CCP                                       

Gorsuch’s Only Campaign Finance Case A Unanimous Decision Written by Obama Appointee

The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) released the following statement about Judge Neil Gorsuch’s record on campaign finance laws:

“There is only one campaign finance ruling by Judge Neil Gorsuch. He agreed with a unanimous opinion written by a judge appointed by Barack Obama,” said CCP President David Keating. “The law allowed major party candidates to raise twice as much from each donor as minor party candidates and independents. The court said this scheme violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.”

“Spinning this commonsense ruling as controversial shows that anti-speech groups have become extremists,” said Keating. “Judges with differing views agree the First Amendment protects the right to donate to candidate committees, which is why Judge Gorsuch wrote separately to say that Colorado’s discriminatory law failed under any standard of scrutiny. Free speech is for everyone, not just Democrats and Republicans.”

“Clean Elections” May Provide Taxpayer Funding for Anti-Semitism

By Alex Baiocco

Thomas Lopez-Pierre, a candidate for City Council, is running on a platform which revolves around his promise to “Protect Tenants From Greedy Jewish Landlords.” What’s more, he has repeatedly pledged to exploit the city’s tax-financed campaign program to spend “$100,000 in taxpayer’s money” spreading his message of hate…

Obviously, supporters of tax-financed campaigns are willing to tolerate public funding for prejudiced politicians because they believe the benefits outweigh the costs. But in practice, as our Policy Primer explains, these programs regularly fail to reduce corruption or achieve any of the policy outcomes oft-touted by advocates…
Of course, restricting access to the program based on the content of speech would pose serious First Amendment problems. Government should never be in a position to decide what speech deserves to be promoted and what speech should be quashed. But forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns they oppose is arguably just as damaging to the right of truly free political speech. 

Supreme Court                                      

USA Today: Seven takeaways from Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing

By Richard Wolf

One of the lengthiest discussions of the day was about “dark money” – political spending by unknown sources, which has multiplied since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts in elections.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked Gorsuch how he felt about more than $10 million being spent on his behalf in the confirmation battle. While he said “disclosure serves important functions in a democracy,” he would not say that the donors should be disclosed.

“Senator, with all respect, it falls in your court,” Gorsuch said.

Washington Examiner: Campaign finance: Democrats would’ve banned the Federalist Papers

By Washington Examiner

Citizens United has become the new Roe v. Wade, or so it seemed on Tuesday.

President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was peppered in the second day of hearings with questions about that 2010 case which Democrats loathe. Senators in the minority are annoyed that there’s too much freedom to spend money to unseat them, reasoning perhaps that otherwise, they’d still hold a majority…

Whitehouse, Leahy, and others may still believe that the government has an interest in abridging protected First Amendment activity of people who pool their financial resources to elect or reject candidates. In fact, both senators voted, with all other Senate Democrats, to amend the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment in 2014 to that end.

Judge Gorsuch appropriately declined to commit to making any particular ruling on Citizens United or any other specific case or controversy. But we certainly hope he agrees that senators’ personal irritation that others might spend money to deprive them of power is not a sufficient reason to take away cherished constitutional rights.

Slate: Watch Sen. Whitehouse Grill Gorsuch About Dark Money, Corporate Power, and Citizens United

By Mark Joseph Stern

Noting that outside groups are spending millions of dollars urging Gorsuch’s confirmation-and previously spent millions attacking Judge Merrick Garland-Whitehouse brought up Philip F. Anschutz, a secretive billionaire with ties to Gorsuch. He then asked Gorsuch about the constitutionality disclosure requirements for political contributions and expenditures…

Clearly, Whitehouse was trying to press Gorsuch on whether he believes disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment by chilling the “speech” of donors and corporations who would like to spend millions of dollars electioneering. Justice Clarence Thomas has championed that view, asserting that the Constitution protects corporations’ right to spend and donate unlimited sums of money on politics in absolute secrecy. But in Citizens United, every justice except Thomas agreed that Congress could force corporations to comply with disclosure requirements when they spend money politicking. Gorsuch never revealed whether he sides with Thomas or the court’s majority-but he did state that disclosure laws may sometimes “chill expression,” leaving the door open to a future decision invalidating them on First Amendment grounds.

Election Law Blog: Will Gorsuch Break With Scalia, Providing 2d (or 3d) Vote To Allow Flood of Undisclosed Money in Elections?

By Rick Hasen

There has been a continued push by campaign deregulationists to get the Court to water down corruption on First Amendment grounds-not to throw it out entirely as to campaigns, but to allow outside groups to mask their donors. (It is already now pretty easy to do this under federal law, but that’s a political, not legal, problem. Congress needs to rewrite the laws to make disclosure work).

So where would a Justice Gorsuch be on this? Would he be with a majority that has upheld disclosure, or would he be with J. Thomas and, likely Justice Alito, believing that the “chill” of compelled disclosure requires constitutional anonymity?

