marcus
Spending on the 2017 gubernatorial primary and general election topped $79 million, ranking it the second most expensive race in New Jersey history, according to the nonpartisan Election Law Enforcement Commission.
About a quarter of that came from the pockets of Jersey taxpayers…
New Jersey’s public financing program allows candidates to receive $2 in public funds for every $1 they raise, up to $9.3 million, but it limits their spending in the six months leading up to November’s general election at $13.8 million…
Overall, candidates tapped $19.7 million in public funds throughout the primary and general elections, according to ELEC.
KJZZ Phoenix: Tempe Proposes Anti-‘Dark Money’ Election Spending Law
By Mariana Dale
Tempe will send a city charter amendment to voters that would strip anonymity from so-called “dark money” in city elections and Thursday City Council will vote on language that would allow the ordinance to be enforced.
The proposal would require groups making independent expenditures of more than $1,000 to reveal the funding source…
Tempe has passed several other election spending laws in recent years. The city caps individual donations at $500 and requires lobbyists to register with the city and report their expenditures…
A Tempe proposal to match campaign contributions with city money, known as Clean Elections, failed to gain traction in 2015.
The new ordinance called “Keep Dark Money Out of Local Tempe Elections” will be on the ballot in March.
U.S. News & World Report: Republican Party of Florida Avoids Hefty Elections Fine
By Associated Press
Florida’s elections commission is waiving a hefty $110,000 fine that had been placed on the Republican Party of Florida.
State officials in October levied the fine after the party turned in a campaign finance report dealing with a South Florida House race 11 days late.
Party officials called it an “oversight” but appealed the decision. An attorney for the party told the Florida Elections Commission on Tuesday that state officials waited days before officially notifying the party that the report was late.
Commissioners voted to waive the entire fine. They noted that the report only covered a handful of transactions that had been reported by a candidate.
