In the News
Daily Caller: Freedom Caucus Forgets The Freedom Part
Paul Jossey
The roughly 40-member House Freedom Caucus (HFC) prides itself on dedication to principle. From the budget, to the debt ceiling, to the fight over the Export-Import Bank, HFC members claim to stand apart, thwarting cronyism and the political games of official Washington. But in the fight over the year-end, must-pass Omnibus spending bill, the roles are reversed. The HFC that so often fights to limit government intrusion now seeks to entrench a certain kind of political speech cronyism.
In opposing a campaign finance rider that would toss archaic and dangerous ‘coordination’ rules between parties and candidates, many HFC members ignore history and unwittingly support the criminalization of politics. The Freedom Caucus should expand its influence by truly standing on principle, not by trying to prevent political parties and candidates from working together.
Daily Beast: How Donald Trump Destroyed the Political Campaign Ad
Lloyd Grove
David Keating, president of Center for Competitive Politics and widely credited as the inventor of the super PAC, said Trump is further advantaged by his free media mastery because—despite standard Republican rhetoric to the contrary—voters still find news reports more credible than paid ads.
“Actual news coverage has more value, minute by minute, than an ad,” Keating said. “How much higher, I don’t think we know. It would be an interesting research project.”
Keating said that beyond traditional television, radio and print and online information sources, social media is also a powerful factor.
CCP
An Open Letter to Conservatives: Why Party Coordinated Limits Should Be Repealed
Recently some members of the Freedom Caucus in Congress and other conservative leaders have expressed opposition to a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to repeal the 1970’s limits on the funds that political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates. The concern seems to be that the provision might provide an advantage for the “establishment.”
We believe that this analysis is incorrect as a matter of law and destructive as a matter of principle. Contrary to some fears, the amendment does not apply to party spending in primary elections, only in the general election. Coordinated party primary spending is still sharply restricted. In response to this clear provision of the law, some have noted that Federal Election Commission regulations allow coordinated expenditures for the general election to be made at any time–even before the primary. But this rule, which stems from FEC advisory opinions in the mid-1980s, arose from circumstances in which parties ran ads critical of the opposing party’s incumbent. Of course ads criticizing the opposition incumbent are general election expenditures, regardless of when made. However, expenditures for ads that take sides in a contested primary are still primary election expenditures, and still limited.
Equally important, however, we believe that this opposition to repeal is contrary to First Amendment principles that conservatives have traditionally valued, and to our overarching goals of eliminating unconstitutional regulation and promoting good public policy.
Majority of Americans Oppose Tax-Financed Campaign Schemes
Luke Wachob
This is where “reformers” so often go off the rails. The majority of Americans are not interested in trying to personally shape the choices on the ballot; they just want those choices to be half-decent. They are not interested in poring over FEC filings – the poll found that only “13 percent [of Americans] say they understand quite a bit or a great deal about how candidates get money for their campaigns”– they just want moral, upstanding candidates with a compelling message. They are not interested in government working through a mountain of campaign finance regulations; they just want government to work.
Too frequently, public outrage is mistaken as support for sweeping reforms and additional regulations that hinder First Amendment rights. As the AP-NORC poll shows, when pollsters ask about specific proposals instead of the status quo, Americans’ support for freedom of speech and association starts to shine through. Money in politics isn’t a popular subject with many citizens, but Americans clearly prefer that candidates ask donors – not the government – to support their campaigns.
Private Giving
Bloomberg: California Seeks to Overturn Barrier to Koch Group Donor List
Edvard Pettersson
At Wednesday’s hearing, the three judges didn’t tip their hand whether they would let Harris have access to Americans for Prosperity’s donor information. The judges said without codified rules that prevent public disclosure of the information, there is only the attorney general’s stated policy.
“Attorney generals change policy,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen said. “What assures the court there won’t be public disclosure?”
Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon told the judges that new regulations to prohibit such disclosure are in the making, though she didn’t know when they would be enacted.
IRS
USA Today: A bipartisan tax bill Congress must pass
Barnaby Zall
As Congress prepares to close out the year, there are a number of little-known — but immensely important — outstanding items lawmakers must address. Among them: passing the “Fair Treatment for All Gifts Act,” which unanimously sailed through the House of Representatives but is stalled in the Senate.
This simple piece of legislation would clarify an ambiguity in the tax code that empowers the Internal Revenue Service to selectively levy taxes on political speech — something the IRS has attempted to do in recent years.
Forbes: National Organization For Marriage Denied Attorney Fees In IRS Lawsuit
Peter J. Reilly
It looks like the National Organization for Marriage has come to the end of the line in its hope for a big payday from the IRS for the unauthorized disclosure of the Schedule B (donor list) attached to its 2008 Form 990. Form 990 becomes public (The easiest way to find one is on guidestar.org), but the donor list is not publically disclosed. The Fourth Circuit upheld a district court decision denying NOM attorney fees in its suit against the IRS. IRS had admitted that it was wrong in releasing the Schedule B and settled with a payment of $50,000. NOM was seeking $691,025.05 in fees.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Jeb Bush’s super PAC burning through money with little to show for it
Matea Gold
The group’s muted impact so far represents a confounding reality of this year’s unconventional campaign: Money is no longer a clear barometer of success.
