CCP
By Eric Wang
To point out the gaping constitutional holes in S. 255, we could (but do not) simply attach copies of the U.S. District Court’s 2010 opinion in South Carolina Citizens for Life v. Krawcheck (“SCCFL”),[4] and the separate 2012 opinion in South Carolinians for Responsible Government v. Krawcheck (“SCFRG”),[5] and call it a day. In those rulings, South Carolina’s titanic and unconstitutionally expansive regulation of political committees (a.k.a. “PACs”) ran aground on the iceberg of the First Amendment. For the five to seven years since the two federal judges, ruling in two separate proceedings, invalidated this cornerstone of South Carolina’s campaign finance laws, state authorities (and specifically the State Ethics Commission) have complied with the rulings and have not sought to apply or revive the unlawful statute…
If enacted into law, it appears that S. 255 would merely reshuffle some of the language and features (deck chairs, if you will) of the political committee statute invalidated by SCCFL and SCFRG and apply them to groups that engage in pure issue advocacy, or that only occasionally seek to “influence the outcome of an election.”
Independent Groups
American Prospect: Another First for Trump: A Policy Arm Operating Totally in Secret
By Justin Miller
Donald Trump isn’t the first president to enjoy the support of nonprofit groups that promote his policy agenda, but he may be the first whose outside backers operate entirely in secret.
When Trump allies announced last week the formation of America First Policies, a 501(c)(4) issue group that will be the president’s main outside advocacy vehicle, observers immediately drew comparisons to Organizing for Action, the nonprofit that allies of Barack Obama launched after he won reelection in 2012. But unlike Organizing for Action, which agreed under pressure to publicly disclose its big-money benefactors every quarter, Trump’s America First has given no indication that it intends to disclose who its funders are.
Such political nonprofits are not required by law to disclose their donors, but watchdogs worry that without public reporting, advocacy operations like America First could become dark money slush funds that allow anonymous donors to influence critical policy debates-with the public none the wiser.
The Courts
Law360: 6th Circ. Panel Reverses Part Of Union Contribution Row Ruling
By Adam Lidgett
A district court had granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a group of unions challenging an amendment to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act they said violates their contracts clause rights by upsetting existing collective bargaining agreements permitting payroll deductions to other entities and their First Amendment rights by preventing many union members from donating to their union’s PACs via automatic payroll deductions. The district court granted preliminary injunction on the grounds they were likely to prevail on the contracts clause and First Amendment claims.
The appeals panel, however, said that while the district court correctly applied the contracts clause in its ruling, it misapplied the First Amendment, saying that the essence of the unions’ claims – that the 2015 amendment amounts to a speech restriction – has already been rejected once by the Sixth Circuit and twice by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Congress
Wall Street Journal: How to Fix the Johnson Amendment
By Erik Stanley
Law-abiding citizens will self-censor if they fear sanctions for violating the law, and more ambiguity means greater risk of self-censorship. Since 1954, U.S. churches and pastors have chilled their own speech-often regarding how their faith intersects with politics-out of fear. Many completely avoid the topic simply to avoid the scrutiny of the powerful IRS and its arsenal of punishments.
Any government agency is ill-suited to police speech. The IRS, with its history of abusing various groups, is particularly dangerous…
The Free Speech Fairness Act would get the IRS out of the speech-police business while prohibiting political expenditures or contributions by tax-exempt organizations. It would provide a relief valve for speech by allowing all charities to speak on political issues, as long as the speech is done in the course of carrying out the group’s regular activities. Because the bill doesn’t allow for political contributions or expenditures, dark money can’t flow through exempt organizations to campaigns.
Lobbying
Newsweek: The ‘Swamp’ Donald Trump Promised to ‘Drain’ is Growing Again
By Emily Cadei
As part of his populist appeal, Trump promised to drain the fetid “swamp” along the Potomac, an incestuous bog teeming with powerful politicians and moneyed interests, and to “end the cycle of corruption” in Washington. But the White House’s recent executive order extending the lobbying ban on executive branch officials is unlikely to stem the lobbying “revival” predicted by leading Republican lobbyist Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader.
Instead, Trump’s election is likely to feed the swamp monsters. For an industry premised on dealmaking, the return of one-party rule in Washington offers the welcome end-at least temporarily-to political gridlock. That means major policy changes are in the works, which promise to fundamentally alter billion-dollar industries. And precisely because so few people or companies had anticipated a Trump White House, there is all the more need for trusted guides to help navigate these murky waters.
