Citizens United
Vanity Fair: Did the Supreme Court Make the Right Decision in the Citizens United Case After All?
Michael Kinsley
The First Amendment right of free speech is generally considered to be a liberal cause. So it’s disappointing to see how quickly liberals abandon it when the speech is something they disagree with. Money isn’t speech? Ridiculous. Of course it is. The very act of spending money sends a message, like “liking” something on Facebook. Also, it takes money to “speak.” It’s precisely because people and organizations that have more money can speak more (more TV commercials, more lawn signs) and speak more loudly (perhaps a better class of political consultant) that the court’s conclusion in Citizens United bothers people so much…
The analogy I like (as did the Supreme Court in its ruling) is to a newspaper. Suppose Citizens United were reversed and President Trump decided one day that he was sick of The New York Times. So he proposes a law setting a ceiling on the amount any individual or organization can spend putting out a newspaper. Constitutional? I hope not. But it’s hard to see the difference in principle between this and a law limiting the amount a corporation or union may spend promoting a political candidate.
Dangers of Disclosure
Money Talks News: How to Find Out If Your Neighbor Is Donating to a Politician
Karla Bowsher
Have you ever wondered about who all those people are who give money to political candidates? Do you speculate about whether neighbors, friends, relatives or co-workers have pledged money to any campaigns?
Turns out the answers are at your fingertips. That’s because several free tools are available online, thanks to organizations that seek to help improve the transparency of political campaign financing.
What follows is a breakdown of the tools that enable you to look up specific individuals and find out whether they’ve donated to politicians — and, if so, how much money they gave to which politicians and when.
Independent Groups
Los Angeles Times: Cruz’s faltering campaign shows the risks of depending on a few wealthy donors
Joseph Tanfani and Noah Bierman
One of the three primary donors to Cruz’s presidential efforts, a private equity manager who recruited the other two top donors, has refrained from spending the vast majority of his $10 million contribution to bolster the Cruz campaign. He is instead fighting openly with the top strategist for the super PACs that were set up to spend the money.
The man at the center of the fight, Toby Neugebauer, is a close friend of Cruz and his wife, Heidi. Neugebauer and his own wife have vacationed with the Cruzes, and he still counts himself a major supporter. But he has refused to spend $9 million of the $10 million he put into a super PAC.
“He was going to go up with ads in October or November. That came and went, and then he said he’s saving it for Super Tuesday,” said Kellyanne Conway, who oversees a network of super PACs supporting Cruz.
Political Parties
Politico: Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
Kenneth P. Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Politico: NRCC blasts ’60 Minutes’ story, hidden cameras
Jake Sherman and Hadas Gold
The National Republican Congressional Committee on Friday accused “60 Minutes” of broadcasting a piece with “largely false information” and Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) of spreading lies on the broadcast — the latest salvo in an increasingly bitter Republican-on-Republican fight, with one of the largest television networks in the middle.
At issue is a “60 Minutes” piece that aired Sunday featuring Jolly and his proposed “STOP Act,” long-shot legislation that would bar members of Congress from personally soliciting campaign donations. The newsmagazine used a hidden camera to show members of Congress making phone calls to solicit contributions, which is commonplace in both Republican and Democratic campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Corruption
Washington Post: What is corruption?
Robert Gebelhoff
For many of their critics, powerful business advocates are corrupt not because they are directly benefiting from under-the-table deals with politicians, but simply because they have a lot of influence over party agenda. This subverts the democratic process and undermines the concept of “one person, one vote.” The solution is not only to limit the amount of contributions that corporations or wealthy individuals spend on campaigns, but to break up their power bases through government action. The prime example: Bernie Sanders’s call to “break up the banks.”
Each flavor of corruption is neatly featured in this campaign season. Ted Cruz has long held campaign finance reform as an “assault on free speech.” Hillary Clinton wants to overturn Citizens United but doesn’t think money from private groups (including her speaking fees from Goldman Sachs) corrupts politicians. And both Sanders and Donald Trump condemn the distortion of the political system by powerful people and promise to overthrow the whole system if elected.
Corporate Speech
Wall Street Journal: The GOP Convention Blockers
Editorial Board
The left-wing groups know businesses are easily bullied. In 2012 Color of Change led a similar assault on companies supporting the American Legislative Exchange Council, which promotes free-market policies in the states. ALEC had supported the stand-your-ground laws that became a flash point after the 2012 death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. ALEC’s reward for decades of pro-growth advocacy was to see its biggest contributors—Coke, General Electric, Kraft, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart—drop funding and head for the tall grass.
