In the News
SCOTUS Blog: Petition of the day
Kate Howard
Delaware Strong Families v. Denn
Issue: Whether a state’s interest in “increas[ing] . . . information concerning those who support the candidates,” Buckley v. Valeo, permits it to condition a charity’s publication of a nonpartisan voter education guide, which lists all candidates equally and makes no endorsements, upon the immediate and public disclosures of the names and addresses of individuals making unrelated donations over the previous four years.
CCP
Forthcoming Kimberley Strassel Book Chronicles Progressive Attacks on Free Speech
Luke Wachob
As CCP knows from our work defending speech and association rights around the country, those efforts sprawl across all branches of the federal government as well as the states. Now, a new book by Wall Street Journal columnist and Editorial Board-member Kimberley Strassel, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, offers a comprehensive look at progressive attempts to dominate the discourse and shut down politically conservative viewpoints.
Strassel’s book will connect the dots on a number of policy battles and scandals in the wake of Citizens United that are familiar to anyone who follows CCP’s work: the IRS scandal, the Wisconsin John Doe investigation, and the pressure campaigns carried out by politicians and activist groups against the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, urging these agencies to further regulate political speech.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: House Votes to Ban IRS from Requiring Nonprofit Donor Lists
Richard Rubin
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), passed by a 240-182 vote. Republicans argued the IRS couldn’t be trusted with the information and questioned how useful donor lists are in audits.
“This bill helps ensure that Americans can never again be singled out by the IRS for their political beliefs,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Although IRS officials have talked about eliminating the donor-list requirement, the Obama administration opposes the bill. The administration, which stopped short of threatening a veto, said the bill would “constrain the IRS in enforcing tax laws and reduce the transparency of private foundations.”
USA Today: House approves Koch-backed bill to shield donors’ names
Fredreka Schouten
The names of donors to politically active non-profit groups aren’t public information now, but the organizations still have to disclose donor information to the IRS on annual tax returns. The bill, written by Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., would prohibit the tax agency from collecting names, addresses or any “identifying information” about donors.
Proponents say the bill is needed to stop the government and others from harassing politically active donors.
“Speech is special. Speech is sacrosanct, and speech ought not to be manipulated and intimidated by people with power,” Roskam said Tuesday on the House floor.
Roskam argued the IRS can’t be trusted to protect contributors’ identities because it has “squandered and abused” taxpayer information in the past.
Dangers of Disclosure
Washington Post: D.C.’s board of elections makes it shockingly easy to snoop on your fellow voters
Brian Fung
A little-known law in the nation’s capital is leading to complaints over the way it lets anyone on the Internet find out D.C. voters’ names, addresses, voting history and political affiliations, with little more than a click or two.
The political list, known as a voter file, was published on the D.C. Board of Elections’ website in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s Democratic primary. It contains a complete record of every voter who is registered to vote in the contest, as well as whether the voter has cast a ballot in the six elections going back to 2012.
The issue underscores a growing tension between the use of data in governance and the need to protect people’s privacy.
Free Speech
Library of Law and Liberty: A Natural Right with Naturally Unequal Consequences
John O. McGinnis
We can build on his insight by suggesting new kinds of limitations. For instance, Congress should create rules that impede not only all appropriation earmarks but also other kinds of special interest legislation. That kind of reform would go much further toward dispelling the appearance of corruption in campaign contributions than ratcheting down the amount of these contributions. We should restrict the power of politicians before treading upon the speech rights of citizens.
In this brief essay, I would like to offer additional support in both political theory and our Constitution for Muller’s skepticism about Progressive campaign reform. Indeed, I can think of no issue more important in constitutional law today, because campaign reformers want to permit legislators to regulate electoral speech rather than curbing legislative corruption through the natural rights of speech expressly protected by our Constitution.
Reason: New York Senator Moves to Defund Student Groups That Oppose Israel
Elizabeth Nolan Brown
Martins’ bill would also prohibit the funding of campus groups that support economic boycotts of any American-allied nation, although this bit seems designed to distract from his true goal: preventing anti-Israel sentiment on campus. In an interview with the New York Daily News, Martins referred to calls to boycott Israel as “hate speech” and “anti-Semitism” and said the state legislature has “no choice but to step in and prevent taxpayer dollars being used to promote” such sentiment.
It’s unlikely that Martins’ bill would pass constitutional muster. Selectively banning boycott-advocacy depending on the target is the essence of illegal content-based prohibitions on student speech. Regardless, it’s interesting, if wholly unsurprising, to see an authoritarian like Sen. Martins appropriate progressives’ pet term, “hate speech,” to justify his restriction on progressive speech.
