In the News
CitizenLink: Judge Protects Donors’ Privacy in Delaware
By Kim Trobee
“The government cannot impose extensive regulatory burdens,” he said, “or violate the privacy of donors, where an organization does not advocate for any candidate.”
Despite the state’s sparing no expense in the case, DSF prevailed. President Nicole Theis said she’s thrilled.
“We can now continue to publish our nonpartisan voter guide and inform voters on the key issues of the day without registering with the government and handing over contributor lists,” she said. “Lawmakers need to remember the purpose of disclosure is to allow citizens to monitor the government, not for the government to monitor the citizens.”
The Libertarian Republic: New York Can’t Buy Its Way Out of Corruption Problem
By Joe Trotter
It’s funny how self-interested campaign-finance schemes fall apart when they aren’t in the incumbent’s best interests. It is almost as though instead of being used to prevent corruption, New York legislators are once again proving that absurd limits and out of control programs are designed to favorably impact those who enacted the limits and programs in the first place.
It would be even more amusing if New York didn’t have serious corruption and budgetary problems, but instead of seriously addressing either issue, Governor Cuomo and his cronies decided to use the opportunity to strike against a political opponent.
However, there is a silver lining in that the program is so illogically constructed that it appears designed to fail. If, as a test case, the current program once again exposes the folly of “public financing,” New York will hopefully abandon thenotion of political welfare once and for all.
CCP
Judge Rules Delaware Disclosure Law Unconstitutional
Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court in Wilmington granted Delaware Strong Families (DSF)’s motion for a preliminary injunction, writing that Delaware’s compulsory disclosure law “is so broadly worded as to include within the scope of its disclosure requirements virtually every communication made during the critical time period, no matter how indirect and unrelated it is to the electoral process.”
The Delaware statute, passed with the claim that it is necessary to inform voters about political spending, would force Delaware Strong Families to disclose personal information on financial supporters and donors.
“The court concludes that the relation between the personal information collected to the primary purpose of the Act is too tenuous to pass constitutional muster. Therefore, DSF is likely to prevail on the merits of its claim that the Act, as applied, is unconstitutional.”
Independent Groups
Reason: Rich People Will Always Beat Campaign Finance Restrictions: When Congress blocks off one avenue for funding political campaigns, millionaires find other routes—or bulldoze new ones through the wilderness.
By Steve Chapman
The Supreme Court decision killing limits on total donations to political candidates means billionaires will be running amok. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson can lay out astronomical sums to help Republicans. Oilmen Charles and David Koch can see him and raise him. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg can burn through his fortune like a blowtorch.
Oh, wait. They already did all that. Under this ruling, tycoons will have one more relatively modest way of supporting the candidates and causes they like. But trust me: You won’t be able to see a difference.
The New Republic: The Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to Defenders of Dark Money
By ALEC MACGILLIS
None of those victims was particularly sympathetic. But now comes Brendan Eich, who was hounded out of his job for giving a mere $1,000 to a cause that, whatever one thinks of it, drew the financial support of thousands of other Californians and, indeed, won at the polls.
Forbes: Super PACs Supersize Union Political Spending
By Nathan A. Benefield
General Majority isn’t shy about what they intend to do with this money. Their website proudly states they are “focused on electing Democratic state legislators” in states that “have been overrun by Republicans.”
