CCP
Do Commissioners Weintraub and Ravel Want the FEC to Fail?
By Brad SmithThe heart of America’s failed experiment with regulating political campaigns since the 1970s are the limits placed on contributions to candidate and political party committees. Those remain in full force. If you don’t think so, try to contribute $6000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Reporting requirements—the other cornerstone of regulation—likewise remain in full force, and there is no chance that Rand Paul will decide to assert his libertarianism by refusing to file proper reports with the FEC, or that the information reported will not be publicly disclosed in accordance with law.Much has also been made of the coy game politicians are forced to play these days, holding off on any declaration of candidacy until the last possible moment. Less asked is “why”? The reason is because declaring oneself a candidate for president or any federal office causes a plethora of sticky red tape to begin unraveling pursuant to the Federal Election Campaign Act. If that law really isn’t “being enforced,” it appears to be news to those considering a run for office, who seem deathly afraid of declaring their candidacy and triggering the provisions of the Act.What Commissioners Ravel and Weintraub really mean when they say the law isn’t being enforced is that, if they were the only members of the Commission, they would pursue highly contested interpretations of the law, of the type that the courts have so often and so regularly struck down as violating of the First Amendment. One, in particular, is new disclosure regulations that would mimic the so-called DISCLOSE Act, a Democratic Party hobby horse, defeated in each of the last three Congresses and going nowhere in this one. Another would appear to be an aggressive interpretation of the doctrine of “coordination,” creating new standards that would convert constitutionally protected independent speech into regulated “coordinated in-kind contributions” to candidates. A third might be an equally aggressive effort to decide that certain politicians must be candidates for office, whether or not those individuals have declared a candidacy or met the traditional statutory thresholds.These are all complex issues, and on each the two Commissioners can make a plausible (if to me ultimately unconvincing) case. But the point is that the two Democratic Commissioners don’t want to have to actually make that case, because if they did it would become apparent a) how complex the issues are; b) how little legal authority supports their arguments; and c) how sharply contested their view of “what the law is,” actually is. And, we might add, it would also reveal how neatly and conveniently many of their priorities line up with what elements of the Democratic Party desperately want, and see as a way to gain a campaign edge over Republicans.
IRS
National Review: Conservative Group Uncovers New Roots of the IRS Scandal
By Eliana JohnsonThe targeting of tea-party groups traces back to February of 2010 when a low-level employee in the IRS’s Cincinnati office flagged a single file for his superior. In an e-mail written on February 25, 2010, Jack Koester, a revenue agent, told his boss, John Shafer, that “recent media attention” made the application at hand a “high-profile” case. In doing so, he was following the Internal Revenue Manual’s directive to agency personnel to elevate to senior managers cases that fall into several categories, including those “that are newsworthy, or that have the potential to become newsworthy.”That single e-mail from Koester ricocheted through the agency and eventually wound up in the Washington, D.C., office: Koester’s supervisor, Shafer, elevated the issue to the top official at the IRS office in Cincinnati, Cindy Thomas. Thomas in turn forwarded it to Holly Paz, the manager of the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit in Washington. Paz told Thomas that alerting Washington of the issue was wise due to the “potential for media interest.” By the next day, February 26, 2010, Thomas asked that the application be transferred to Washington and thanked Koester for “elevating” the case. Two weeks later, Paz asked that an additional tea-party case be sent from Cincinnati to Washington, and that Cincinnati hold the rest of the tea-party cases until Washington determined how to handle them.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Money Woes for Clinton Super PAC
By Peter Nicholas and Laura MecklerThe super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is struggling to raise money and now expects to collect only about $15 million through the end of June, people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.The group, Priorities USA Action, is shaking up its senior staff in hopes of jump-starting a fundraising operation that, five weeks after Mrs. Clinton entered the presidential race, has garnered only about $5 million in “hard commitments,” two people familiar with events say.As a super PAC, Priorities is permitted to collect donations of unlimited size, and is the main fundraising vehicle backing Mrs. Clinton outside her campaign. It intends to buy TV and Internet ads aimed at propelling her candidacy and to defend her against potential rivals in either party.
Washington Times: Pro-Clinton super PAC hit with FEC complaint, allegations of illegal in-kind contributions
By S.A. MillerCorrect the Record, a super PAC providing a rapid-response team and opposition research for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential run, was hit Wednesday with a complaint to the Federal Election Commission that alleges the group’s activity violates campaign financelaw.
