In the News

Washington Post: What Hamilton teaches us about the importance of anonymous speech

By Bradley Smith

Anonymous speech was a frequent feature of Hamilton’s life – and of the American founding overall. Arguably the single most influential piece leading to American independence was signed simply “Common Sense,” Thomas Paine’s pen name. Just over a decade later, Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay co-wrote the Federalist Papers as “Publius.”…

The bottom line is that it is highly probable that the United States would not even exist without anonymous speech. Sadly, we have forgotten this lesson somewhere in the intervening years. Today, anonymous speech is too often demonized, derided as “dark,” or otherwise dismissed for its lack of “transparency.”

Although there are many examples, the brunt of these attacks centers on the anonymous speech used by nonprofit organizations on both the right and the left. These groups reach out to the public with messages on a wide number of issues, and they can be supported by individuals, corporations, unions and more. The nationwide campaign against anonymous speech is, by and large, a campaign to force these supporters’ identities into the open. 

Independent Groups

Huffington Post: Labor Unions Spent A Record Amount On The Elections. But Not As Much As These 5 People.

By Dave Jamieson and Paul Blumenthal

Overall, labor unions have donated more than $132 million to super PACs and spent an additional $35 million on federal elections.

There’s just one catch. Although they represent millions of dues-paying members, the most powerful unions are nonetheless being outspent by the country’s richest individuals, from both sides of the aisle.

The top five donors to super PACs in the 2016 election are all billionaires or, at least, worth nine figures…

Citizens United and other court cases have opened the door to unlimited spending by businesses and unions through super PACs, ushering in a golden age of money in politics. But even though unions can now pour unprecedented cash into candidates and causes, they have portrayed themselves as reluctant players in the post-Citizens United world.

And indeed they should be, judging from how they stack up with the richest individual donors.

Candidates and Campaigns

CPI: Donald Trump dismantles Hillary Clinton’s big money machine

By Carrie Levine, Michael Beckel, Dave Levinthal

In the end, Donald Trump defeated big money.

The Republican’s presidential campaign raised less than half of what Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton did. He ran a fraction of the TV ads, even in decisive battleground states. And although prominent Republican donors came to Trump’s aid during the campaign’s final days, his supportive super PACs and other political groups raised relatively paltry sums when compared to Clinton’s groups…

Voters and campaign finance reform advocates will be looking to see how Trump acts to reduce the influence of money in politics that he decried throughout the campaign.

“To the extent that Mr. Trump, while campaigning, has criticized the current campaign finance system, his only solution offered seems to be more candidates like him who are billionaires and can self finance and that’s not a solution,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president for policy and litigation at nonpartisan group Common Cause, and a longtime advocate for campaign finance reform.

Washington Post: How the stampede for big money enabled Donald Trump’s rise

By Matea Gold

In any other year, a robust war chest would have been seen as a sign of a candidate’s strength. But Trump on the right and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) on the left quickly turned their rivals’ financial assets against them, tapping into a restive electorate disgusted with the powerful elite.

Trump made his independence from wealthy donors a centerpiece of his bid, deriding his opponents as “puppets” of patrons such as industrialist Charles Koch and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson…

Trump had the luxury to exploit his rivals’ dependence on big donors. The billionaire developer was sustained by not only his personal financial resources but also the many hours of free media airtime his provocative candidacy commanded.

“This cycle was a good illustration that money is one tool that impacts public opinion, but the media have a larger megaphone than any campaign is able to buy – and candidates and the dynamics of the field matter,” said Charlie Spies, a Republican campaign finance lawyer who served as counsel for Bush’s super PAC.

Reuters: At under $5 each, Trump’s votes came cheap

By Ginger Gibson and Grant Smith

Donald Trump pulled off one of the biggest upsets in American political history when he toppled Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election on Tuesday – and he did it using far less cash than his rival.

Relying heavily on an unorthodox mix of social media, unfiltered rhetoric, and a knack for winning free TV time, the New York real estate magnate likely paid less than $5 per vote during his insurgent White House bid, about half what Clinton paid, according to a Reuters analysis of campaign finance records and voting data. Those figures assume the candidates spent all the funds they raised.

Trump’s cost-effective win has upended prevailing concepts about the influence of money in American politics and raised the question of whether a lean, media-savvy campaign can become the new model for winning office in the United States.

Schenectady Daily Gazette: Faso bests Teachout in 19th Congressional race

By Daniel Fitzsimmons

Veteran Republican John Faso beat law professor and Democrat Zephyr Teachout for the 19th Congressional District seat, capping a close race with national implications that attracted a significant amount of outside money…

Teachout said in a statement Tuesday night that she’s “incredibly proud” of her campaign and touted the $19 average donation that she credits with fueling it.

“It’s because of the parents, teachers, veterans, farmers and small business owners in the 19th Congressional District that this race was as close as it is,” she said in her statement. “We showed them that we the people will not be dictated to, and our fight continues.”

She indicated that she’ll continue to work to overturn Citizens United and stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Politico: Johnson upsets Feingold to keep Wisconsin Senate seat

By Theodoric Meyer

Feingold, a progressive stalwart, held the seat for three terms before losing to Johnson in the Republican wave of 2010 and was considered the favorite in the rematch almost since the day he entered the race. He raised more than $21 million – more money than any other Senate candidate this cycle – and led every public poll for nearly a year, sometimes by double digits…

The Johnson campaign also worked to dent Feingold’s appeal by driving home the message that his years in Washington had changed him, going after him again and again for breaking the pledge that he wrote on his garage door during his first campaign in 1992, pledging to raise most of his money from Wisconsin donors. Johnson also lambasted Feingold over a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story that found a PAC that Feingold started after leaving office had spent most of its money on fundraising and payments to Feingold and his former staffers.

