In the News       

Capital Research Center:  “Dark Money” Funding Drops to 2.9% of All 2016 Campaign Spending

By CRC Staff

In a new issue brief, the Center for Competitive Politics reveals that so-called “dark money” funding decreased to only 2.9% of all campaign spending during the 2016 general election. Further analysis shows that “dark money” from nonprofit groups has never exceeded 5% of campaign spending in the last six election cycles, and continues to decline.

A part of the larger debate on money in politics, “dark money” is election funds spent by politically active nonprofit groups that are not required by law to report the private information of donors for non-earmarked contributions.

Bloomberg BNA: Nearly Half of Recent Campaign Money From Undisclosed Sources

By Kenneth P. Doyle

Undisclosed donors provided nearly half of the more than $20 million in outside campaign spending in three closely watched, current congressional election races, a Bloomberg BNA review of Federal Election Commission reports found…

In reality, the CCP study said, nonprofits that spend money in campaigns but disclose none of their donors consistently account for less than 5 percent of reported political spending. Regulated political committees and others, like the media, “continue to have the most prominent voices in elections” the CCP said.

Allowing a small role for nonprofits doesn’t “drown out” candidates or undermine disclosure but adds to the diversity of views necessary in a healthy democracy, the CCP said.

IRS

Washington Times:  Judge: Lerner’s tea party-targeting testimony can stay secret – for now  

By Stephen Dinan

Lois G. Lerner and Holly Paz, two key figures in the IRS’ tea party-targeting, can keep testimony about their role in the targeting secret, at least for now, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The two women had said they feared death threats and other harassment if their depositions in a class action lawsuit against the IRS became public.

U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett had originally ordered their depositions be sealed, but on Thursday he removed that prohibition and instead said the testimony should be deemed “confidential,” keeping it secret until he can see what the women had to say and what effect releasing it to the public would have.

Free Speech

Washington Examiner: Turkish president watched attack on D.C. protesters  

By Joel Gehrke

Turkish Ambassador Serdar Kilic was summoned to the State Department for a personal rebuke on Wednesday, following a public condemnation of the violence by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s spokeswoman.

“Violence is never an appropriate response to free speech, and we support the rights of people everywhere to free expression and peaceful protest,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Wednesday. “We are communicating our concern to the Turkish government in the strongest possible terms.”

Mediaite: BBC Threatens to Call Your Boss If You Post Comments They Think Are ‘Offensive’

By Matthew Balan

The section about “offensive or inappropriate content on BBC websites” continued by underlining that a publicly-funded British media corporation “may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour.”

The warning is actually not a new addition to the BBC’s privacy policy, as identical language is contained in the September 2016 version of the document. But the latest edition got some attention from Twitter users, starting on Wednesday.

Consumerist: Appeals Court: Your Naked Protest At Airport Security Is Not Protected By First Amendment

By Chris Morran

“Even if [John] could be said to have ‘interfered,’ his conduct, in protesting the intrusive search procedures… by removing his clothing to facilitate such search, was activity protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he argued, “and was therefore not the kind of interference prohibited by the regulation.”

The Ninth Circuit never heard oral arguments in this matter, but decided this week to issue a ruling that shoots down John’s claims of First Amendment protection.

The three-judge panel noted that John’s core argument is that “stripping naked in the middle of a TSA checkpoint is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment,” but concluded that John “fails to carry his burden of showing that a viewer would have understood his stripping naked to be communicative.”

FEC

Daily Caller: Democrats Think Their First Amendment Is Different (And Superior)  

By Michael Thielen

No one should doubt the left’s ideals on speech go only one way.  Democrat members on the FEC went after Fox News for – get this – too much speech in allowing too many candidates in a Republican primary debate the network hosted, while ignoring CNN when it did the same thing.  Fortunately, the three Republicans on the commission blocked their colleagues, followed the law and were ideologically consistent in opposing efforts to go after CNN and Fox.

Congress

HuffPost: Democrats Look To Close Conflict-Of-Interest Loophole Linked To Betsy DeVos  

By Paul Blumenthal

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), would require executive branch nominees to disclose whether they solicited or contributed money to political candidates, political parties, political action committees and, most importantly, nondisclosing nonprofits active in elections. Additionally, nominees would be required to enter into agreements with the Office of Government Ethics that would explain how they would avoid conflicts of interest after confirmation.

Candidates and Campaigns       

Time: Congressional Democrats Smash Online Fundraising Record

By Alana Abramson

Congressional Democrats have seen a hefty fundraising boost during the early months of the Trump Administration.

In the first five months of 2017, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $20 million in online contributions, more money than it did online in all of 2015, when it raised $19.7 million.

The Hill: Montana Dem boosted by some celebrity donations

By Ben Kamisar

Montana’s closely watched special House election has drawn some Hollywood buzz, with Democrat Rob Quist receiving donations from a few television and movie stars along with some other high-profile names.

Film actors Jeff Bridges and Bill Pullman donated to Quist’s campaign, as did billionaire investor Chris Sacca, of “Shark Tank” fame.

“Two and a Half Men” actor Jon Cryer also contributed to Quist’s campaign.

And comedian Rosie O’Donnell, whose repeated spars with President Trump have upped her political profile, is also pitching in.

The States

Beachwood Reporter:  Small Donor Matching System Bill Passes State Senate  

By Illinois Public Interest Research Group

The Illinois Senate voted 31-23 to lessen the influence of big money in Illinois elections by passing Senate Bill 1424. The legislation, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Daniel Biss and championed by good government groups Fair Elections Illinois, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, and Illinois Public Interest Research Group, would create a small donor matching system, wherein candidates would be eligible to receive public matching funds for small contributions by voluntarily agreeing to forgo big money and corporate contributions.