Independent Groups
Time: The War Among the Donald Trump Super PACs
Alex Altman and Zeke J. Miller
At least 15 super PACs have been established to support Trump, according to a list compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Some have raised little or no money, but a handful of applicants are vying with Great America PAC to become the primary attack machine for a candidate who spent months pledging to self-fund his campaign and decrying the influence of big money in politics.
There’s the Committee for American Sovereignty, which has vowed to raise $20 million for Trump. A group called Patriots for Trump, as well as another called the Committee to Restore America’s Greatness, have each raised six figures in support of the billionaire businessman.
Tampa Bay Times: Rubio says identity of person who gave $13.5 million to group supporting him is ‘irrelevant’
Alex Leary
Rubio appeared comfortable overall with the practice, saying money is needed as long as the media charges for advertising. He mentioned First Amendment rights. “But legally, I’m not allowed to know anything about them or work with them, so I didn’t.”
Still, what about the fact that someone gave so much and their identity may never become public?
“For me, it’s irrelevant because as far as I’m concerned, if someone decides to be helpful, they are buying into my agenda,” Rubio said.
“My agenda’s in writing. … And as a result of that agenda, I had people that were for me and I had people that were against me.”
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: ‘Dark money’ scourge: Well-funded secret speech corrodes politics
Editorial Board
Because of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, and a series of regulations by the FEC and the Internal Revenue Service, millionaires and billionaires can donate as much cash as they want to independent groups such as super political action committees and never worry about their names or a dollar amount being entered on the public record. The court ruled that spending money on a candidate is a form of free speech, so it can’t be regulated. But even if you accept the notion that money is speech, there is no justification for the lack of transparency.
The Courts
Pillar of Law: Pillar of Law Files for Summary Judgment in Illinois Cannabis Speech Case
“This case is simple: almost any company in Illinois can contribute up to $10,800 to each candidate for any state office during an election,” said Benjamin Barr, Pillar attorney and lead counsel in the case. “Medical marijuana grow operations and dispensaries, however, are completely banned from contributing. It’s baseless censorship.”
The plaintiffs in the case are Claire Ball, a Libertarian candidate who is running for the office of comptroller in the 2016 election and Scott Schluter, a Libertarian candidate who is running for state representative. They are both prohibited under the law from accepting contributions from medical marijuana organizations.
“New political candidates need to be able to fundraise to have effective campaigns,” said Barr. “But Illinois ensures that one set of new voices—those supporting medical marijuana legalization—are denied that right. Under the First Amendment, limiting some from meaningful political participation cannot stand.”
American Prospect: ‘Soft Money’ Is Back, and Republicans Want to Make It Official
Justin Miller
But Bopp now argues that since the Supreme Court’s McConnell v. FEC ruling to uphold the soft money ban in 2003, the Court’s campaign-finance jurisprudence has changed enough—in both Citizens United and McCutcheon—to warrant reconsideration. In November, a D.C. district judge agreed, and granted Bopp’s application to bring the case before a special three-judge panel.
Though experts say it’s unlikely the panel will overturn the ban, the lower court’s decision to take up the case remains a major strategic win for Bopp. As election law expert Richard L. Hasen wrote in The Atlantic, “thanks to a quirk in the McCain-Feingold law, any appeal in the case would go directly to the Supreme Court. The appeals provision makes it very likely the Court will take the case, because unlike a usual decision not to hear a case, rejection of an appeal would indicate the Supreme Court’s belief that the lower court reached the right result.”
Contribution Limits
Sacramento Bee: Ami Bera encouraged family to give to Democrats supporting him
Christopher Cadelago
The Bee last month reported that Bera and his family, beginning six years ago, wrote large checks to other Democrats, and that those candidates or their families gave similar amounts to Bera, with the contributions often occurring within days of one another. Campaign finance experts said the contributions generally do not violate federal law, but are a way to avoid individual donation limits.
Speaking with The Sacramento Bee editorial board, Bera for the first time answered questions about the practice.
