In the News
Bloomberg BNA: Court Challenge Seeks to Outlaw Super PACs
By Kenneth P. Doyle
A court challenge arguing that super political action committees are illegally allowing unlimited contributions to influence federal elections could provide a vehicle for the courts to roll back recent rulings that have largely deregulated campaign financing, proponents said (Lieu v. FEC, D.D.C., No. 16-cv-2201, filed 11/4/16)…
David Keating is president of the nonproft Center for Competitive Politics and was the lead plaintiff in the SpeechNow.org case in 2010. He said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA that the new lawsuit challenging the D.C. Circuit ruling “proposes a ridiculous theory and is a publicity stunt.”
Even worse, he said, the lawsuit was “filed by congressmen who want to silence those who disagree with them.”
The plaintiffs admit in the complaint that they fear they “will be open to attack” from super PAC spending, Keating said. “It shows the real motivation of those behind the case, they want government to control speech.”
Real Clear Policy: The Government May Be Allowed to Ban Books and Movies
By Bradley A. Smith and John R. Lott, Jr.
It’s well known that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission concerns the role of money in politics, but it’s less often remarked that the decision centered around a 2008 film called “Hillary: The Movie,” a documentary critical of Mrs. Clinton. Arguing against Citizens United, a conservative non-profit, the Federal Election Commission made the case that because a film, such as “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced or distributed by a corporation (as are all commercial documentaries), it could be prohibited by the government. At oral argument, they went so far as to argue that such a ban could extend to books, pamphlets, and Internet sites produced or distributed by corporations. Fortunately, the Supreme Court said no. Unfortunately, four justices dissented from that common sense First Amendment ruling.
With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, however, the court is now split 4-4 on this issue. If given the chance, the four liberal justices would likely vote to overturn the decision…
Consequently, the next president will be in a position to determine whether this ruling gets reversed.
Capital Press Washington: $18M Washington campaign fine against foodmakers a record
By Don Jenkins
A Washington judge’s $18 million penalty against the Grocery Manufacturers Association apparently far exceeds any fine ever issued in the U.S. for running afoul of campaign disclosure laws.
The judgment, likely to be appealed, is less than half the amount sought by Attorney General Bob Ferguson. But it towers above the record $3.8 million settlement in a case involving the Federal Elections Commission or the $1 million involving the California Fair Political Practices Commission. No previous Washington case had topped six figures.
California and Washington are the states most likely to impose large campaign fines based on their laws and enforcement history, said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., that opposes what it considers overly burdensome disclosure requirements.
“I don’t recall anything in that range,” he said. “It seems disproportionate.”
Independent Groups
Huffington Post: Political Ads May Be Annoying, But There’s A Reason They’re Everywhere: They Work
By Amanda Terkel
Political ads are a necessary evil these days. It’s hard to turn on the TV and not see a spot telling you about how a congressman has taken shady donations or why it’s important to get out and vote. And most voters say they wish they would stop.
But campaigns are going to keep airing them – at least until the election is over – for a very simple reason: The ads work.
House Majority PAC, a Democratic group, is spending big this election season, already putting in close to $40 million. And the central part of its strategy is TV advertising. It’s aired TV ads in 35 congressional districts this cycle.
CRP: PACs pop up just in time to avoid reporting donors
By Ashley Balcerzak
For those trying to secretly influence the election as the clock winds down, Oct. 20 was an important milestone.
If a super PAC waited until then to register, it doesn’t need to file any information about its donors with the FEC until 30 days after the election. Pretty smooth, eh?
“The problem with these last-minute pop-up super PACs is that they could allow one individual, corporation or union to enter the campaign at the last minute with an overwhelming amount of money that could change the outcome of an individual race,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance attorney and partner at Akerman LLP, “and the public would have no idea who was funding the effort when they go into the voting booth.”
About 28 such committees have cropped up so far since Oct. 20.
Political Parties
Washington Post: Panel upholds ‘soft-money’ ban but sends GOP campaign finance challenge to Supreme Court
By Spencer S. Hsu
A three-judge federal panel Monday dismissed a renewed Republican challenge to the “soft-money” ban on unlimited donations to political parties from wealthy individuals, corporations and advocacy groups like unions in a decision that returns the fight over a landmark campaign finance law to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The panel in Washington ruled in a 2015 lawsuit by the Republican Party of Louisiana and two parish GOP affiliates that sought to overturn the last major remaining provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold after its chief Senate sponsors…
James Bopp, Jr., the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs who sued the Federal Election Commision, said Monday that “we just believe they’re wrong, and we’re certainly appealing to the Supreme Court.”
Donors
Wall Street Journal: Wealthy Donors Played Outsize Role This Election
By Rebecca Ballhaus
Some 60 billionaires and millionaires accounted for $213 million, or 57% of the $370 million super PACs backing the presidential candidates spent through mid-October, according to an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute of recent Federal Election Commission filings.
Roughly 85% of that cash went to support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, an advantage that countered the conventional wisdom of six years ago that Supreme Court rulings, including in the Citizens United case, would give Republicans a financial advantage…
Yet an election that began with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush declaring he had raised $100 million for a super PAC-much it before he even began his campaign-has actually seen spending decline compared with previous presidential elections.
Wisconsin John Doe
Wisconsin Watchdog: Rep. Dave Craig: Time has come to investigate John Doe investigators
By M.D. Kittle
While Wisconsin’s infamous John Doe investigation may be legally dead, state Rep. Dave Craig says many unanswered questions remain.
The Town of Vernon Republican again is calling for a special legislative investigation into the politically driven probe and into the leak of court-sealed document to a left-wing publication.
