Supreme Court  

Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court leaves key campaign finance restriction in place  

By Lawrence Hurley

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Republican challenge to a federal campaign finance restriction that prevents political parties from raising unlimited amounts of cash to spend on supporting candidates.

The Republican Party of Louisiana had argued that a provision of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. But the justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that rejected the Republican challenge.

The brief order noted that conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch favored hearing the case.

The Courts 

The Hill: Opposition grows to Trump appeals court nominee  

By Lydia Wheeler

A coalition of 24 groups is urging the Senate Judiciary Committee not to advance the nomination of Amul Thapar, Trump’s pick for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The groups – which include Demos, Every Voice Center, End Citizens United and Free Speech for People – say the Kentucky district judge would exacerbate the growing role of big money in American politics…

The groups point to Thapar’s 2016 decision in Winter v. Wolnitzek, in which he struck down a prohibition on judges making political contributions. He applied strict scrutiny to this contribution ban even though the Supreme Court has said contribution limits and bans are to be reviewed under a lower form of scrutiny…

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on Thapar’s nomination on Thursday. 

Free Speech

Fergus Falls Daily Journal: The war against the freedom of speech  

By Bill Schulz

The past eight years we have undergone a profound shift in our political culture, with the unfortunate result that a sizable portion of our body politic holds the leftist view of free speech, namely, “Say what we agree with, or shut up, or suffer whatever consequences we visit upon you.” The catalyst for this shift is easily traced back to January, 2010 , when The Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling and restored free speech rights to millions of Americans.

In the almost 100 years before that, both the left and right had used campaign finance laws to muzzle their political opponents. The Right used them to keep unions out of elections, and the Left used them to keep corporations out of elections. The Supreme Court finally said that Congress had gone too far, violating Constitutional free speech protections…

In the months after the Court’s ruling the Democrats devised a new strategy-it would threaten, harass and intimidate its opponents to keep them from participating in the political sphere.

Congress

Reuters: U.S. senators seek lifetime ban on ex-Congress members lobbying  

By Richard Cowan

A bipartisan bill introduced on Thursday would prohibit members of the U.S. Congress from ever working as lobbyists after they leave the Senate or House of Representatives.

Republican Senator Cory Gardner with Democratic Senators Michael Bennet and Al Franken in introducing the Senate legislation to stop the lucrative “revolving door” practice that has drawn the ire of watchdog groups for decades.

“By banning members of Congress from lobbying when they leave Capitol Hill, we can begin to restore confidence in our national politics,” Gardner said in a statement.

Similar legislation has failed in the past…

Besides a lifetime ban on lobbying for current members of Congress, the legislation would require former congressional aides to wait six years instead of one year before engaging in lobbying and require better reporting of lobbying activities.

Daily Wire: Democratic Rep. Val Demings Tells Facebook Commenter: ‘My First Amendment Right Is Different From Yours’

By Frank Camp

When a commenter asked Demings if they ever found her stolen handgun and suggested that she be more responsible with her own firearms before talking about gun control for others, Demings offered a peculiar reply:

“My First amendment right is DIFFERENT from yours. You are wasting your time.”

It’s unclear exactly what Demings meant when she said “My First Amendment right is different from yours.”…

The Daily Wire reached out to Demings via Twitter, Facebook, and her Washington D.C. office. While we were never able to speak with Demings herself, we did speak with her communications director, Caroline Rowland.

When asked if Demings could speak about the remarks she made on Facebook, Rowland simply stated: “No, she will have no comment on that. Thank you,” before quickly hanging up the phone.

FEC

CRP: It’s not over: The FEC is on the job with messy 2016 reporting by Trump campaign and JFCs  

By Viveca Novak

Illegal corporate contributions, donations over the $2,700-per-election limit, anonymous gifts, double-counting, totals that should match but don’t. FEC analysts have kept the questions coming in a steady flow of letters to Brad Crate, treasurer of the campaign and of two joint fundraising committees (JFCs) Trump formed, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee and Trump Victory.

More than six months after the election, the campaign and the JFCs are still answering questions from the agency, filing amended reports and making refunds…

Besides the mysterious degree of sloppiness shown by Trump’s operation in its FEC filings, there’s another lesson in the tussle between his organizations and the FEC: Whatever we and others may say about the FEC’s general failure to operate as a campaign finance enforcement agency (and there’s a heap of evidence for that argument), its Reports Analysis Division – which reviews every report that comes in the door and follows up with detailed questions about things that don’t look right – is definitely on the job.

Political Parties 

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: For the Georgia GOP, what is a state party anyway?  

By Kyle Wingfield

In the era of super PACs, wealthy donors don’t have to work through a state party to support candidates. With so many issue-specific groups, activists need not gather underneath the big tent of a political party. Both developments allow candidates to avoid seeking the blessing of party leaders before jumping into races, which is one reason recent elections have featured such large fields.

Consider the race in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. Eleven Republicans ran, splintering the party’s vote while Democrats coalesced quickly behind Jon Ossoff. Millions were spent by, or on behalf of, Republicans leading up to the April 18 vote, much of it to ensure local Republicans voted and counter Democratic enthusiasm.

The Georgia GOP’s most recent campaign filing, for activity through March 31, showed just $3,000 in expenditures…

The importance of money to campaigns isn’t diminishing, and the new avenues for bankrolling campaigns aren’t going away. Should the party try to restore itself as the main clearinghouse for Republicans’ election spending, or should it stake out a narrower, if still vital, role?