The complaint, filed by Washington-based watchdog group Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), accused the group of providing illegal in-kind contributionsto Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
The complaint used Correct the Record’s own words and mission statement to make the case, including telling Bloomberg Politics that it would function as the Clinton campaign’s“political research and communications war room.”
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Courthouse News Service: 9th Upholds Flurry of HI Election-Finance Laws
By KATHERINE PROCTORHONOLULU (CN) – Several of Hawaii’s campaign-finance laws challenged by a construction firm are not unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit ruled Wednesday.A-1 A-Lectrician Inc., its CEO Jimmy Yamada and another individual sued the Hawaii Spending Commission in 2010, claiming that the state’s “non-candidate” committee donation caps, advertising definition and disclaimer requirements, and its ban on government contractors donating to candidates were all unconstitutional.Under Hawaii’s campaign-spending laws, organizations and companies like A-1 that spend more than $1,000 during an election period must register as a non-candidate committee and comply with spending caps and reporting rules.
FEC
RNLA: The FEC, ‘the system,’ and the cave
By Paul JosseyAmidst alleged intractable difficulties, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel has been hosting vanity panels and blitzing reverent media with woebegone tales of Commission “paralysis,” “dysfunction,” and “public betrayal.” Despite her full schedule, however, her quest’s philosophical underpinnings remain in tatters.forum last week. The confab produced questionable substance even putting aside obvious concerns over authority for taxpayer-funded forays into chromosome politics.By the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s count, the U.S. ranks 73rd in female legislators. The top five, however, are hardly preferred realms of emulation: 1. Rwanda, 2. Bolivia, 3. Cuba, 4. Seychelles, and 5. Switzerland.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
BuzzFeed: Clinton Super PAC Executive Director Exits Amid Shake-Up
By Ruby CramerBuffy Wicks, a leading Democratic operative and former senior aide to Barack Obama, will leave her post as executive director of Priorities USA Action, the super PAC working to raise millions in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.Wicks, now in the process of arranging her exit from Priorities, is expected to stay inside the larger Clinton operation, three sources familiar with the move said.She is in discussion with Clinton aides about a senior role on the “coordinated side” — which could include a position inside the campaign or at the Democratic National Committee, where officials would work closely with Clinton should she become the nominee.
CPI: Charlie Rangel is retiring. So why is he raising campaign cash?
By Dave LevinthalBut these and other recent Rangel campaign solicitations are misleading, at best, because there is no Rangel campaign.Rangel is retiring after his current term expires.So whatever cash Rangel’s campaign committee raises this year won’t likely promote the 23-term congressman’s legislative agenda, or stymie conservatives, or surreptitiously angle him toward one more Election Day hurrah.Instead, the money will fill Rangel’s own pockets.
Gyrocopter
Wall Street Journal: Florida Mailman Charged in Capitol Gyrocopter Landing
By Devlin BarrettWASHINGTON—A 61-year-old mailman has been indicted on charges related to flying a gyrocopter onto the lawn of the U.S. Capitol in April.Douglas Hughes of Ruskin, Fla., was charged with two felonies for violating air regulations and three misdemeanors of violating national defense airspace. Because the gyrocopter featured a U.S. Postal Service logo, he also was charged with falsely operating a vehicle labeled as a postal carrier.The most serious charge against him carries a maximum potential prison sentence of three years.
State and Local
Oregon –– Statesman Journal: Campaign contribution limits gaining momentum, backers say
By Tracy LoewLegislation to impose campaign contribution limits in Oregon is gaining support, its backers told the Statesman Journal editorial board Tuesday.“We are only a couple votes away from being able to pass this,” said Daniel Lewkow, political director for finance reform for Common Cause Oregon. “We have strong support in the Senate. We have strong support in the House.”
Vermont –– VT Digger: New Complaint Filed in Sorrel Campaign Finance Case
By Morgan TrueThe new allegations build on Toensing’s earlier accusation that Sorrell illegally coordinated spending with a super-PAC funded by the Democratic Governor’s Association during his 2012 re-election campaign.Toensing says Sorrell accepted legal representation from a prominent Burlington attorney in that matter who, at the time, had clients with a case pending before the Attorney General’s Office.In April, Toensing filed a complaint with Sorrell’s office that eventually triggered an independent investigation. Gov. Peter Shumlin hired attorney Tom Little, a former state representative, to assist state’s attorneys with the inquiry.
