In the News
The Hill: Meet the man taking aim at campaign finance regulations
By Cameron JosephDavid Keating was the mastermind behind the 2010 case SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission that led to the ruling that individuals can spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech, triggering a floodgate of outside group spending.Now, as head of the conservative, anti-regulation Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), he’s aiming to blow more holes in the damaged shell of campaign finance law.“We don’t think the government has any role in ultimately regulating campaigns. That’s the time for people to speak out without interference from the people in power, so a lot of the regulations need to be scaled back,” Keating told The Hill in an interview last week.
Orlando Sentinel: Citizens United reinforced U.S. democracy
By Bradley A. SmithWould you want the government to decide how much information gets published about politicians and issues during campaigns? Do you want incumbents to decide when citizen groups can criticize politicians? Should government have the power to imprison you if you publish a book or produce a movie criticizing a politician?If you answered “no,” or “hell no,” to any of these questions, then you should agree that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision is good for democracy. Because when the court said “no” to all those questions, it protected your First Amendment right to free speech.While many Americans hate Citizens United in the abstract, relatively few know what it was actually about. But the facts were simple: A conservative nonprofit organization — Citizens United — made a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, intending to air it during the 2008 presidential primary. Federal law made that a crime.
The New Mexican: Legislative roundup: March 12: Campaign disclosures
As reported by The New Mexican this week, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Competitive Politics last month wrote to House leaders saying the bill was unconstitutional and would chill free speech rights of independent expenditure groups by making them say who is paying for their ads.
CCP
Corruption versus Influence
By Luke WachobI quibble with Friedman’s phrasing that Adelson “got around” the law – he complied with the law, he didn’t evade it – but there’s a larger point here that’s instructive: Adelson’s ability to amplify his voice with money was not seriously diminished by strict campaign finance laws. He simply found different ways to spend and exert influence.This is the Achilles heel for advocates of stricter campaign finance regulation or a more expansive definition of corruption in America. As Israel found out, strict campaign finance laws can’t “get money out of politics” because campaign spending is not the only way money influences politics. But, on the other hand, if government had license to regulate anything that a) costs money and b) is politically influential, the First Amendment’s free speech and press clauses would be effectively nullified.Consider the myriad ways money can amplify influence. Sure, wealthy individuals can donate to like-minded politicians, political parties, or political action committees in the hopes of furthering their campaigns. But they can also fund get-out-the-vote efforts targeted at people likely to share their views. They can exert influence through media corporations, as Adelson does in Israel, and as people like Jeff Bezos (owner of The Washington Post) and Rupert Murdoch (founder and chairman of News Corp.) do in America. They can fund university programs or other training programs that influence the views and careers of those who participate in them. They can fund think tanks and research institutes that garner influence by providing much-needed information to time-strapped policymakers.
Constitutional and Practical Issues with Minnesota Senate File 214
By Matt NeseThe bill provides for disclosure of donations earmarked for electioneering communications, but only if the donation is deposited in “a segregated bank account” used to pay for the communications. Consider what would happen, for example, if an organization with a $1,000,000 budget received a $50,000 donation earmarked for an electioneering communication and deposited the funds in the operating account. If it spent only that $50,000 for an electioneering communication, that donor would not be disclosed. Instead, other donors who gave significantly more to the organization for general support would be disclosed. In this example, a donor who gave $75,000 to the organization because she supported its mission, and did not know the organization would make an electioneering communication, would be disclosed. As currently constructed, the $50,000 donor who actually gave the money for an electioneering communication would not be disclosed, but the $75,000 donor, who has no knowledge of the communication, and might even disagree with its message, would be disclosed to the public.This would occur because of the prorating mechanism in the legislation, described above. In the case of the donor who earmarked the $50,000 contribution, it would consist of 5% of the organization’s budget, so 5% of his donation would be subjected to the over $5,000 pro-rated disclosure threshold. 5% of that donation is $2,500, so the donor’s identity would not be disclosed, as his donation is under the $5,000+ threshold. The $75,000 donation would represent 7.5% of the organization’s budget. 7.5% of $75,000 would be $5,625, or more than the over $5,000 disclosure threshold, triggering disclosure of the donor’s private information.
