In the News
Wall Street Journal: The Freedom Caucus Objects to Political Free Speech
David Keating and Bradley A. Smith
Fights over campaign-finance laws are, more than other political struggles, fights over power. When power changes hands, new regulations are often put in place to benefit the victors’ political fortunes. The temptation to use speech regulation to hamper political opponents is ever present and too often irresistible.
That’s why it’s disheartening to see the House Freedom Caucus hypocritically object to a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—which would be part of a crucial spending bill that Congress must pass by Dec. 11—to lift the limit on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates. This would better enable parties to work directly with their candidates. It’s not the government’s role to regulate this speech. Mr. McConnell’s proposal is strongly pro-First Amendment.
Political Parties
NPR: Tea Party And Democrats Aligned Against Campaign Finance Measure
Peter Overby
The signers include leaders of such outside groups as the Senate Conservatives Fund, ForAmerica and Revive America PAC.
In the House, a majority of Democrats signed a letter warning that lifting the limit “would send a jarring message to Americans of all political stripes that Washington insiders are rigging the system in favor of powerful moneyed interests.”
And seven groups advocating stronger campaign finance laws sent a letter attacking the party-spending provision and three other campaign finance riders.
Another provision backed by McConnell isn’t drawing any public criticism. He wants to make Senate candidates file their campaign finance reports electronically, to the Federal Election Commission – just like candidates for the House and the presidency.
Weekly Standard: Tea Partiers for McCain-Feingold
Jonathan Swift
McConnell is a true believer in fewer campaign finance laws to a religious degree. Yet, unlike the HFC, McConnell is skilled in the art of the possible. Lifting the cap on coordination between multi-candidate organizations and candidates is a non-starter for Democrats, who are still hell bent on ramping up regulations to curb independent expenditures. (Google any Democratic candidate and Citizens United.)
It’s hard to know for sure unless you try — a staple argument of Big Grassroots and the HFC — but McConnell betting on his rider is a tell that he thinks the Democrats might go for it, and thus might be possible in the current political environment. When it comes to negotiating with Democrats and getting conservative policy signed into law, McConnell is a shark and the HFC / Big Grassroots are not.
After all, that’s their purpose: principled fights which often are on the losing side. Not an ignoble goal.
Only here, they’re contradicting a potentially attainable conservative chink-in-the-armor victory because, well, it doesn’t explicitly help their bottom line.
New York Times: A Gift From Congress, to Congress
Editorial Board
In a delicious bit of irony, Mr. McConnell needs Democratic support to pass his rider, because the Tea Party mavericks are opposing him. They say the extra cash would chiefly benefit establishment candidates, not Tea Party members, who are financed by super PACs and grass-roots donors outside the national party apparatus.
This week, more than 100 Democrats signed a letter announcing their intentions to oppose the campaign finance riders. The spending bill is the last legislation Congress will consider before lawmakers go home for the holiday recess. Democrats should do the right thing and strip these four bad riders from the bill.
Independent Groups
The Hill: Super-PACs set to influence Senate primaries
Ben Kaminar
Campaign finance law only requires super-PACs, which can accept unlimited donations as long as the groups don’t coordinate spending with candidates, to file donation reports once every six months during the off-year. So it’s unclear how many groups devoted to a single Senate candidate exist or how much firepower those groups have, as many of the ones that are on the record haven’t reported donations since July.
But at least four exist with more than $100,000 banked up to help carry a candidate through a tough primary. And some of those groups are sponsored in part by some of the nation’s largest political donors.
Center for Public Integrity: Trump skewers new super PAC
Cady Zuvich
A new super PAC is offering one lucky winner a huge opportunity: the chance to dine with Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.
“The flight, food and stay are on us,” declares Recover America PAC on its website, DinnerWithTrump.org, while simultaneously asking for a financial contribution.
Just one problem.
“We have no knowledge of this at all,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said. “We haven’t heard of it.”