“I am glad to see that the Attorney General has requested a ‘special master’ in the John Doe II case. Given the serious accusations of private citizens’ lives being upended by government agents, I think it is imperative that the Supreme Court act on this request,” Craig said in a statement.
“Further, I am again calling on legislative leadership to ensure that the legislature conduct its own investigation into the leak and other potential improper actions by government agents over the course of the investigation,” Craig added.
Candidates and Campaigns
Wall Street Journal: $100 Million? How Trump’s Self-Funding Pledges Panned Out
By Rebecca Ballhaus
Over the course of the 2016 campaign, Republican presidential nominee and celebrity billionaire Donald Trump has boasted about the extent to which he has funded his campaign. We evaluated those statements to determine which pledges he fulfilled, and which he didn’t…
Mr. Trump over the course of the campaign has frequently criticized his rivals for being beholden to special interests and corporations. Yet super PACs backing Mr. Trump have raised $33 million just from donors who wrote checks of $1 million or more, including four billionaires…
One area where Mr. Trump’s rhetoric has held up: Not a single federally registered lobbyist has raised a substantial amount for his campaign, while lobbyists have raised millions for Mrs. Clinton. Candidates are required to disclose when registered lobbyists raise more than $17,600 for their campaigns.
CNBC: Here’s what Clinton, Trump spent to turn out votes
By John W. Schoen
Two expense categories, rent and payroll, though, offer a glimpse into the extent of the campaigns’ field operations because those are typically paid to landlords and staffers in those states.
Both candidates spent most heavily in New York state, where they maintain national headquarters. But their spending patterns varied in the battleground states that offer the tightest races as they approach Tuesday’s finish line.
Trump has outspent Clinton in states where he is polling well, including states like Texas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. But he’s also spent more than Clinton on rent and payroll in states considered “safe” for Clinton, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Clinton has also spent more heavily in traditionally blue states like California, Washington and Connecticut. Her rent and payroll spending, though, has also been bigger than Trump’s in several key battleground states like Florida and Pennsylvania. But Trump has spent more on those expenses in Ohio, considered a must-win for his presidential bid.
The States
Reuters: Commentary: These ballot initiatives could help fix our broken election system
By Trevor Potter
Democracy reformers are taking steps to adopt new policies and proposals that would counter the corrupting power of money in state and local governments.
Two states stand out: Washington and South Dakota. Both have ballot initiatives that could serve as a model for national reform.
The states seek the same thing: to have Americans feel their elected representatives are attentive to their views and are acting for the common good. That is the goal of any real democracy…
South Dakota’s initiative, for example, would create a new government body, the South Dakota Ethics Commission. Washington State’s increases the enforcement capabilities of its existing Public Disclosure Commission.
In addition, both states’ initiatives put power in the hands of voters with new citizen-funding programs. While differing slightly in implementation, each initiative would create a “democracy credit program” that would give each registered voter a $50 “credit” to assign to state candidates of their choosing.
Huffington Post: The Election Day Votes That Could Break Big Money’s Grip
By Josh Silver
For those 70 percent of voters frustrated with the 2016 election, another Clinton presidency is another reminder that our political system is built to preserve the status quo.
But in 16 states, counties, and cities across America, citizens are bypassing politicians to put ballot initiatives in front of voters on Tuesday that would fix our broken elections and stop special interests from continuing to dominate our political system…
Opposition to democracy reform comes from establishment players on both the right and the left, and from both major parties. This issue not about liberals versus conservative. It is about those who have power versus those who don’t.
Danbury News Times: Connecticut Democrats hope to rein in outside campaign cash
By Julie Williams
The two likely, incoming Democratic leaders of the Connecticut House of Representatives say they’ll offer legislation next session that will attempt to reduce the amount of outside money spent on state elections.
House Majority Leader Joe Aresimowicz, the anticipated new House Speaker, and Rep. Matthew Ritter, the anticipated majority leader, said Thursday that voters don’t know who is paying for ads that attempt to influence state races.
While Connecticut has a strict public campaign financing system in place, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling has allowed outside groups to spend unlimited sums on campaign advertising independent of the candidate.
Oregon Public Broadcasting: Portland City Council Could Vote In December On Public Financing For Candidates
By Amelia Templeton
The bill was introduced by Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who won office in 2008 using the city’s previous publicly funded election system. Voters ended that program in 2010.
“This issue really, really matters to me,” Fritz said. “The most difficult challenge facing our country today is lack in trust in government.”
Fritz’s proposal, modeled after New York’s publicly funded elections, hinges on what’s known as a small donor multiple match, a system designed to make candidates who successfully raise many small donations more financially competitive. It’s a substantially different model from Portland’s previous attempt at city-funded elections.
Candidates could choose to opt in, and would have to agree to contribution limits and meet requirements to show they were viable.
Alaska Dispatch News: Federal judge rejects lawsuit challenging Alaska’s limits on campaign donations
By Nathaniel Herz
A federal judge Monday upheld Alaska’s strict limits on several types of state-level campaign contributions, ruling that they don’t violate the free speech or equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution…
The decision, from U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess, an appointee of George W. Bush, came a day before high-stakes legislative elections that may change control of the state House or Senate.
Burgess, in his decision issued late Monday, wrote that he was initially skeptical that the state would be able to defend the campaign donation limits as written, including a $500-per-person annual limit on contributions to candidates and restrictions on out-of-state contributions.
But, he said, the state ended up providing enough evidence to justify the limits.
“Accordingly, the challenged provisions of Alaska’s campaign finance laws are upheld as constitutional,” Burgess wrote.
