In the News

PJ Media: 5 Take-Aways From Karen Handel’s Victory Over Jon Ossoff

By Tyler O’Neil

As if the 2016 presidential primaries and general election were not enough, the Georgia 6 special election underscored that money does not win elections. This special election was the most expensive House election in U.S. history, and the candidate who spent the most lost.

Ossoff’s campaign raised and spent $24 million, while Handel’s campaign only raised and spent $4.5 million. Handel did receive more support from outside groups ($18.2 million supporting her or attacking Ossoff) than Ossoff did (just under $8 million supporting him or attacking Handel). But Ossoff still received $10 million more in support than Handel…

Money does not win elections, votes do. “Campaign spending facilitates speech, and ads can only persuade voters who support the candidate’s message,” David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, told PJ Media.

CCP

Let Us Protect You From Speech

By Alex Baiocco

The phenomenon of governments exploiting real or perceived threats to the safety or well-being of citizens to strip away freedoms is a well-studied topic. Free speech and privacy rights are often the most vulnerable to these sorts of attacks.

Most recently, leaders across the world have been calling for online speech surveillance and censorship programs in response to terror attacks.

Another example of this phenomenon is the effort by activists, attorneys general, and politicians to curb the speech of climate change “denialists” whom they view as hampering efforts to prevent impending global disaster.

But one of the greatest and least recognized threats to free speech and privacy in the United States may be the perceived threat of so-called “dark money” in politics…

In yet another example of the classic political phenomenon described above, those who wish to restrict fundamental freedoms are peddling what they characterize as a grave threat as the justification for their efforts.

Except in this case, politicians and activists are asking Americans to give up their rights in order to protect you from. . . speech.

Free Speech

Washington Post: Free to State: A New Era for the First Amendment

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression as a foundation of our democracy, and serves as a model for democracies around the world. Yet, the boundaries of these protections are being challenged by modern technology, political tension and changing social norms.

The Washington Post brought together journalists, scholars, business leaders and advocates to explore how the interpretation of our First Amendment rights have evolved in principle and practice, and what it means for a modern democracy.

Privacy

Daily Wire: PragerU Video: When Transparency Really Means Tyranny

By Aaron Bandler

New York now has a law requiring nonprofits to disclose their donors every time they take a stance against a politician. When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was the attorney general of California, she forced nonprofits to reveal their donors to the state; that information was then posted online for the public to see.

“Even if the government kept that information secret, it’s none of its business,” says [National Review’s David French]. “Because while transparency is a government obligation, privacy is an individual right. How do we know? Because of the First Amendment.”

French goes on to point out that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1950’s that Alabama didn’t have the right to require the NAACP to reveal their donor lists because “the First Amendment protected their right of freedom of association, and that included protection from prying eyes.”… 

“Anonymous speech has been a blessing for this country,” says French. “Anonymous pamphleteers helped launch the American Revolution. Anonymous writers helped ratify the Constitution. Anonymous activists helped liberate black Americans from the oppression of Jim Crow. But if we’re not careful, anonymity will soon be a thing of the past.”

Candidates and Campaigns

Just Security: When Collusion with Russia Becomes a Crime: Part III – “Aiding and Abetting”

By Bob Bauer 

It is well understood that established “aiding and abetting” principles have wide, elastic application. The abettor is not required, of course, to have been “in on it” from the beginning. In Learned Hand’s classic formulation in United States v. Peoni, the law requires only “that he in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” The courts have defined in various terms this association, but what is required is “some affirmative conduct designed to aid in the success of a venture with knowledge that [the]actions would assist the perpetrator, the principal of the crime.” United States v. Cowart, 595 F.2d 1023, 1031(1979).

Note that the assistance constituting aiding and abetting does not have to be substantial. The accomplice liability provision of the federal campaign finance law, focused on “substantial assistance,” is, in that sense, stricter. ,So federal prosecutors proceeding on an “aiding and abetting” theory may have the latitude to reach a broader range of Trump campaign conduct in support of the Russian program.

It would not be the first time that Prosecutors would have enforced campaign finance law with an “aiding and abetting” charge.

CBS News: Republican Karen Handel wins Georgia special election

By Kathryn Watson 

The race between Handel and Ossoff has been the most expensive U.S. House race in history, and is projected to cost close to $60 million. Democrats outspent Republicans, in the hope of making the race a referendum against President Trump and his agenda…

Democratic spending has outpaced that of Republican spending on the race. Ossoff’s campaign raised $23 million in 2017, and spent nearly $22 million, while Handel’s campaign has raised $4.5 million and spent a little more than $3 million, according to the most recently available campaign finance data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That doesn’t include spending from outside groups.

The States

Tampa Bay Times: St. Petersburg City Council should leave campaign finance reform to Congress

By Editorial Board

The City Council will resume its discussion Thursday of a proposed ordinance that would limit contributions to super PACs involved in city elections and limit spending on city elections by corporations largely controlled by foreign interests…
The proposed ordinance the City Council will consider Thursday would require corporations that spend more than $5,000 in city elections to certify they are not entirely or partly owned by foreign interests above certain thresholds. It also would limit individual contributions to super PACs that spend money in city elections to $5,000. If the council approves the ordinance Thursday and again at a regular meeting in July, expect a court challenge the moment the city tries to enforce it.

That would get expensive. Legal costs could range from a conservative estimate of $400,000 to well over $1 million…

But so far, St. Petersburg elections have not been awash in super PAC money. Comprehensive campaign finance reform should come from Washington or Tallahassee, and the city should focus on other priorities.  

Tampa Bay Times: Defend Our Democracy ordinance means limiting big money and foreign influence in elections can start right in St. Petersburg

By Ellen L. Weintraub

At its Thursday morning meeting, the St. Petersburg City Council will discuss and vote on chairwoman Darden Rice’s innovative Defend Our Democracy ordinance. If enacted, this ordinance will help protect St. Petersburg’s elections from the big money and the foreign influence that is causing so much consternation in Washington, D.C., where I sit on the Federal Election Commission.

St. Petersburg’s timing couldn’t be better. Since I traveled to St. Pete last October to testify in favor of this ordinance, Americans’ faith that we control our own elections has been deeply shaken. Reports of foreign interference in the 2016 elections are truly alarming…

Congress and the Federal Election Commission are trying to get a handle on this attack on our democracy. In fact, later on Thursday morning in Washington, I will be engaging my FEC colleagues in a discussion about what exactly the commission can do to identify what happened, ensure it doesn’t happen again, and assure the American people that they, and not some hostile foreign power, are in charge of our democracy.

Hopefully we will have more success dealing with these foreign threats to our political system than we have had in addressing the threat posed by unlimited contributions in our elections.

WNAX Radio South Dakota: SD Legislative Committee to Focus on Campaign Finance Reform

A South Dakota legislative task force will focus on campaign finance reform, and not expand its scope to include ethics. The Government Accountability Task Force held their first meeting Monday in Pierre. The committee was set up by this year’s legislature. Task Force Chairman, Senator Jordan Youngberg of Madison, says a narrow focus would help them find some solutions…

The committee was a response to the repeal of IM22 by the legislature this year. Youngberg says they need to respond to voters…
A motion to expand the committees study to include ethics was withdrawn. Youngberg says he plans to hold two more committee meetings this summer.