In the News
Voice of America: Supreme Court Fuels Money Surge in US Politics
“Basically money helps people speak. So yes, money isn’t speech, but money helps buy speech,” says David Keating, president of The Center for Competitive Politics, a group that seeks to expand First Amendment rights to free expression. “People ought to be able to spend whatever they want saying what they want to other people in the United States and then let the voters decide.” Keating believes the government should get out of the business of trying to regulate campaign contributions altogether. “The bigger danger is letting the people who are in the government decide what people are allowed to say about the government.”
The Legislative Gazette: Conservative party puts legislators on alert over campaign finance issue
By MATTHEW DONDIEGO
Citing a 2011 report from the Center for Competitive Politics, the memo insists “the abuse of public funds is so severe and the record of corrupt practices and other misdeeds are so rampant, particularly in the city of New York, that such a system cannot possibly live up to the ‘clean’ moniker that has been assigned by its proponents.”
According to the party, public funds granted to candidates in the 10 years spanning the report who were subsequently investigated for misuse of taxpayer money totaled $13,924,189. The report reviewed candidates in public funding systems in New York City, Maine and Arizona.
“Public funding of campaigns only serves candidates and does nothing to help the citizens whose money is procured by taxes,” the memo reads. “It does not level the playing field, and certainly does not provide a benefit to New York’s citizen forced to support candidates they would not vote into office.”
CCP
Letter: Re: Application for section 501(c)(4) status by Crossroads GPS
By Allen Dickerson
On May 6, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) wrote you “to urge the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to deny tax exempt status as a ‘social welfare’ organization to Crossroads GPS.” By the authors’ own accounting, this was the eleventh such letter submitted to the Service.
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) writes in response. CCP takes no position on the granting or denial of tax-exempt status to any particular organization, nor do we think it appropriate for us, or others, to do so here. Consequently, we have not written you to rebut any of the previous ten letters submitted by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center. But because the most recent of these letters misrepresents the significance of the Federal Election Commission’s First General Counsel Report in Matter Under Review (MUR) 6396, we write now.
Amending the First Amendment
Wall Street Journal (LTE): No Need to Change the Constitution, Senator
By Sal Coviello
It’s so much easier to get the IRS to silence the political opposition by delaying conservative organizations’ exempt status requests or auditing their contributors. So senator, don’t waste your time trying to amend the Constitution, stick with what worked so well in the last election.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: GOP Lawmaker Issa Issues Subpoena to Justice Dept. Over IRS Targeting
By John D. McKinnon
The Republican committee chairman investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s reported targeting of conservative groups issued a subpoena to the Justice Department on Tuesday, saying department officials have “obstructed” his panel’s probe.
In a letter accompanying the subpoena, Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) said Justice officials haven’t complied with lawmakers’ previous requests for documents. In addition, Mr. Issa wrote that in a recent committee interview of a department official, Richard Pilger, Justice lawyers directed him not to answer the committee’s questions “an astounding 34 times.”
The agency’s actions led the committee “to conclude the department is not seriously committed to cooperating with the committee’s investigation on the committee’s terms,” wrote Mr. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Independent Groups
NY Times: Not Enough Room at the Democratic Cash Trough
By DAVID FIRESTONE
Organizing for Action, the ill-conceived support group for the Obama administration, is finally scaling back its fundraising efforts, and promising to move to the political sidelines.
Unfortunately, it’s for all the wrong reasons.
It’s not because the group has repeatedly embarrassed the White House through the appearance of selling access to top officials in exchange for cash, though it has. It’s not because it called itself a “grassroots” organization while accepting multiple six- and seven-figure donations, though it did.
It’s because Democratic political candidates complained that it was draining money from their fundraising operations. Small trough, too many pigs.
Disclosure
Politico: Nancy Pelosi criticized on Koch film
By Lauren French
Rep. Candice Miller, the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, wrote to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Monday saying a scheduled film screening of an anti-Koch brothers movie in the Capitol Visitor Center is violating House and Senate rules.
The screening for “Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition” is scheduled for Tuesday evening and both Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will participate in a question and answer session for the film.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
The Hill: Obama drift frustrates donors
By Amie Parnes
“There’s definitely some donor fatigue in a lukewarm environment,” the strategist said. “They are tired of giving and giving and they know there’s not much more the president can do.”
Another donor, who has written large checks to the Obama campaign and top Democrats and has rallied others to do the same, said there’s a feeling of neglect by some top donors who feel the White House team keeps hitting them up for money, on the heels of two bruising presidential elections, but does little in return.
The donor pointed to former President Clinton, who understands how to nurture donor relationships and their give-and-take nature. Obama, the donor pointed out, “has been very restrictive on that kind of stuff,” with the exception of rewarding some select donors with ambassadorships.
FEC
Roll Call: Campaign Bitcoins Proliferate, but FEC Rules Unclear
By Eliza Newlin Carney
The FEC approved bitcoin fundraising in a unanimous advisory opinion on May 8, but the agency’s six commissioners immediately began a public dispute over what that decision actually means. At issue is whether digital currency contributions must be capped at $100 per election per donor, or whether candidates, political action committees and parties may accept the virtual currency in larger amounts.
The commission’s three Democrats maintain that they approved of bitcoin fundraising only to the $100 cap, and in a statement cited “serious concerns” about the potential difficulty verifying virtual transactions.
But the commission’s GOP chairman, Lee E. Goodman, countered in his ownstatement that bitcoins are in-kind donations, and must therefore be capped only at existing contribution limits — $2,600 for a candidate and $5,000 for a PAC per election. “Innovation and technology should not and will not stand idly by while the commission dithers,” he declared.
CPI: Singularity University disavows super PACs
By Dave Levinthal
The school’s statement says the super PACs were “filed personally by Randi Willis as a private individual” and “neither her filings, nor her subsequent actions in speaking with the press, can rightly be categorized as being on behalf of Singularity University. Although Ms. Willis chose to use language commonly associated with Singularity University in the names of the committees, none of the four PACs was filed on behalf of, or with any affiliation to, Singularity University.”
State and Local
Maine –– AP: Maine: Ethics Inquiry Faults Anti-Gay Marriage Group
A national anti-gay marriage group that helped defeat Maine’s same-sex marriage law in 2009 may be fined more than $50,000 and ordered to reveal its donors, after investigators with the Maine Ethics Commission said Monday that its failure to register as a ballot question committee and file campaign finance reports was a significant violation of the law. The group, the National Organization for Marriage, said that it had fully complied with Maine law.
