In the News
The Federalist: The 5 Biggest Lies, Myths, And Debunked Claims Of The IRS Scandal
By Luke WachobRemember the Lois Lerner emails the Internal Revenue Service said were lost? Thousands of them were just uncovered, and according to one investigator, they were “right where you would expect them to be.” It was just the latest iteration of a recurring trend in the IRS targeting scandal: investigators debunking attempts by the agency and its apologists to excuse, downplay, or cover up IRS’s abuse of conservative and tea-party groups.Two years after it was first publicly exposed, here are the five biggest lies, myths, and debunked claims about the IRS scandal.
SCOTUS Blog: No protection — yet — for group’s donor privacy
By Lyle DennistonThe Ninth Circuit, while refusing to block the state demand while the Center pursued an appeal to the Supreme Court, has delayed the order that would formally implement its ruling against the Center. That has had the practical effect, at least for the time being, of keeping the situation on hold.Justice Kennedy, in denying immediate relief for the Center, but doing so “without prejudice” to its renewal, apparently did not ask for a response from state officials before acting. It seems likely that he did not see a particular urgency in the Center’s situation right now, but wanted to keep open the option of reconsidering if the situation does change in coming days.In practical terms, what it means is that the next move is probably up to the California attorney general.
More Soft Money Hard Law: The State of the Debate
By Bob BauerThe Supreme Court has been asked to consider whether the Attorney General of California may require tax-exempt organizations to produce donor information normally provided only to the Internal Revenue Service. The petitioner, the Center for Competitive Politics, argues that the Ninth Circuit has improperly upheld this requirement by giving the State ready access to this information on a slim-to-none showing of need. The Attorney General has asserted that the information will be useful to the State’s attempts to enforce the law, such as the protections against self-dealing or improper loans. Others apparently suspect that there is more going on, namely, a move to discourage the sort of politically shaped tax-exempt activities associated with the Koch brothers.This is an important case, now before Justice Kennedy. It is the latest turn in a troubled reform debate. First there is the fight over disclosure, which is relatively new. For years this was supposed to be the common ground that camps badly divided over other forms of regulation could occupy: but no more. And just as reform communities have suspected political actors of cheating on the law, engaging in “circumvention,” now skeptics of regulation fear that, in the absence of consensus on legislative reform, state actors are resorting to extralegal administrative remedies.Over the weekend, on the election law listserv, a snippy exchange quickly developed about the California case and what it represented. In some part, the views fired back and forth reflected the widespread assumption that positions on reform can be explained primarily by reference to their proponents’ political objectives. It is believed that reformers want regulation to advance progressive policies, or that their antagonists oppose regulation because they wish to surrender political power to the marketplace.
LA TImes: Supreme Court refuses to shield names of donors to political advocacy groups
By David G. SavageThe group filed an emergency appeal with Justice Kennedy asking him to block the disclosures while its lawyers prepared a full appeal to the court. He turned down the request late Monday but did so “without prejudice,” meaning that the center could renew its request in the future.David Keating, president of the center, said that if Harris “attempts to take any action against the center, we will renew our efforts to obtain an injunction.”
Courthouse News Service: Justices Pass on Wis. Investigation of Walker
By Barbara LeonardO’Keefe had petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, but the justices shot him down without any comment, as is their custom, Monday.The order notes the filing of amicus briefs from Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, the Maciver Institute for Public Policy, Cause of Action, Center for Competitive Politics, et al. and the Cato Institute.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
AP: High court won’t hear appeal over Walker campaign probe
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director, Eric O’Keefe, must resolve their claims in state courts.No one has been charged as a result of the investigation which has sought documents and testimony about possible violation of state campaign finance laws.The investigation is on hold while a separate legal challenge is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Free Speech
Real Time with Bill Maher: In Defense of Free Speech
Bill Maher and panelists Alex Wagner, Will Cain and former Gov. Lincoln Chafee discuss the PEN-Charlie Hebdo controversy and the shooting in Garland, Texas.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Politico: Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals
By Josh Gerstein, Tarini Parti, Hadas Gold and Dylan ByersNBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation’s records show.The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry’s ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for not disclosing his own $75,000 contribution when reporting on the foundation.The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively.
Washington Post: Modern campaigning has big effects on voter turnout
By Andrew GelmanThe above arguments are reasonable, and I’ll go with Enos and Fowler that most of the differences they see in turnout, comparing swing states and non-swing-states, represent direct effects of campaigns. But not all, I think. It’s my impression that the whole “battleground state” thing has been much more emphasized in recent elections, not just in campaigning but in the news media and thus in the minds of voters. Part of this may be attributed to increased awareness of the predictability of elections (tricking through the news media after decades of research by various people, including Doug Hibbs, Steven Rosenstone, Jim Campbell, Bob Erikson, Gary King, and . . . me!). One piece of evidence of this increased awareness is the change of campaign strategies noted by Enos and Fowler: campaigns as well as the news media have become increasingly statistically savvy and more focused on swing states. So all of this is happening together.
LA Times: Clinton says she’d make Supreme Court picks aimed at campaign finance reform
By Evan Halper And David Lauter“The Supreme Court made a grave error with Citizens United,” Clinton said before a roomful of party activists in Mason City, Iowa. “I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections.”
Vox: Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her
By Jonathan AllenIn the laundry whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different from the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions. Her federally required financial disclosure was released to media late Friday, a time government officials and political candidates have long reserved for dumping news they hope will have a short shelf life.
Washington Post: Hillary Clinton was paid millions by tech industry for speeches
By Matea Gold, Rosalind S. Helderman and Anu NarayanswamyWhile Bill Clinton’s lucrative speaking career since leaving the White House in 2001 has been well documented, the new disclosures offer the first public accounting of Hillary Clinton’s paid addresses since she stepped down as secretary of state. And they illustrate how the Clintons have personally profited by drawing on the same network of supporters who have backed their political campaigns and philanthropic efforts — while those supporters have gained entree to a potential future president.Silicon Valley is one place where those overlapping interests come together, according to a Washington Post analysis of the new Clinton disclosures.Out of the $11.7 million that Hillary Clinton has made delivering 51 speeches since January 2014, $3.2 million came from the technology industry, the analysis found. Several of the companies that paid Clinton to address their employees also have senior leaders who have been early and avid supporters of her presidential bid.