But Johnson said he didn’t intentionally change his strategy. It was just a matter of Feingold, having the cash to “lie about me and distort my record,” Johnson said. “In the fall, we were able to put positive ads up.” 

Roll Call: New Member: Democrat Charlie Crist Elected in Florida’s 13th District

By Bridget Bowman

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, now a Democrat, will defeat Republican Rep. David Jolly in Florida’s 13th District…

Making a pledge not to directly solicit campaign contributions, Jolly struggled with fundraising. He’s no friend of the National Republican Congressional Committee and couldn’t count on outside GOP support to help him.

Over the course of the fall, though, Jolly appeared less vulnerable after deciding to run for re-election, which forced Democrats to keep spending in the district… 

Crist became a Democrat in 2012 and endorsed Obama for re-election. He was defeated in 2014 by GOP Gov. Rick Scott in a bid for his old job.  

The States

Sedalia Democrat: Missouri voters back Amendment 2

By Associated Press

Wealthy donors no longer will be able to give unlimited amounts of money to Missouri candidates after voters decided to reinstate caps on individual and organizational donations to political campaigns.

The proposal, known as Constitutional Amendment 2, will limit contributions to candidates to $2,600 per election and cap donations to political parties at $25,000. The limits will increase with inflation.

Missouri’s previous campaign contribution limits were repealed in 2008…

The new constitutional amendment also will enact restrictions on other political giving in an attempt to prevent political committees from obscuring the source of their money.

There won’t be limits on candidates self-funding their own campaigns.

Sioux City Journal: Most initiatives fail, but public campaign finance passes

By James Nord and Regina Garcia Cano

South Dakota voters rejected most of the 10 measures on the ballot Tuesday, but they did come out in favor of publicly funding political candidates…

A ballot measure approved Tuesday will allow voters to tap a state fund to send two $50 credits to participating political candidates. It also will tighten campaign finance and lobbying laws and create an ethics commission. Don Frankenfeld, a former GOP state senator who co-chairs the main group backing the plan, said in a statement that the measure will help take control of government back from special interests. Opponents said they would work to overturn the measure and protect taxpayers from the new law.   

Seattle Times: Washington voters rejecting overhaul of campaign finance system

By Lewis Kamb

Voters were rejecting by five percentage points a measure to overhaul the state’s campaign finance system in Tuesday’s returns.

I-1464 sought to create a voucher system giving voters three $50 “democracy credits” that could be used in state races every two years. The system’s costs would be covered by levying  a nonresident sales tax for residents of tax-free states, such as Oregon and Montana, who shop in Washington.

The measure, similar to one passed by Seattle voters last year, also sought to create stricter disclosure requirements for political ads and limit the amount of money contractors and lobbyists could donate to candidates.

Candidates would become eligible for the vouchers by pledging to limit self-financing and by restricting the amount of  donations they accept.

Seattle Times: Washington approves measure declaring support for overturning ‘Citizens United’ ruling

By Lewis Kamb

Voters overwhelmingly approved a measure Tuesday to declare Washington’s support for a U.S. constitutional amendment to overturn federal court rulings that have allowed  unlimited special interest spending for or against political candidates.

Initiative 735, which earned 64 percent of the vote in Tuesday returns, sought a nonbinding resolution to urge – but not require – Washington’s congressional delegation to propose an amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling and similar decisions that largely eliminated government regulation of campaign spending by  corporations, unions and other groups.

Portland Tribune: Multnomah campaign finance measure passing easily

By Nick Budnick

A campaign finance measure for Multomah County races passed easily Tuesday…

Measure 268-184 would pass a variety of new rules restricting campaign contributions and spending on Multnomah County elections. The measure’s backers hoped it would trigger a court fight that could eventually challenge rulings that have blocked reforms at the state and federal level.

After a hefty 269,000 votes were tallied by 9:45 p.m., 88 percent of voters favored the campaign finance measure while only 11 percent opposed.
“I think that it shows that there is broad support for getting big money out of politics,” said Juan Carlos Ordóñez, spokesman for the Honest Elections group backing the campaign finance measure. “It is an issue that crosses party lines and all demographics.” 

Howard County Times: Howard voters approve measure to use taxpayer dollars for local campaigns

By Fatimah Waseem

 In a slim margin, Howard County voters Tuesday approved a measure to allow candidates running in local races to use public funds for their campaigns.Part of a nationwide surge to purge big money from politics, the approval from voters creates a pool of funds available for county council and county executive candidates who choose to opt into the system…

Over the next several months, the Howard County Council will determine the details of the publicly funded campaign system, which allows candidates who raise enough small donations and shun large contributions to get matching funds from a county fund. A county-formed commission will recommend funding levels to the council. 

Daily Californian: City measures T1, U1, V1, W1, X1, Y1, Z1, AA pass; measures BB, CC, DD fail

By Aleah Jennings-Newhouse, Sydney Fix, and Malini Ramaiyer

Berkeley voters approved Measure X1 with 64.22 percent of the vote Tuesday as of press time, establishing an optional public campaign financing program for mayoral and Berkeley City Council candidates.

Measure X1 does not increase taxes but amends the City Charter and Municipal Code to allocate $4 per Berkeley resident from the General Fund to a new Fair Elections Fund. To be eligible for public financing, a candidate must agree to only accept individual contributions of $50 or less and collect at least 30 contributions of between $10 and $50 from Berkeley residents.

The fund is expected to allocate about $500,000 per year and will be capped at $2 million. The Fair Elections Fund could pay up to $250,000 during a four-year election cycle in administrative and enforcement costs.