Event
CCP-Cato Institute Conference on January 26, 2015: The Past and Future of Buckley v. Valeo
On January 30, 1976, the United States Supreme Court handed down Buckley v. Valeo, still its most important decision at the intersection of campaign finance and the First Amendment. The Court brought forth a per curiam opinion that invalidated significant parts of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Buckley Court denied Congress the power to limit campaign spending. But not completely. The same Court decided Congress could restrict contributions to candidates to prevent quid pro quo corruption or “the appearance of corruption.” Giving citizens an “equal voice” in elections, however, could not justify suppressing speech.
Buckley v. Valeo pleased few. Free speech advocates lamented the limits on spending imposed through contribution limits. Later they would criticize the ever-broadening concept of corruption used to justify ever more restrictions on speech. Advocates of regulation thought money had little to do with speech but a lot to do with inequality. Political realists thought unlimited spending funded by limited contributions would eventually prove unworkable.
Yet Buckley did not fall. It remains a vital precedent that restrains and empowers Congress. But should Buckley be considered a First Amendment failure? Or did it embrace inevitable compromises that were both worse and better than everyone desired? How does Buckley affect the law and American politics and campaigning today? Does the decision have a future? Please join us to discuss these essential questions of First Amendment law and politics.
The January 26 event is free of charge and will be held at The Cato Institute at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW in Washington, DC. The program will begin at 9:00 AM and conclude at 12:30 PM with a luncheon to follow. Speakers are still being finalized, but CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith will be speaking. More information, including an agenda, can be found here. All those interested in attending should RSVP here.
Supreme Court
Washington Post: Virginia’s former governor faces prison over politics
George F. Will
McDonnell will be imprisoned for facilitating a few meetings, in violation of this bedrock principle: Due process is denied when the law does not give due notice of proscribed behavior. Such notice also circumscribes the discretion of overzealous prosecutors, of whom there is no shortage. The tawdry context of this case — McDonnell’s legal but unseemly acceptance of the businessman’s vulgar largesse — probably incited the prosecutors and judge to stretch the law to ensnare an unsympathetic defendant. But the criminalization of normal political interactions is especially ominous when aesthetic considerations expose a person to prosecution for actions inseparable from the quotidian business of representative government.
IRS
The Hill: IRS withdraws controversial rule after charity backlash
Tim Devaney
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is backing down from a controversial rule that would have pressured nonprofits to collect the Social Security numbers of their donors.
Nonprofits warned the rule would have a “chilling effect” on donations and make charitable organizations a target for hackers, discouraging people from giving.
The backlash persuaded the IRS to withdraw the proposed rule Thursday after it received nearly 38,000 comments, including a letter signed by 215 charitable organizations that warns they cannot possibly safeguard the Social Security numbers of their donors.
Wall Street Journal: An IRS Retreat on Charity
Editorial Board
Amazingly enough, in this case the IRS appears to have listened to concerns from the taxpayers who pay their salaries. On Thursday the IRS said it is withdrawing its proposal after receiving “a substantial number of public comments.” Many of the comments “questioned the need for donee reporting, and many comments expressed significant concerns about donee organizations collecting and maintaining taxpayer identification numbers for purposes of the specific-use information return,” said the IRS. The legitimate anger of average citizens was amplified by stalwart IRS watchdogs like Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) on Capitol Hill.
One year after Republicans took control of the Congress, and one year before President Obama leaves the White House, the pendulum is beginning to swing against IRS abuse of taxpayers. Coming on the heels of other reforms in the year-end tax and spending bills—including a ban on new IRS rules limiting political activity—Thursday’s news is reason to cheer.
Independent Groups
Vox: Team Jeb’s latest attempt to attack Donald Trump is almost cartoonishly bad
Andrew Prokop
Jeb Bush’s Super PAC, which has famously spent tens of millions of dollars on ineffective TV ads, unveiled a new attempt to get attention on Thursday…
Bush’s Super PAC appears to have paid to put up at least one billboard in Iowa that simply quotes Bush saying, “Donald Trump is unhinged.” Given Murphy’s tweet, it seems to be an attempt to provoke Trump into an intemperate response (and probably a desperate bid for media attention, which at least sort of worked, given that I’m writing this article).
The problem here is that it’s a bit unclear whether this is supposed to be an anti-Trump billboard … or a pro-Trump billboard.
FEC
Center for Public Integrity: Federal Election Commission may vacate headquarters
Dave Levinthal
Federal Election Commission officials confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that a move appears increasingly likely since a real estate investment group controlled by Jordache Enterprises — best known for its designer jeans — purchased the agency’s headquarters building last year.
The FEC’s lease expires in September 2017; the stately, nine-story structure the commission occupies sits atop prime real estate at 999 E St. Northwest near Washington, D.C.’s burgeoning Gallery Place-Chinatown district.
Short-term, moving to a new building could create yet more inconvenience and tumult for the agency, which is already struggling with internal ideological battles and low employee morale. Long-term, however, a new facility could upgrade employees’ office environment and save taxpayers money.
Influence
USA Today: Rick Harrison of ‘Pawn Stars’ featured guest at Rubio fundraiser
Ledyard King
Rick Harrison, whose Las Vegas pawn shop is the subject of the popular History Channel show Pawn Stars, has something else to peddle: Marco Rubio.
The blunt-spoken, bald-headed Harrison who usually wrangles with customers over watches, jewelry and odd heirlooms will be in Florida Sunday evening as the featured guest at a $500-a-seat fundraiser ($100 if you just want to stand) Rubio is sponsoring at the Intercontinental Miami hotel overlooking Biscayne Bay…
A self-described “hustler,” Harrison has built a reputation as an expert when it comes to spotting fake or stolen items. The assumption is the Pawn Shop owner considers Rubio a genuine article.