Most of these companies traditionally avoid partisanship, and some typically support the conventions of both major parties. Progressives and the press corps do their ritual stories every four years about business “buying influence” at the conventions, but if that’s true business gets little for the money. Companies do it more as a contribution to democratic discourse, as corny as that may sound in our cynical age.
Vox: The Republican-big business alliance is fraying. Now what?
Lee Drutman
For one, corporate America has become much more progressive on social issues. Note that it is business leaders who have led the fight against so-called “religious freedom” laws pushed by Republicans in Indiana and Missouri and Georgia. In North Carolina, an LGBTQ bathroom law provoked a tremendous business backlash. This is a remarkable level of social activism by big business, which used to carefully avoid these kinds of issues.
Supreme Court
More Soft Money Hard Law: The McDonnell Case: the “Messages” to Citizens
Bob Bauer
On two occasions, during the Supreme Court argument in the McDonnell case, the Deputy Solicitor General warned the court against narrowing prosecutable public corruption standards. It would send a “terrible message” to citizens. After the second time, Justice Breyer said he is “not in the business” of sending messages “in a case like this.” He meant a case that raised fundamental separation of powers principles. To what extent would vague criminal standards empower prosecutors with their considerable authority to prescribe the boundaries of acceptable political conduct?
Chief Roberts went further and said that the Court’s experience with the argument that very day might prompt doubts that the Justices were wise in Skilling have let the honest services statute pass constitutional muster.
It was in that way an extraordinary argument, highlighting through dead-end hypotheticals and confusing exchanges the ambiguity of the law–an argument that defied the best efforts at clarification of everybody involved.
Lobbying
Maplight: For Top Federal Contractors, Investments in Lobbying, PACs Yield Big Returns
Frank Bass
The 25 largest federal contractors, as ranked by value of contracts receieved during the 2014 fiscal year, have received almost $1.6 trillion for their work since October 2005. These companies spent about $1.2 billion on lobbying and contributed more than $150 million to PACs during that time, according to MapLight’s analysis of federal procurement data and lobbying and PAC contributions from the Center for Responsive Politics.
A relatively small amount of the $1.6 trillion can be described as profit. But the major contractors’ return on investment demonstrates their ability to leverage political power to bolster their revenue.
The States
New York Daily News: City Council mulls over tighter campaign finance laws as scandals loom over Mayor de Blasio
Erin Durkin
One bill looks to reduce the influence of lobbyists by banning candidates from getting taxpayer matching funds for donations raised by lobbyists or people doing business with the city.
Under normal circumstances, the first $175 of every donation is matched six to one by public funds. People doing business with the city can only give pols up to $400, less than the $4,950 limit for everyone else – but they can raise as much cash as they want from other donors, a practice known as bundling.
“The city should not be providing public dollars to amplify the already strong voices of special interests,” said Councilman Ben Kallos (D-Manhattan), the sponsor.
Idaho Statesman: Campaign finance reform initiative submits 79,000 signatures
Kimberlee Kruesi, Associated Press
The group’s initiative would make significant changes to Idaho’s Sunshine Law, passed by overwhelming popular vote in 1974. It set many of the rules used today to govern campaign contributions and lobbyist activity disclosure.
If approved, the initiative would:
— Reduce campaign-contribution limits for statewide candidates from $5,000 to $2,000 and legislative candidates from $1,000 to $500.
Alaska Dispatch News: In campaign finance trial, Bob Bell blames campaign limits for his 2012 loss
Alex DeMarban
Bell said he would have beaten longtime Anchorage Democratic senator Hollis French in 2012 if he’d been able to raise more money in the tight race, which he lost by 59 votes. His testimony was meant to underscore the plaintiffs’ argument that Alaska’s restrictive contribution limit hurt challengers trying to oust established lawmakers.
Bell said he was prevented from raising more because individual donors could give only $500 — one of the lowest annual limits in the country. Bell received 138 of those maximum donations.
An Anchorage assemblyman in the 1990s who had not held state office, Bell spent much of his money fending off an opponent in the primary election — a problem French didn’t face. And he couldn’t raise enough money when he faced French in the general election, preventing him from responding to a barrage of attacks in the campaign’s closing days, he said.
