In the News
Washington Examiner: Remember the IRS targeting scandal? No one ever got punished for it
By Bradley A. Smith
As the original report by TIGTA made clear, the IRS “developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words Tea Party in their names … Subsequently the [IRS] expanded the criteria to inappropriately include organizations with other specific names (Patriots and 9/12) or policy positions.”
The IRS itself eventually conceded that of 199 cases analyzed under this “Be On the Look Out,” or “BOLO” program, approximately 75 percent [150] “appear to be conservative leaning, while fewer than 10 appear to be liberal/progressive leaning groups.” In other words, the fact that the terms the IRS used to pull applications for extra scrutiny – terms such as “Tea Party” and “patriot” – snagged a few liberal groups doesn’t mean that the purpose and effect was not to target conservative organizations.
As the basis for whitewashing the IRS scandal, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and others have turned to a new TIGTA report concerning a different IRS program altogether. That program, called “Touch and Go,” swept up a mix of conservative and progressive groups. But that is precisely because it didn’t target groups based on politics, which was the problem with BOLO. Nothing in the latest TIGTA report contradicts TIGTA’s 2013 report revealing the IRS targeting, and TIGTA doesn’t claim that it does.
Policy Research
Bipartisan Policy Center: The State of Campaign Finance in the U.S.
By Nathaniel Persily, Robert F. Bauer, and Benjamin L. Ginsberg
The U.S. campaign finance system has undergone fundamental changes in the last 15 years. The law has changed, as the courts have sharply limited Congress’s authority to regulate corporate and union election expenditures and have created new vehicles for money to flow into election campaigns. The politics of campaign finance has changed, as these new actors, especially Super PACs, have grown in significance and redefined the roles of insiders and outsiders to the electoral system. The technology has changed, as the internet, social media, and mobile devices have chipped away at television as the predominant mode of political campaigning.
Relying on the best political science available, this report attempts to assess these changes…
An advisory group of campaign finance experts also provided indispensable advice and comments. Its members included … Professor Bradley A. Smith (Capital Law School Professor and Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech)… None of these commenters should be understood to agree with the conclusions in this report, but their expertise helped greatly to inform our work.
Washington Post: Fewer than 16,000 donors accounted for half the federal campaign contributions in 2016
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
The analysis released Friday by the Bipartisan Policy Center mapped the growing influence of rich political contributors and independent political groups in the seven years since federal court decisions unleashed a new era of big-money spending…
Although the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision was expected to unleash a wave of independent corporate political spending, companies have largely held back from such activity, they wrote.
“All the available evidence suggests that business corporations, especially publicly traded corporations, have not taken advantage of their newly established political spending rights post-Citizens United to the extent that many predicted,” according to the report.
In 2012, corporations spent about $75 million from their treasuries on federal elections, roughly 1 percent of the overall spending that cycle, according to the report. In 2016, just 10 companies made independent expenditures, spending “relatively minuscule amounts,” the report said…
Unions have taken greater advantage of the new latitude they have under the Citizens United decision, giving more to super PACs in the past two election cycles than business corporations and trade groups.
Event
Federalist Society: Nashville Fed Soc: 8 Years After Citizens United v. FEC
By Grant Starrett
Join the Nashville Federalist Society Chapter for a discussion with Bradley A. Smith, former Federal Election Commission Chairman, who will speak about Citizens United v. FEC on Tuesday, January 23, 2018, at 11:45am at Homewood Suites Downtown…
Professor Smith is also the Co-Founder and Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, and is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University.
The Court’s opinion in Citizens United turns eight years old as the 2018 midterm election cycle swings into full gear, and Professor Smith’s presentation promises to enrich and engage us all in timely fashion.
Registration is required by Sunday, January 21.
The Courts
Electronic Frontier Foundation: EFF to Court: Requiring Universities to Ban Anonymous Online Speech Platforms on Campus is Counterproductive and Unconstitutional
By Aaron Mackey
In the brief, EFF argues that plaintiffs’ “well-intentioned efforts to protect college students from harassment and threats will jeopardize their ability to advocate for equality on campuses by prohibiting them and others from using anonymous online speech platforms as a tool for broader social change.”
The brief provides several examples of the benefits anonymity provides to students and others who are advocating for social change…
“When advocating for equality on the basis of gender, race, and other protected statuses, both on campus and throughout the world, many university students choose to speak anonymously,” the brief argues. “This is especially true when these student activists perceive that their views are controversial with fellow students, university officials, or even local police.”
The brief also shows how beneficial anonymous online speech platforms can be to social movements because they “enrich our public discourse by disseminating important voices that might not otherwise be heard if individuals had to attach their names to them.”
Finally, the brief argues that requiring public universities to restrict anonymous speech or access to anonymous online platforms would violate the First Amendment.
Independent Groups
McClatchy DC: FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump
By Peter Stone and Greg Gordon
The FBI is investigating whether a top Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency, two sources familiar with the matter have told McClatchy…
The extent to which the FBI has evidence of money flowing from Torshin to the NRA, or of the NRA’s participation in the transfer of funds, could not be learned.
