Just In
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules on John Doe investigations
To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.
In the News
Crain’s Chicago Business: Today we get a glimpse into the historic 2016 campaign money race
Editorial
American elections are being transformed by a series of court rulings, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which loosened decades-old limits on money in politics by declaring that political spending was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. For proponents of the changes, the current fundraising cycle is a sign of a reinvigorated democracy, and may help explain why so many candidates are throwing their hats in the ring.
“More speech freedom means more candidates, and more choices for voters,” said the Center for Competitive Politics’ David Keating, who helped bring about another key court decision, Speechnow V. FEC, that laid the groundwork for super-PACs in 2010. “We may end up with best informed primary electorate ever.”
But Gross called the prominence of the outside groups “unhealthy” to the system. “Candidates who are not viable can be propped up by a handful of donors,” he said.
CCP
Increased Campaign Freedom Leads To More Choices In GOP Presidential Primary
The Republican Presidential primary ballot will likely be the most crowded in history, with 17 candidates running. The second-largest year was half this total – 1996 averaged 8.1 candidates on the ballot and 2012 averaged 7.25 candidates.
“Debate sponsors are literally running out of room on stage to fit all of the viable candidates for President, and that’s a good problem to have,” said David Keating, CCP President. “Recent court rulings have made it easier to fund campaigns, and that’s creating more competition. Voters are getting more choices, which in turn means a more robust debate on issues ranging from taxes to foreign policy and everything in between. Bigger fundraising by presidential candidates and Super PACs will lead to better informed voters, which is good for democracy and good for America.”
John Doe
Watchdog.org: The John Doe investigation might finally be over; Supreme Court to rule Thursday
Eric Boehm
A few months later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit declared unconstitutional sections of Wisconsin’s law that deal with special interest group spending – the law conservative groups supposedly violated during the recall effort, even though no one has been charged.
In that ruling, the 7th Circuit found the state’s ban on political spending by corporations unconstitutional. It cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling that opened previous restrictions on campaign finance.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed in December to hear the case, after declining to do so on previous occasions because of its political nature.
New York Times: Wisconsin Court to Rule on Inquiry Involving Scott Walker’s 2012 Campaign
Monica Davey
In sending the case back to the state’s courts last September, the federal appeals court raised broad questions about the complexities and unanswered questions at issue here — beyond Mr. Walker or Wisconsin.
“The Supreme Court has yet to determine what ‘coordination’ means,” Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote. “Is the scope of permissible regulation limited to groups that advocate the election of particular candidates, or can government also regulate coordination of contributions and speech about political issues, when the speakers do not expressly advocate any person’s election?”
“What if the speech implies, rather than expresses, a preference for a particular candidate’s election?” he continued. “If regulation of coordination about pure issue advocacy is permissible, how tight must the link be between the politician’s committee and the advocacy group?”
FEC Filings
New York Times: Today in Politics: A Close Look at Donors, War Chests and ‘Burn Rates’
Maggie Haberman
Yet while staff members are encouraged to take low-cost buses instead of trains, there were roughly $8,700 in Amtrak fees. The spending also included more than $275,000 to Correct the Record, a group supporting Mrs. Clinton and focused on opposition research that also compiled data on her own record going back decades. Her team has spent more than $1 million on polling.
CPI: Presidential campaign donors hedge bets
Carrie Levine, Michael Beckel, Ben Wieder, and Dave Levinthal
More than 1,000 donors — including some of the nation’s most prominent political benefactors — are hedging their bets by spreading contributions among multiple White House hopefuls, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of new campaign finance disclosures and interviews with top fundraisers.
Most double-donors have divided their loyalties among the 2016 presidential race’s legion of Republicans — a field 15 candidates strong and still growing.
Bloomberg: Who’s Got The Money? It’s Campaign Finance Filing Day
Gregory Giroux
For many presidential candidates, it’s the first time they’ve got to disclose numbers for their campaign finance reports. Bloomberg reporters are watching as they come in and providing you with highlights.
Campaign Finance
Roll Call: Campaign Finance Reform Is Good for Businesses
Morris Pearl
There are members of Congress who believe money doesn’t influence their votes — which to me, sounds like Stockholm syndrome. Our politicians have become so enamored with their campaign cash, they have stopped understanding how the money has taken them hostage. They no longer see the reality of their situation.
Special interests spend money in elections to influence policy that in turn influences the size of their bottom line.
The federal government spent more than $460 billion on private sector contracts in 2013. But a recent Public Citizen report found only 27 percent of top contractors disclose any of their political spending.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: In The Loop: There’s a new super PAC for Bernie Sanders. It wants billionaire donors.
Colby Itkowitz
“I’m hoping to facilitate a level playing field where a billionaire of conscious can write a check … and I’m going to encourage them to do it,” Jacobson told the Loop. In his view, there are plenty of “well-heeled” liberals who should get in the game…
But Jacobson is not deterred. It will be a “very unaffiliated effort,” he told us.
“There’s going to be full-court press to outspend the Sanders camp — the Hillary billionaire drown out,” he said. “This is about First Amendment freedoms. … I’m a pretty true believer in this and I think it can make a difference.”
MSNBC: Getting the gun money out of politics
Mark Glaze
President Obama showed great courage when he took on the gun lobby after the Newtown shootings. He should keep it up – by signing an executive order that would require businesses with federal contracts to disclose their political spending.
This would mean that gun manufacturers who supply weapons to our armed forces and other federal entities would have to show the public that they are the best supplier for the job, not just the most active political players (and the most eager to install Second Amendment extremists in congressional seats).
The States
Albany Times Union: Lawmakers sue to close LLC loophole on political donors
Matthew Hamilton
The quirk in campaign finance enforcement allows donors who control a number of limited liability companies to multiply their political giving past the limit for individuals or single corporate entities.
“This case raises the simple question whether, for purposes of New York’s campaign finance laws, a limited liability company is more like a traditional corporation or partnership or more like a natural person,”