If you watch the exchange with Senator Whitehouse from yesterday’s hearing, I believe there is a good chance Gorsuch will be in the Thomas/Alito camp. He spoke of the “chill” and did not really give any reason why disclosure might be valuable. He never suggested, for example, that the public might have an interest in knowing who is spending millions to support his campaign…

What does it matter, if he’s only a second or third vote? Because we can look to the future, 10 years from now, and there could well be more Gorsuch’s on the Court.

U.S. News & World Report: Would Gorsuch Safeguard Democracy?

By Allegra Chapman

Because he has indicated that campaign contributions should be highly protected as First Amendment-guaranteed expression, Gorsuch could very well continue the court’s seven-year record of hacking at laws that prevent the wealthy from buying politicians.

Specifically, he and at least four other Justices could join forces to abolish contribution limits, thereby permitting rich individuals and powerful corporations to contribute directly to candidates and pass along their wish lists. Americans of all political stripes, including senators questining the nominee at this week’s confirmation hearing, have to ask: Would Gorsuch keep democracy safe?

The amount of money people and corporations are allowed to spend in elections is not an academic issue. It directly impacts how elected officials act and govern, and how our democracy runs. It’s no wonder that, just this month, when asked what to identify the “most important problem facing this country today,” Americans replied “dissatisfaction with government.” Not the Islamic State group, not terrorism. Dissatisfaction with the government. That’s largely because Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters alike feel as though government – and those who run it – simply does not address their needs or protect their livelihoods.

Trump Administration                                         

NPR: Among Trump Supporters, Conflicts Of Interest Aren’t A Top Concern

By Jim Zarroli

Trump’s unprecedented decision to hold onto his many businesses while in office has generated plenty of criticism from ethics experts in both major parties and led to a lawsuit by watchdog groups accusing him of violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Critics say his many hotels, golf courses and condo buildings all over the world allow him to use the White House to enrich himself in a way no president ever has.

But among Trump’s supporters, the issue doesn’t seem to be registering much…

None of that comes as a surprise to Susan Welch, professor of political science at Penn State and dean of its College of the Liberal Arts, who has studied voter attitudes toward public corruption.

Some kinds of corruption, such as sex scandals, tend to get a lot of media attention and can hurt politicians, she says. But voters tend to be pretty forgiving of politicians who become embroiled in other kinds of corruption, especially campaign finance violations and conflicts of interest, which aren’t seen as that serious…

In Trump’s case, voters knew he was a businessman when he was elected and were willing to shrug off any problems that might present, Welch notes.

The States

Portland Press Herald: Bill would prohibit discrimination based on climate change beliefs

By Scott Thistle

The bill, “An Act To Protect Political Speech and Prevent Climate Change Policy Profiling,” was prompted by a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general, including Janet Mills of Maine, against ExxonMobil in 2016.

Lockman said his measure, which has nine Republican co-sponsors, including Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason, R-Lisbon, and Assistant Majority Leader Andre Cushing, R-Newport, is a response to the concerns of Jonathan Reisman, an associate professor at the University of Maine at Machias…

Reisman said based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as “Citizens United,” political speech is deemed one of the most protected classes of free speech, but in their suit against ExxonMobil the attorney generals are trying to abridge that right and suppress the company’ views…

The summary of Lockman’s bill says it, ” … specifically prohibits the attorney general from investigating, joining an investigation initiated by another state or the federal government or prosecuting any person based on that person’s protected political speech. It also prohibits the attorney general from using the attorney general’s prosecutorial power to favor or disfavor protected political speech.”

Syracuse New Times: New York State’s Role in Curbing Money’s Political Influence: The Good and the Bad

By Azor Cole

Last June, New York became the 17th state to call for a constitutional amendment centered on lessening corporate influence in our political system. This declaration was widely spurred by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC… 

This symbolic achievement received positive press, but it remains merely symbolic…

New York City pioneered the small donor matching fund model back in the late 1980s. It is still referred to today as more cities work to adapt their own version. The program matches donations under $175 dollars to qualified candidates at a 6-to-1 ratio.

The theory runs like this: Publicly financing candidates who refuse to take donations above a certain threshold will encourage political candidates to appeal to a wider base and be less reliant on large donations from a handful of wealthy interests.

The real-world results have been mixed. Critics of publicly funded elections argue the programs rarely have their promised impact, while proponents tout increases in the diversity of candidates.

Not all campaign finance-related operations in New York are positive. Albany has an extensive history of corruption scandals, and New York has earned the unfavorable reputation of being a breeding ground for corrupt politicians.

Green Bay Press-Gazette: City Council supports campaign finance reform

By Liz Welter

The City Council unanimously approved a resolution Tuesday supporting a constitutional amendment to allow limits on campaign contributions.

Elections have been taken over by large money donors and campaign finance reform is needed, said Dan Powers of Sturgeon Bay at the start of the City Council meeting during the public comment period. Powers said he represents about 70 local residents who are seeking a statewide non-binding referendum to allow limits on campaign contributions.

The group is among the grassroots organizations seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution following the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision that opened the way for corporations, unions and other donors to influence elections through campaign contributions, Powers said.