However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors.
Two people with close connections to the powerful gun lobby said its total election spending actually approached or exceeded $70 million. The reporting gap could be explained by the fact that independent groups are not required to reveal how much they spend on Internet ads or field operations, including get-out-the-vote efforts.
Congress
NBC News: House Intelligence Committee releases Glenn Simpson Trump-dossier testimony
By Ken Dilanian and Mike Memoli
Simpson also asserted that the Russian government had “infiltrated ” the National Rifle Association, which spent more than $400 million in the 2016 election, according to public records. The NRA supports mainly Republicans.
“It appears the Russians, you know, infiltrated the NRA, and there is more than one explanation for why,” he said in the testimony. “But I would say broadly speaking, it appears that the Russian operation was designed to infiltrate conservative organizations. And they targeted various conservative organizations, religious and otherwise, and they seem to have made a very concerted effort to get in with the NRA. And so there is a Russian banker-slash-Duma member-slash-Mafia leader named Alexander Torshin who is a life member of the NRA. And we spent a lot of time investigating Mr. Torshin. And he is well known to Spanish law enforcement for money laundering activity…”
The Media
Washington Post: Mr. President, stop attacking the press
By Sen. John McCain
While administration officials often condemn violence against reporters abroad, Trump continues his unrelenting attacks on the integrity of American journalists and news outlets…
Without strong leadership in the White House, Congress must commit to protecting independent journalism, preserving an open and free media environment, and defending the fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression…
Ultimately, freedom of information is critical for a democracy to succeed. We become better, stronger and more effective societies by having an informed and engaged public that pushes policymakers to best represent not only our interests but also our values. Journalists play a major role in the promotion and protection of democracy and our unalienable rights, and they must be able to do their jobs freely. Only truth and transparency can guarantee freedom.
Reason: What’s Missing from John McCain’s Criticism of Trump’s Media Attacks
By Matt Welch
If it were up to McCain, tech companies wouldn’t allow individuals to encrypt their communications and devices, foreign visitors would have more of their social media history combed through by federal agents, and social media companies would be forced to follow the same disclosure rules as print and broadcast when it comes to disclosing the purchases of political ads-all in the name of national security. He also wishes government could punish Americans for burning their country’s flag.
McCain may have some inspiring words today about the free press “hold[ing] repressive governments accountable,” but when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the U.S. government’s own Pentagon Papers 45 years ago McCain’s first reaction was to volunteer to testify against Ellsberg at trial…
Having senators from his own party pulverize the president over his cartoonish anti-media campaign is a welcome sight. Hopefully the Arizona duo can follow up that gesture by focusing on areas where existing Washington power has already been wielded against journalists and their sources in the course of them contributing to a free and vibrant press.
Candidates and Campaigns
Just Security: The Trump Campaign-Russia Alliance and Campaign Finance
By Bob Bauer
A former senior DOJ attorney recently offered me one theory for why the special counsel may hesitate to bring campaign finance charges. Mueller may fear that case is insufficiently concrete or direct to win over a jury. While the law bars contributions of any kind, including providing campaigns with “things of value,” a jury may struggle with the extraordinary circumstances of Russia’ support for the Trump campaign. Rather than make the more familiar cash contribution, the Russian government generated “things of value” in the form of hacked Clinton and DNC material that WikiLeaks then made public. There is no evidence that Trump or his campaign arranged in advance for the hacking, though they were plainly pleased and eager to have the support and conveyed their receptivity…
Prosecutors might well also worry that the recent history of high-profile criminal prosecutions under campaign finance laws is not encouraging. The aggressive case brought against John Edwards failed. In another more obscure prosecution, the government unsuccessfully sought to hold a fundraiser for the Clinton Senate campaign liable for lying about unreported “in-kind” payments for a campaign event. The jury in the Senator Bob Menendez prosecution deadlocked on multiple counts that included alleged corrupt pay-offs in the form of contributions to a Super PAC. Maybe juries, cynical about politics, nonetheless fear “criminalizing” it.
Bloomberg: Candidates and Contributors May Make 2018 the Year of the Woman
By John McCormick and Bill Allison
Democratic women – from grassroots donors to wealthy political benefactors – are stepping up contributions at a record pace…
As Trump closes out his first year as president, a record 266 Democratic women have reported raising money for House races, and other women are putting money into campaigns at unprecedented rates, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington…
“It has the potential to be the year that women turn the tide and transform our country,” said Barbara Lee, a Boston-based political consultant and philanthropist who gave $1.9 million to super political action committees that supported the Clinton campaign…
Tompkins Buell, a major supporter of Clinton’s campaign who gave $2.5 million in the 2015 and 2016 election cycle to candidates and committees that report to the Federal Election Commission, said she’ll likely give even more for this election than in past midterm races…
In addition to the record number of House candidates, there are 79 women who are running or exploring runs for governor and 49 for U.S. Senate seats, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.