Los Angeles Times: Democrats not only dominate California elections, the party is king of campaign cash  

By John Myers

As California Democrats wrap up their weekend convention, progressive activists have said loudly and clearly that they want big money out of politics – a position that’s been in the state party’s official platform for years.

And yet, the rhetoric is at odds with reality: Since 2000, the California Democratic Party has spent an eye-popping $401.6 million on candidates and campaigns.

Delegates to the state party convention here wrote a resolution asking the party to “condemn corporations and lobbyists that finance political campaigns, as they perpetuate a culture of corruption and cronyism.” But money from some of those same groups fueled more than $46 million in spending by Democrats on state and federal races last year.

That’s in stark contrast to the California Republican Party, which at one point in 2012 had less than $200,000 in the bank…

On Saturday, Democrats protested outside the governor’s mansion in downtown Sacramento to demand an end to “dirty money” in politics.

The States

Missoulian: Bullock vetoes bill to raise allowable campaign contributions  

By Holly K. Michels

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock has vetoed a bill that would have raised the amount of money that could be contributed to political campaigns and changed operations within the office of the state’s campaign finance watchdog.

The bill, carried by Rep. Tom Richmond, R-Billings, would have increased the amount of money that could be spent by political committees, political parties and individuals on campaigns, in some cases by more than double.

In his veto, Bullock wrote the changes in the bill would “completely undermine the effectiveness (of the Commissioner of Political Practices) and the increase in contribution limits are far above what Montanans believe to be acceptable.”

“Due to the Montana Disclose Act and the significant efforts of the (Commissioner of Political Practices) over the course of the last two years, our 2016 elections were among the most transparent and cleanest on records,” Bullock wrote in his veto. The bill “is a palpably political effort to undo this process.

Bend Bulletin: Money did not buy victory in election  

By Editorial Board

Advocates of more campaign finance reform are worried that money controls elections. Sure, money helps. But the candidates who raise the most money don’t always win.

That’s been shown again and again. And in this week’s local election, money did not buy victory. Just look at the race for position 5 on the Bend Park & Recreation District board. Lauren Sprang won with 5,599 votes in unofficial returns. She raised some $2,600. Adam Bledsoe received 4,775 votes after out-raising Sprang by more than 6 to 1. He raised more than $17,000.

And although raising money is different from spending, Bledsoe outspent Sprang by more than 4 to 1, according to campaign filings.

Money didn’t buy victory in the race for position 4 on the park board, either. Incumbent Ted Schoenborn raised zero and won with 7,913 votes in unofficial returns. Laura Boehme raised nearly $4,500 and received 4,314 votes.

Arizona Republic: Missing campaign-finance records could lead to Arizona legislator’s removal from office  

By Mary Jo Pitzl

State Rep. Jesus Rubalcava, D-Gila Bend, is on the hot seat over his use of public campaign-finance money, and it could cost him his chair in the House of Representatives.
A random audit from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission found problems with the freshman lawmaker’s accounting, and a follow-up audit identified $9,200 in expenditures that can’t be clearly determined to be related to his campaign…

The audit found that the public dollars were commingled with Rubalcava’s personal bank account. It detailed expenditures, such as a Washington, D.C., hotel stay, airfares and Uber fares, with indeterminate campaign purposes due to lack of documentation…

The stakes are high: Failure to fully account that public dollars were spent on his campaign could lead to fines of up to 10 times the disputed amount and possible removal from office.

Joplin Globe: Clean Missouri campaign targets ethics reform, gerrymandering  

By Susan Redden

The Missouri legislative session ended a week ago without the passage of ethics reforms, and now ethics reform and legislative gerrymandering are being targeted in a measure proponents hope to get on the 2018 ballot.

Clean Missouri, a coalition backed by unions and other groups, is behind the proposal for a constitutional amendment that would impose gift limits for legislators, lower their campaign contribution limits, make individual lawmakers subject to the Sunshine Law, and change how long former lawmakers must wait before they can become lobbyists…

The effort has received a $250,000 contribution from the Missouri National Education Association and endorsement from the group End Citizens United. A spokesman for the national group, which is working to reform the campaign finance system, praised reforms in the state initiative, including one that would close a loophole that allows big campaign donors to spend unlimited money by establishing political action committees to funnel large checks to a single candidate.

Main Line Times: Pa. anticorruption group stops in Haverford, holds rally in Pottstown on way to Harrisburg  

By Eric Devlin

The nonpartisan March on Harrisburg began the first leg of its tour in Philadelphia with about 50 members and said its numbers will fluctuate depending on the day but plans to be at full strength next week when they meet on the steps of the Capitol building.

The group is lobbying for three bills currently in committee at the state Capitol: SB132, which sets gift limitations for public officials; SB22, which calls for the establishment of an independent redistricting commission to end gerrymandering; and SB 608, which calls for automatic voter registration. The group has received endorsements several groups including the Pennsylvania and National Federation BMWED-Teamster union.

Upon arrival in Harrisburg on May 22, the unpaid participants plan to pressure lawmakers through lobbying and nonviolent civil disobedience to call a vote on each piece of legislation, said spokeswoman Emily DiCicco, the group’s spokeswoman.