Candidates and Campaigns
Pillar of Law Institute: Campaign Legal Center Doubles Down on Jeb Bush Inquisition
Stephen Klein
The result speaks for itself: thanks to a television interview a year after a meeting, when a politician is trying to summon all the bravado he can to salvage a waning campaign, his staff and attorneys will waste time and money responding to a revised complaint with the FEC, and perhaps the Department of Justice as well. It is but another example of watchdogs attacking the democracy they pretend to defend. Thankfully, though the FEC recently affirmed its murky regulations, when it comes to enforcement it is unlikely that a majority of the commissioners will consider Bush’s words (here or anywhere else) as determinative. The DOJ is also unlikely to act. But red tape, inquisitions, and punishments are not unfortunate side effects of campaign finance “reform”; as Campaign Legal makes quite clear, these are the objective.
PBS News Hour: Will big money spent on TV ads pay off for 2016 candidates?
Gwen Ifill
Political advertising could break records in 2016: some experts estimate Americans will see $4.4 billion spent on TV ads. But will all that spending pay off for presidential candidates trying to rise in the polls? Political director Lisa Desjardins offers a look at some of their strategies and Gwen Ifill learns more from Matea Gold of The Washington Post.
The States
San Francisco Chronicle: Why legislators should not put nonbinding measures on ballot
John Diaz
Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court did just that last week when it ruled 6-1 that legislators had the authority to place a nonbinding resolution on the ballot that called for a federal constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited political contributions in certain circumstances as a matter of free speech.
Let’s put aside the legal rationale behind the state court’s judgment: Let’s assume it’s sound. And let’s set aside the argument about whether Citizens United is a threat to the integrity of our democratic process. As anyone who has read one of my many columns on the subject, you know I firmly believe it is.
Still, I both worry about and deplore this ruling. Nonbinding resolutions should not be on the statewide ballot. Legislators should be going to the voters only when they need to do something real that requires voter approval, such as passing a bond measure for schools, water or high-speed rail. If they want to know what voters think, they might try talking to them.
Kansas City Star: Missouri bill defines sex between lobbyists and lawmakers as a gift
Jason Hancock
Lobbyists who have sex with a Missouri lawmaker or a member of a lawmaker’s staff would have to disclose it to the Missouri Ethics Commission under a bill introduced Wednesday in the Missouri House.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bart Korman, a Montgomery County Republican, defines sex between lobbyists and legislators as a gift. As such, sexual relations would have to be included on monthly lobbyist gift disclosure forms.
Associated Press: Prosecutor urges vigilance against legislative corruption
Bruce Schreiner
State legislators need to be vigilant against corruption and avoid the temptation of shielding colleagues caught up in scandal, a federal prosecutor from New York said Wednesday during a visit to Kentucky.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose investigations recently toppled two legislative leaders in New York, said the role of preventing corruption in statehouses is ultimately up to lawmakers, not prosecutors.
“If you want to prevent corruption, don’t enable it,” Bharara said during an hourlong presentation to Kentucky lawmakers. “If you want to deter corrupt members, don’t become their willing accomplices.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Law allows political parties to hide sources of corporate donations
Daniel Bice
A new campaign finance law allows corporations — for the first time — to give as much as $12,000 a year to state political parties and campaign committees controlled by legislative leaders.
But the measure has one glaring omission:
It does not require Democrat or Republican party officials to disclose anything about the corporate cash, including where they get it or how they spend it, according to state election officials…
“The advice we’re giving (to the political parties) is that the statutes do not currently require registration and reporting of these corporate donations, though the Board and the Legislature could review that in the future,” said Reid Magney, spokesman for the state Government Accountability Board.
Charleston Gazette-Mail: Next step for WV, eliminate secret political donations
Julie Archer and Natalie Thompson
Without more robust disclosure of third-party political spending, permanent funding for the public financing program already in place for judicial elections and public financing for legislative races, our government will continue to be subject to the undue influence of the coal industry and other special interests.
During the 2015 legislative session, the ironically named Coal Jobs and Safety Act passed, which rolled back mine safety. Another bill made it more difficult for miners to sue employers if they are injured by deliberate violations of safety regulations. In the 2014 election, sponsors of these bills benefited from more than $70,000 in political advertising paid for by a Super PAC funded primarily by the coal industry, and over $40,000 in direct contributions from donors associated with the industry.
Bozeman Daily Chronicle: Montana campaign contribution limits to rise for some candidates
Troy Carter
The state’s contribution inflation tracker will raise the maximum donation to gubernatorial candidates from $650 to $660 per election, according to the state’s Commissioner of Political Practices.
Other statewide candidates, like those for the Montana Supreme Court, Secretary of State, or Superintendent of Public Instruction, will see their limit move from $320 to $330. Limits for political parties and political action committees will also see raises.
New Hampshire Union Leader: Taxing political speech? Another bad campaign finance idea
Editorial Board
Political campaigns are not popular, especially the endless commercials and annoying phone calls. Making the politicos pay has obvious appeal. Feltes suggests a progressive fee structure, ramping up to 5 percent of spending over $500,000.
But there are very good reasons why political organizations remain tax-exempt. We simply can’t trust politicians. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the landmark case McCulloch v. Maryland, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” The IRS under the Obama Administration has shown that such authority can be abused for partisan ends.
Using the state tax code to short-circuit constitutional protections of political speech would put New Hampshire tax collectors in a position of power over every candidate