This should sound an alarm. Union leaders have already declared their plans to spend an unprecedented amount of money in state races in 2014. The AFL-CIO alone is committing $300 million to defeating Republicans. Further, the New York Times reports that unions are drumming up wedge issues like a minimum wage increase solely to win elections and flip five states from red to blue: A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders said they would focus this fall on four industrial battlegrounds — Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, traditional union strongholds — and Florida. Their hope is to not only oust the Republican governors of those states, but also to flip several of the legislative chambers.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
SCOTUSBlog: DeWine v. DeWine
By Marty Lederman
The principal point of the attorney general’s earlier amicus brief, however, is that the constitutional damage is done by the third step, by virtue of the “probable cause” finding itself. As an amicus, Attorney General DeWine argues that the primary way in which the Ohio scheme chills election speech in a constitutionally problematic manner is not the threat of a full commission determination, let alone a criminal prosecution or sanction – as DeWine notes, those things rarely occur – but instead because of the alleged deterrent effect of the initial “probable cause” finding, such as the one the commission panel issued against the SBA List in 2010: “[A] finding of probable cause, if issued, will often harm, and is often intended by the complainant to harm, the speaker’s campaign, regardless of any eventual final determination by the Commission.” (Although the briefs do not discuss the standard for probable cause the commission applies pursuant to this Ohio election statute, presumably it is the same as the “probable cause” standard for an arrest – namely, where there is “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt” or where the known facts and circumstances would “warrant a prudent man in believing that the offense has been committed.”)
Reuters: U.S. top court declines to hear Iowa campaign finance challenge
The court declined to take up the case just days after it issued a ruling lifting limits on the aggregate amount individual donors can give in federal elections.
By opting not to hear the case, the court left intact an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from June 2013 that upheld the ban. By so doing, the court indicated it was unwilling for now to press ahead with further deregulation of campaign finance following the 5-4 ruling on Wednesday in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
IRS
Daily Caller: House Ways and Means committee to vote on criminal charges for Lois Lerner
By Patrick Howley
The House Committee on Ways and Means will vote Wednesday on whether to refer ex-IRS official Lois Lerner to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on criminal charges, The Daily Caller has learned.
Ways and Means’ vote will occur the day before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Thursday meeting to discuss holding Lerner in contempt for stonewalling Oversight chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s investigation.
Disclosure
The Libertarian Republic: Hypocrite OkCupid CEO Also Donated to Anti-Gay Campaign
By Ian Huyett
Yet, like Eich, Yagan also donated to an anti-gay campaign several years ago. Yagan gave $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon, a Utah representative who fought for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Notably, while Proposition 8 affected only California, Yagan’s $500 went to a congressman who voted to proscribe equality under the law throughout the entire country.
WFB: Harry Reid Took Money from Koch Lobbyist
By Andrew Stiles
Add Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to the list of Senate Democrats who have benefitted from Koch money. In fact, he might as well pay one of his grandchildren to stitch Koch insignias onto his suit to denote their sponsorship…
The Atlantic: The Culture of Shut Up: Too many debates about important issues degenerate into manufactured and misplaced outrage—and it’s chilling free speech.
By Jon Lovett
The First Amendment’s protections have always put a great deal of responsibility in our hands: not only to respect the power of our own speech, but also to respect that same power in the hands of people we despise. We all have more of that power now. And I for one think that’s great. Yes, there are those who would say otherwise. David Brooks says we have a “followership problem,” that our lack of trust in institutions is less caused by their poor performance than by the fact we are “cynical and like to pretend that [we’re] better than everything else around [us.]” “Vanity,” he says, “has more to do with rising distrust than anything else.” Maureen Dowd talks about the “nightmare” of an America that “runs on clicks.”
I should go beyond the New York Times op-ed page but those were just the most annoying examples I remembered. But there are many others—big platforms all—who would tell us to fear the future, to fear the havoc the Internet is wreaking on journalism, to fear a world in which every event, every public utterance must face the gauntlet of Twitter and Facebook. They’d suggest the cacophony of links and hits and likes and retweets, the triumph of the buzzworthy and the Upworthy, are no replacement for a few trusted outlets—the nightly news, major newspapers, weekly magazines, etc.—that everyone experienced together.
The Atlantic: Mega-Donors Are Now More Important Than Most Politicians
By Peter Beinart
Big donors will likely fund all this publicity unpleasant. Most would rather shape public policy in private. But the press has an obligation to follow power, to explain how our political system actually works, not to hew to a civics-class fantasy that less and less resembles reality. Since the Roberts Court is dismantling the legal obstacles that prevent America’s 0.1 percent from purchasing politicians, the press should erect cultural obstacles in their place. Our best hope now is massive scrutiny, and, hopefully, some measure of shame.