Buzzfeed: Tea Party Groups Haven’t Backed Any Republican Senate Challengers Yet
Tarini Parti
The expensive, intra-party primary battles have frustrated establishment Republicans and likely caused the party to either lose some seats or need to devote more resources on candidates after damaging primaries. But with millions spent attacking GOP incumbents and little to show for in 2014, major conservative groups and activists are showing much more restraint this time: They have yet to endorse any of the conservative candidates challenging incumbent senators in 2016.
Conservative outside groups are taking a more calculated approach to endorsing the few primary challengers that have even announced their bids. Instead of making risky bets on unseating Senate incumbents, they are choosing to target two open seats in Indiana and Florida, where they think they have a much higher — and much cheaper — shot at sending a conservative to the Senate.
Free Speech
Richmond Times: By any objective measure, feds overreach on election regulation
Barton Hinkle
This is interesting, because the ads Yamada took out appeared in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Yet if the very same words in Yamada’s ad had appeared instead as an editorial in that newspaper, they would have been exempt from oversight by Hawaii’s government — even though the newspaper, like the electrical company, is a for-profit corporation.
There is no functional difference between the advertisement and an editorial or op/ed column. There is no financial difference, either: Both cost a lot of money to distribute. Which makes you wonder why campaign-finance regulators haven’t gone after the press.
Wisconsin ‘John Doe’
Wisconsin Watchdog: Political speech ‘watchdogs’ urge continuation of illegal John Doe
M.D. Kittle
In the wake of the high court’s ruling, the left-leaning Wisconsin Democracy Campaign on Thursday sent an open letter urging the five district attorneys involved in the multi-county probe to “intervene” and “petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court to allow you to become a party to the case so you can appeal it straight up to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
WDC is making the appeal because the state court decision declared special prosecutor Francis Schmitz’s role invalid from the inception of the position — a position approved by a John Doe judge who suddenly recused herself from the probe not long after armed agents raided the homes of several citizens on accusations of campaign finance law violations
Supreme Court
More Soft Money Hard Law: Paying for Representation, Among Other Questions in Evenwel
Bob Bauer
Professor Michael Morley looks to campaign finance jurisprudence as a guide to what the Supreme Court might do in the Evenwel person-one vote case. He argues that the Court has spoken decisively to the question of whether of certain ineligible voters–foreign nationals—have a right to participate in democratic self-government. In Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, a three-judge court decision that the Justices summarily affirmed, the court held that foreign nationals may be barred from spending money, through contributions or independent expenditures, to influence elections. It follows from that, Professor Morley concludes, that foreign nationals need not be included in the population count on which state legislative apportionment is based.
Candidates and Campaigns
NPR: Presidential Candidates Still Like To Party
Brady Carlson
But the access at house parties is particularly special for voters and valuable for campaigns, said Ron Abramson, who hosted an event for Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders this year. “If you show up at a large event and you hear a candidate speak and you have a good feeling about them, you may be more inclined to vote for them,” Abramson said. “If you meet that candidate in a more intimate setting, you’re probably more likely to work for them. It is a critical component of a grassroots movement or organization in a state where that still makes a difference.”
Politico: Dynasties thrive on campaign staffs
Isaac Arnsdorf
And there are some logical reasons why relatives of the connected make good campaign hires. Politics often runs in families, and relatives understand the turbulent game and grueling schedules better than anyone. Presidential campaigns offer a way for up-and-comers to cut their teeth on important national races that only come around every four years.
But they may also offer strategic advantages and give candidates a way to return favors to their most loyal supporters.
“Patronage is the lifeblood of politics — that’s just a fact,” said Ryan Williams, who was deputy national press secretary for Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign. “Presidential campaigns are a good way to get experience if your son or daughter wants to get involved in politics, because there’s a lot of work to be done.
The States
New York Times: Voter Fatigue in New York
Editorial Board
In recent weeks, politicians and voters have witnessed the depth of corruption in Albany, with former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver convicted on federal corruption charges and Dean Skelos, the former Senate majority leader, on trial for corruption charges as well.
Those scandals prove the need for ethics and campaign finance reforms. Election reforms are equally necessary in this broken political system. New York has one of the worst voter turnout rates in the country, and the way to change that is to make it easier for people to vote.