Trump Administration
New York Times: The Lesson of Nordstrom: Do Business With the Trumps or Else
By Richard W. Painter
It is a clear violation of federal ethics rules for White House staff members, or any other federal employees, to use their official positions for private gain. But what President Trump did on Wednesday in his Twitter attack on the Nordstrom department store chain, castigating it for dropping Ms. Trump’s line, was far worse…
The president’s tweet – posted on his personal account and then re-sent from his White House account – is an act of intimidation. Nordstrom interacts with many executive branch agencies: the Department of Labor, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and others. Each one of these agencies will be headed by Trump appointees. Most will be staffed with other political appointees as well. The president is telling all of these people that he is very angry with Nordstrom. The message is clear, and it won’t take much for a political appointee in some agency to conceive of an ingenious way of ingratiating himself with the White House by making life difficult for the store chain.
New York Times: Kellyanne Conway Promotes Ivanka Trump Brand, Raising Ethics Concerns
By Richard Pérez-Peña and Rachel Abrams
The White House on Thursday “counseled” Kellyanne Conway, one of President Trump’s top advisers, in an unusual show of displeasure after she urged consumers to buy fashion products marketed by Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter. Legal experts said Ms. Conway might have violated a federal ethics rule against endorsing products or promoting an associate’s financial interests…
Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said Ms. Conway’s comments were “wrong, wrong, wrong, and there’s no excuse for it.” Mr. Chaffetz – who so far had not acted on calls since Election Day to investigate ethics issues related to Mr. Trump – and the panel’s ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings, formally asked the Office of Government Ethics for an inquiry.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Public Citizen, nonprofit advocacy groups, sent their own requests to the ethics office to investigate whether Ms. Conway’s comments went over the line. The director of the office, Walter M. Shaub Jr., has said publicly that the president needs to do more to separate himself from his businesses.
The States
Fox Illinois: Legislation Would Allow Public-Funds Match For Small Campaign Donors
By Fox Illinois News Team
An Illinois lawmaker is looking to use the legislative process to take big money out of state politics.
Democratic Senator Daniel Biss of Evanston is sponsoring a bill that would create a small donor matching system in Illinois elections.
Under the system, candidate contributions between $25 and $150 would be matched by public funds.
Candidates would have a set amount of money, and could not accept more than$500 from a single donor.
“The basic idea is that we want to evaluate the voices of ordinary people, whose role in politics has been nearly silenced for too long,” said Sen. Daniel Biss. “So, we do it with a small donor matching program.”
Charleston Post and Courier: Shine light on ‘dark money’
By Maya Prabhu
About $18 million in donations found its way into campaign coffers in South Carolina during the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Even more millions were spent on advertising to influence voters.
South Carolinians deserve to know where that money comes from.
That’s the basis of a state Senate bill that would require greater transparency from “dark money” organizations. It deserves serious consideration…
Opponents of similar efforts in other states have warned that overly broad requirements might expose even donors who contribute small amounts of money, potentially raising serious privacy concerns. But the S.C. bill would apply only to donors of $1,000 or more.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that political donations are a form of speech. The same court also protected anonymous speech on multiple occasions.
Atlantic Highlands Herald: Jim Johnson Asks Phil Murphy to Agree to Spending Cap in NJ Gov Race
Today, Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Jim Johnson called for a spending cap in the Democratic Primary for Governor. In asking his opponents to agree to voluntarily limit their campaign spending to $15 million in the primary, Johnson said that he and his fellow candidates should set an example for the rest of the country and take a concrete step to address the corrosive impact of money in politics. Johnson also penned a public letter to fellow candidate for New Jersey Governor, Phil Murphy, calling on him specifically to agree to the spending cap.
“It’s time we put people before the special interests and big money that is overrunning our political process,” said Johnson. “While no New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate has ever spent more than $6.7 million on a primary campaign, we have a Democratic candidate this year who has already spent over $10 million – and we are 4 months from the Primary. $15 million dollars, which is more than double what any other Democrat has ever spent, should be more than enough to make a case to the voters of New Jersey. If Phil Murphy can’t agree to this cap, it seriously calls into question his commitment to campaign finance reform and progressive democratic values.”
Sacramento Bee: Sacramento wants state watchdog to enforce city ethics rules
By Anita Chabria
State legislators announced legislation Thursday that would allow the state’s watchdog agency to enforce Sacramento’s campaign finance rules.
Under Senate Bill 267, Sacramento would join Stockton and San Bernardino County as the only municipalities in California that can contract with the Fair Political Practices Commission to handle local ethics investigations and oversight…
The FPPC usually handles only investigations related to violations of state law; under SB 267, the agency could enforce city campaign rules. The authorizing legislation requires a two-thirds legislative vote as a change to the 1974 voter-approved Political Reform Act.
Steinberg said Thursday that the FPPC had more expertise than could likely be assembled at the local level, and presented a more cost-efficient and robust method of enforcement…
Sacramento has been working on ethics and sunshine reform since 2014 and approved a comprehensive set of measures in January.
