In the News
Fox News: Power Play
David KeatingClip begins at 18:11
LA Times: Justices to hear appeal of individual donation limits
By David G. Savage and Melanie Mason“By removing aggregate limits on party giving, McCutcheon would be a step in equalizing the role of parties with that of so-called super PACs,” said Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes the campaign funding limits.
Independent Groups
The Hill: Defeated Democrat sues the IRS for allowing ‘mad scientist’ campaign ads
By Bernie Becker“When called out, the IRS has said only that it is ‘aware’ of the public’s concern. Now the IRS can explain its deplorable inaction in federal court.”
Politico: Lawsuit accuses IRS of neglecting political groups
By Byron TauA former Illinois congressional candidate is suing the Internal Revenue Service, claiming that the agency has allowed secret-money political non-profit groups to proliferate in violation of federal law.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Wall Street Journal: Speech Limits Revisited
EditorialGetting rid of aggregate limits would be a logical extension of the High Court’s attempt to restore the centrality of free speech and assembly in our Constitutional order, building on Citizens United in 2010. But it would be even better if the Court used this case to reconsider its original free-speech sin in Buckley v. Valeo in toto and restore the kind of unregulated, free-wheeling political debate that the Founders envisioned.
NY Times: Campaign Donations and Political Corruption
EditorialIn a deeply worrisome move, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a new campaign finance lawsuit that challenges long-established federal caps on the total amount an individual can contribute to federal campaigns in a two-year cycle. In a ruling last year, a special court in Washington correctly upheld those limits, which in some form have been included in federal law since 1974.
NPR: Supreme Court Takes Case That Could Puncture A Key Campaign Cash Limit
By PETER OVERBYBarely three years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling, which liberated corporations to spend freely in elections, the justices say they’ll take up another campaign finance case — this time aiming at one of the limits on the “hard money” that goes directly to candidates and party committees.
NY Times: Justices Take Case on Overall Limit to Political Donations
By Adam LiptakWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to federal campaign contribution limits, setting the stage for what may turn out to be the most important federal campaign finance case since the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.
Candidates, Politicians and Parties
Chicago Tribune: Jacksons’ guilt a tale of excess
By Katherine Skiba, Jeff Coen and Wes VenteicherAs part of Jackson’s plea agreement, prosecutors filed a 22-page statement filled with stunning details of how the Jacksons used his congressional campaign fund to fuel a lavish lifestyle. Jackson admitted that together the couple used campaign credit cards to buy personal items, tapped campaign funds to pay those bills, sometimes arranged for their campaign treasurer to make purchases for them, filed falsified campaign-disclosure forms to hide their actions and ultimately understated their personal income for tax purposes.
State and Local
California –– Pasadena Sun: No-limit donations in Pasadena bolster campaign war chests
By Joe PiaseckiIn the race for public office this year in Pasadena, yet another deluge of financial contributions has many in the political establishment calling for an overhaul of campaign finance regulations.
California –– Sacramento Bee: Sierra Club lobbyist faces FPPC fine
By Laurel Rosenhall“The failure to timely file lobbying reports violates one of the (Political Reform) Act’s central purposes: that the activities of lobbyists should be regulated and their finances disclosed in order that improper influences will not be directed at public officials. The public harm inherent in these violations is that the public is deprived of important and timely information regarding the amounts and nature of lobbying activity. In this matter, (Endicott) failed to file seven consecutive quarterly lobbying firm reports. As a result, there was no disclosure of approximately $72,000 in lobbying activity.” The fine amounts to $3,500 for each report not filed, at the high end of the range for similar offenses. FPPC staff wrote that they recommend a steep fine because Endicott “recently received a warning letter for the same violation of the Act, did not cooperate with the investigation, and, to date, has refused to file the delinquent reports.”