Bera said he periodically asked his wife, mother and father to contribute to Democrats running in competitive contests, but that similar donations from those candidates and their relatives didn’t constitute “reimbursements.”
He said that in some cases the contributions may also have been initiated by the candidates’ families or their campaign staffs.
Lobbying
The Daily Good: Millennials Now Have Their Own Lobbying Group
Alicia Kennedy
If there is one issue with Millennials, it’s certainly not that they’re being ignored. So do the youth of America truly need a dedicated lobbying group to further their interests in Congress? One 27-year-old thinks so. NYC-based, Chicago-born Ben Brown, an energy consultant by day, launched the Association of Young Americans (AYA for short) at the end of March in an effort to create what he hopes will be the AARP for Millennials. Their slogan: “Everyone else has lobbyists. Now you do too.”
Influence
Daily Beast: Animal Activists Go Apesh*t on Bernie Sanders, While Hillary Clinton Panders
Betsy Woodruff
Radical animal-rights activists’ who crashed a Bernie Sanders rally Monday and want to ban meat have found hope in an unlikely place: Hillary Clinton’s presidential platform.
They say they’re heartened by her new animal-welfare position paper, which she rolled out in early May with zero fanfare and after getting advice from other activists she met backstage at a Mary J. Blige show.
Sanders’s antagonists say they think this is evidence that animal rights are finally getting attention from national politicians—and that their controversial tactics can bear fruit.
Candidates and Campaigns
USA Today: Gary Johnson could give us President Paul Ryan
Ilya Shapiro
Actually, it’s not so simple. While it’s inconceivable that anyone other than the major-party candidates could win the popular vote, it’s possible that nobody wins a majority in the electoral college. If there’s no electoral majority, the 12th Amendment specifies that the House of Representatives, voting by state, will choose the president among the top three. It’s only happened once — in 1824, when John Quincy Adams won despite Andrew Jackson’s having gained popular and electoral pluralities — but it’s not too much to expect in this bizarre political year.
One could imagine a scenario where former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee, wins his home state and possibly others. He’s apparently drawing slightly more support from Clinton than from Trump — which would prevent Hillary from simply sweeping pluralities in all the swing states — and has been polling in double-digits in a three-way race.
CBS News: Mark Cuban questions whether Donald Trump is a billionaire
The billionaire investor told WABC’s “Bernie and Sid” that he went over Trump’s FEC filings and seemed impressed by his real estate prowess, but can’t tell how much money it’s made him.
“I know what I’m good at, and I know what I’m not good at. I’m not so sure Donald knows what he’s not good at….what he’s done well is put his name on big, big buildings,” Cuban said in the phone interview. “He’s good at that. Whether or not that’s made him a billionaire, I don’t know. He’s not transparent enough for us to actually know.”
The States
National Law Review: McCain-Feingold Opens “Soft Money” Campaign Finance Loophole In the States : “When One Door Closes . . .”
Matthew S. Shapanka
A recent settlement between the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) and Massachusetts Republican Party may highlight an emerging trend: state parties using federal preemption to avoid strict state campaign finance laws. At issue was whether the Massachusetts Republican Party could use funds from its federal campaign account to pay for staff and overhead expenses of Party employees who were working largely or exclusively on state races…
In the wake of this decision, some voices in Massachusetts are calling for greater transparency. For example, a bill has been introduced that would require that all contributions from political committees (including in-kind contributions from federal accounts) to state candidates come from state funds.
New York One: Cuomo Demands de Blasio Apologize for Accusation Governor Says Has Been Proven Wrong
Bob Cuza
“I’m a big boy. He’s a big boy. You want to say something unkind about me, that’s one thing. But not public servants that were just doing their job. With no evidence whatsoever, by the way. And now we know definitively that he was wrong,” Cuomo said.
Tuesday’s Inspector General report referred the matter to a state ethics panel and to the Manhattan district attorney. But Cuomo seemed to dismiss a question about the propriety of the leak, calling it a sideshow. He noted the mayor’s fundraising is now under investigation by both the Manhattan DA and U.S. attorney.