Wisconsin
Wall Street Journal: The Left’s Recusal Gambit
EditorialIf you’re a special prosecutor who keeps losing on the law, try rigging the judges. That’s the gambit in Wisconsin, where special prosecutor Francis Schmitz has filed a motion prodding judges to recuse themselves.The case is Mr. Schmitz’s appeal of his failing secret investigation of conservative groups under Wisconsin’s John Doe law. In January 2014 Judge Gregory Petersonquashed subpoenas to groups like the Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce because they “do not show probable cause” of “any violations of the campaign finance laws.”The state Supreme Court is hearing the appeal of that decision and two related cases brought by targets of the investigations, and Mr. Schmitz wants at least one and as many as four state Supreme Court justices to bow out. The reason? Their campaigns benefitted from independent expenditures by some of the groups Mr. Schmitz is harassing.Mr. Schmitz’s motion shouldn’t fly under Wisconsin’s code of judicial conduct, which says a recusal cannot “be based solely on the sponsorship of an independent expenditure or issue advocacy communication” by someone involved in the proceeding. To evade that standard, Mr. Schmitz cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009 Caperton v. Massey Coal decision that required a West Virginia justice to recuse himself from a case in which one of the parties had spent $3 million supporting his re-election.
Wall Street Journal: Toe-Tagging John Doe
EditorialWhile previous Doe investigations have dragged on for years and been extended multiple times with little oversight, the new law would cap each John Doe proceeding at six months and require a majority of 10 circuit judges to sign off on an extension. The bill would also halt the practice of supervising John Doe investigations with retired judges who tend to let anything go.All of this is progress, and we hope Republicans in the Badger State don’t lose their nerve when they’re attacked by liberals who claim to be opposed to “dark money” in politics but really want to cripple their political opponents. The GOP should toe-tag John Doe and put him in the morgue.
Independent Groups
Charleston Daily Mail: Speech police target campaign “coordination”
By Laurie LinIn a move that probably sent chills down the spines of campaign managers around the nation, the Department of Justice announced last month that it will “aggressively pursue coordination offenses at every appropriate opportunity.”The coordination they’re targeting is between candidates for office and the so-called super PACs that support them.The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision said that giving money to political action committees is constitutionally protected speech.
Wall Street Journal: Climate Free Speech
Editorial“It surprises nobody that you disagree with CATO’s views on climate change—among a host of issues—but that doesn’t give you license to use the awesome power of the federal government to cow us or anybody else,” wrote Cato Institute President John Allison in a letter last week to Senators Barbara Boxer,Ed Markey and Sheldon Whitehouse.He was responding to their February attempt to intimidate climate apostates by sending 107 letters to think tanks, trade associations and companies demanding information about their funding. This follows an inquiry by House Democrat Raul Grijalva into seven academics who have questioned President Obama’s climate policies, an attack recently described in these pages by one of the targets, distinguished climate scientist Richard Lindzen, who is now associated with Cato.Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast also excoriated the senators for “attempting to silence public debate,” caustically inviting the Democrats to inspect the nonprofit’s tax returns. Koch Industries lawyer Mark Holden provided the politicians with a tutorial on his company’s right to free association.