The wall-to-wall media coverage of GOP front-runner Donald Trump has deflated the value of a bulging war chest that can finance costly television commercials. And the deluge of gauzy spots touting Bush’s conservative record has not eliminated deep skepticism in the Republican base about his establishment ties and family name, party operatives said.
“You’d always rather be the one with the money,” said veteran GOP strategist Scott Reed. “But clearly, this cycle we’re learning that money doesn’t buy you love.”
Wall Street Journal: Super PAC Chief’s Role at Fundraiser Blurs Separation Between PAC, Cruz Campaign
Rebecca Ballhaus
Among the co-hosts for the fundraiser, held in New York City, is Kellyanne Conway, a Republican strategist who is heading Keep the Promise I—one of four super PACs backing Mr. Cruz. Ms. Conway’s husband is also a co-host.
Ms. Conway’s appearance at the campaign luncheon is unusual, even as the lines between super PACs and presidential campaigns are becoming increasingly blurred in this election cycle…
“I helm the Super PAC for the same reason I support him as a private citizen: I trust his leadership and believe in his vision for the nation,” Ms. Conway said in an email. She said she and the campaign have never coordinated strategy. Mr. Cruz’s campaign declined to comment.
Influence
Associated Press: Clinton intervened for firm after request to son-in-law
Stephen Braun
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm to meet with her or other State Department officials, according to the recently released Clinton emails.
One of the firm’s investors had asked Clinton’s son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, who is married to Chelsea Clinton, for help setting up such contacts, the emails show.
The lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals Inc. came while Hillary Clinton — now the leading Democratic presidential candidate — was advocating for an Obama administration push for Senate approval of a sweeping Law of the Sea Treaty. The pact would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.
Congress
New Yorker: What House Moderates Can Learn from the Freedom Caucus
Ryan Lizza
As these events unfolded, McClintock became more convinced that the group was becoming an agent of the Democrats. “A common theme through each of these incidents is a willingness—indeed, an eagerness—to strip the House Republican majority of its ability to set the House agenda by combining with House Democrats on procedural motions,” he wrote. “As a result, it has thwarted vital conservative policy objectives and unwittingly become Nancy Pelosi’s tactical ally.”
McClintock told me earlier this month that while the Freedom Caucus’s repeated efforts to thwart Boehner’s priorities were troubling, what he feared the most was that the same tactics would eventually be adopted by moderate Republicans, who could combine with Democrats to take control of the House agenda and pass legislation that conservatives vehemently oppose.
His fears started to come true in October.
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: Lawyer for PACs Backing Jeb Bush Asks F.E.C. to Investigate Donald Trump
Maggie Haberman
The campaign finance lawyer for the outside groups supporting Jeb Bush has accused Donald J. Trump of improperly mingling his corporate business with his campaign work and has asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate.
The lawyer, Charles Spies, sent missives to the election commission and to Alan Garten, Mr. Trump’s corporate lawyer. The letters were first reported by Politico.
They were prompted by a cease-and-desist letter that Mr. Garten sent to the Right to Rise PAC, warning against running damaging ads about Mr. Trump. In his reply letter, Mr. Spies mocked Mr. Garten, pointing out that the ads in question had been run by a different group, the Right to Rise “super PAC”, not the leadership PAC to which he had sent the letter.
“In light of your confusion over the difference between Leadership PACs and Super PACs, we have to assume you may also be unaware of the F.E.C’s prohibition on a federal candidate’s use of corporate resources for campaign purposes,” Mr. Spies wrote. “Just as your client is attempting to quickly learn the basics of foreign policy, we wish you personally the best in your attempts to learn election law.”
The States
Michigan Live: Senate votes to write super PACs into state campaign finance law
Emily Lawler
“Given Michigan’s history in the legal development of this issue… it makes sense to codify the high court’s decision in state statute,” said sponsor and chair of the Senate Elections Committee David Robertson, R-Grand Blanc.
Under SB 638 the new independent-expenditure only committees couldn’t donate directly to candidates, but could make unlimited contributions to ballot committees or spend unlimited amounts on independent activities to benefit a candidate. The PACs could accept donations from corporations, businesses and unions but would have to disclose those donors.
Washington Times: Ex-D.C. mayor Vincent Gray will face no charges after yearslong corruption probe
Ryan McDermott and Tom Howell, Jr.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Gray knew firsthand about the illicit effort that funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to his 2010 campaign and that he personally sought the illegal cash from D.C. businessman and megadonor Jeffrey E. Thompson, who pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy charges.
Mr. Gray said Thompson was lying to cut a deal with prosecutors in early 2014, and federal prosecutors indicated Wednesday that they did not have enough to charge the former mayor with a crime.
The scandal began with bizarre accusations from a minor 2010 mayoral candidate, Sulaimon Brown, who said he had received secret payments to bash Mr. Fenty in exchange for a job in the Gray administration..