Independent Groups
CRP: Outside spending breaks $400 million mark, far outpacing 2012
Alec Goodwin
Not surprisingly, super PACs have driven the spending. With about $341 million in independent expenditures so far, they account for about 84 percent of all outside spending — roughly the same share as at this point in the last presidential cycle. Then, super PAC spending made up 81 percent of all political expenditures by outside groups…
Though record-breaking, the growth in outside spending this year has slowed somewhat from its breakneck pace of earlier this spring, when it jumped $100 million in just six weeks. That’s mainly because the presidential primary season has drawn to a close — nearly every major candidate had at least one super PAC backing him or her, including almost all of the (at one time) 17 GOP hopefuls.
CPI: Anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC backed by investment mogul, ‘ethical vegan’
Cady Zuvich
During Paul’s presidential run, his anti-Wall Street rhetoric likely scared off some prominent conservative donors who could have helped America’s Liberty PAC raise more than the $4.6 million it did.
“We will not cut one penny from the safety net until we’ve cut every penny from corporate welfare,” Paul said in January 2015 in response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.
Still, Paul’s super PAC benefitted from numerous big-time donors, including investors, CEOs and venture capitalists.
Mediaite: New Super PAC Wants Trump to Release His Hand Measurements
Robert Webster
“It’s a dangerous time for Americans. We need someone who can grasp the complexity of the world and hold off the decline of a great nation,” says the narrator of the video.
The video shows people performing everyday activities while expressing their desires for the next leader of the United States. At the end of each segment on an individual, it also shows a close up of their hands.
“If the White House phone rings at 3 a.m., will his little hands even pick up the receiver?” one woman asks concerned during the video.
The Media
The Hill: A new phase for Trump’s media war
Niall Stanage
So if everyone is in agreement that this is a problem, what are our elected leaders Still, the media face obvious challenges. Collectively, the media’s poll ratings are so bad that if it were a political candidate, it would have been left for dead long ago. Only 6 percent of the U.S. public has a lot of confidence in the media, according to an April study by the Media Insight Project, a partnership of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute.
“It’s the media’s duty to check facts, but the media have minimal credibility, so therefore the fact-checking has minimal credibility,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications. “If the public don’t believe or trust the media, why would they trust the media’s fact-checking?”
SEC
The Hill: Democrats brawl with SEC chief
Peter Schroeder
Mary Jo White, the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, was repeatedly attacked Tuesday by Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) went so far as to suggest that White contributed to the political environment that enabled the rise of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as he excoriated her for refusing to consider rules that would require public companies to disclose any political spending.
“You want to know why people are so discontent? It’s in part because of a few powerful people who send out a cascade of ads,” he said. “You frankly are aiding and abetting it at the SEC.”
“You are hurting America,” he added.
Congress
The Hill: The emerging fundraising rebellion
Nick Penniman
So if everyone is in agreement that this is a problem, what are our elected leaders waiting for?
President Obama has paid lip service to executive order that would at least shine sunlight one major source of campaign contributions: companies that do business with the government. It would require these companies to disclose their political contributions. But he has yet to deliver. In Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan admitted Republicans need to do more to address cronyism, which is responsible for billions in wasted taxpayer dollars doled out to influential businesses each year. On the campaign trail, both presumptive nominees in the presidential race talk about the issue, but Hillary Clinton rarely campaigns on her platform she says will curb the influence of special interests in money in politics, and Donald Trump has not released a formal policy on the issue.
Influence
Townhall: Money Going to Washington
Walter E. Williams
You might ask: What can be done? Campaign finance and lobbying reforms will only change the method of influence-peddling. If Americans would demand that Congress do only what’s specifically enumerated in our Constitution, influence-peddling would be much smaller. That’s because our Constitution contains no authority for Congress to grant favors or special privileges or give one American the earnings of another American.
Seeing as most Americans do not want a constitutionally bound Congress, I am all too afraid that an observation attributed to Benjamin Franklin is correct: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Candidates and Campaigns
Observer: After Decades Vacuuming Up Dubious Donations, Clinton Suddenly Favors Campaign Finance Reform
Michael Sainato
Ms. Clinton cannot be trusted to reform a system she is using to get elected. Clinton’s joint fundraising committee with the Debbie Wasserman Schultz led Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Victory Fund Super-Pac, borders on the legality of campaign finance reform and as far as ethics goes, completely and shamelessly disavows any standard ethical procedures which elected officials should be held accountable by the public in upholding. In May 2016, a Politico report uncovered the Hillary Victory Fund has been laundering money to the Clinton campaign rather than helping other State and Local Democratic Parties, an egregious campaign finance violation which warrants a federal investigation, the second Hillary Clinton would be under.