Contribution Limits
AP: Eyeing White House run, Cruz says he favors unlimited campaign contributions
By Philip ElliotUnlimited political cash would give rank-and-file conservative activists greater sway in picking their representatives, including the president, White House hopeful Ted Cruz told New Hampshire voters on Sunday.Cruz, a first-term senator who represents Texas, said deep-pocketed donors should have the same rights to write giant campaign checks as voters have to put signs in their front yards. Both, Cruz said, were an example of political speech, and he added that “money absolutely can be speech.”“I believe everyone here has a right to speak out on politics as effectively as possible,” Cruz told a voter who asked him about the role of the super-rich in politics.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NY Times: Huckabee Pursues Unconventional Ways to Fund a Campaign
By Trip GabrielIndeed, Mr. Huckabee risks being viewed by voters less as someone who aspires to be seen as presidential timber, than among washed-out candidates of the past, like Bob Dole, who went on to make Viagra ads, and former Senator Fred D. Thompson, who pitches reverse mortgages.One ad arriving in January in the inboxes of Huckabee supporters, who signed up for his political commentaries at MikeHuckabee.com, claims there is a miracle cure for cancer hidden in the Bible. The ad links to a lengthy Internet video, which offers a booklet about the so-called Matthew 4 Protocol. It is “free” with a $72 subscription to a health newsletter.Another recent pitch sent out to Huckabee’s supporters carried the subject line “Food Shortage Could Devastate Country.” It promoted Food4Patriots survival food kits, described as the “No. 1 item you should be hoarding.”
Washington Post: 2016 candidates build new financing system. Are they mocking the rules?
By Dan BalzWhat’s taking place in these early weeks of the 2016 cycle reflects the emergence of a new model for financing presidential campaigns. With it has come a flagrant disregard for the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Politicians who are already hiring staffs, raising money, attending cattle calls and visiting the early states pretend, sometimes in tortured language, that they are not actual candidates.Last week, my colleague Matea Gold wrote what may be one of the most important stories of the 2016 campaign, describing the new role that super PACs are playing in the candidates’ planning and preparation, and how this appears to be a clear distortion of campaign laws.
Lobbying and Ethics
Washington Post: The ‘Moneyball’ effect on K Street: The influence game gets scientific
By Catherine HoA few clicks of a mouse will show you that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has co-sponsored more of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s bills than any other senator’s over the past four years — 22, to be exact.A couple more clicks show that those bills range from the serious (a measure to expand lending practices to people living in rural areas) to the ceremonious (a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the congressional declaration of bourbon whiskey as a distinctive U.S. product). Another click or two will show that McConnell has a better record of getting bills out of committee than most Republican senators — he ranks seventh of 54.A decade ago, such information — which is valuable to corporations, for-hire lobbyists and other outside interest groups looking to influence policymakers — might take years of working on Capitol Hill or K Street to accumulate.
SEC
Chicago Tribune: Campaign rules pinch Christie and Walker harder
By Jeanne CummingsThis summer, right when the presidential primary fundraising season is in full bloom, the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to make running for president harder for some candidates than for others. In fact, that’s already the case.Republican Govs. Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker are off limits to some financial industry donors. “Pay to play” rules restrict the governors’ ability to accept contributions from investment advisers who work with state and local governments on pensions and bond deals. An SEC ruling could significantly expand that pool of prohibited contributors by July.The original SEC “pay-to-pay” rule took effect in 1994, spurred by disclosures that investment advisers had received lucrative business contracts after contributing to political campaigns. Former New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi served 20 months in prison, beginning in 2011, for steering $250 million in pension funds to an investment firm in exchange for more than $500,000 in donations and other benefits.
State and Local
California –– LA Times: Big money arrived too late for L.A. election debate
By David ZahniserTwo years ago, a defining issue in Los Angeles’ mayoral election was campaign money — more specifically, the huge amounts spent by the union that represents most Department of Water and Power employees.Mayor Eric Garcetti won the race after repeatedly pointing out that a group affiliated with the union had spent more than $3 million to support his opponent, then-City Controller Wendy Greuel. He made TV commercials on the issue, which ran around the clock in the campaign’s final days.The DWP union kept a much lower profile in this year’s city election. But that doesn’t mean it stopped spending. Instead, it gave a $25,000 donation at the last minute, when it was too late to become an issue for voters.
