CCP
Broccoli, Islam, Trump, and the Vanishing Line Between Political Speech and Speech
Brad Smith
A group called American Islam is sponsoring a big march in D.C. two days after Donald Trump accepts the Republican presidential nomination… In case you don’t know who they might be referring to, “[a]n American Islam video promoting the event showed religious leaders vilifying Islam and features Trump’s now-signature call for ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.’”
Is there any chance that this might affect a few votes? If one agrees with American Islam (CCP takes no position on such issues, and for purposes of this post, nor will I) wouldn’t one be more likely to vote against Trump? Does the timing seem coincidental? Does that mean they hope to defeat Trump, or merely raise awareness of their organization and its point of view? Or both? Should the money they spend to hold such a rally be regulated, limited, or even banned? The group is actually “American Islam, Inc.,” so presumably it is a corporation. If you answered the last question with a no, it’s activities should not be limited or banned, does this fact change your answer?
Letter to the California Fair Political Practices Commission on Proposed SB 1107 Amendment
David Keating
SB 1107 proposes to amend the Political Reform Act by enacting a change to the flat prohibition of Government Code section 85300 on the use of public moneys for election campaigns…
On June 30, 2016, SB 1107 was amended in the Senate, and the amendment removed the provision that authorized the Secretary of State to place the measure on the 2018 ballot. Section 6 of the measure makes a legislative finding that the measure as drafted “furthers the purposes” of the Political Reform Act…
There is no question that substantively, the SB 1107 amendment “amends” the Act, section 85300, to permit public financing of campaigns at all levels of California government. This amendment does not “further [the] purposes” of the Political Reform Act, which prohibited precisely that result. Therefore, the measure cannot be enacted directly under Government Code section 82012 by the Legislature. Instead, SB 1107 may only be enacted by the voters, if submitted to them for approval under Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution.
Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: A Free-Speech Divide
Kimberley A. Strassel
These seeming “good government” reforms mask what become a hardball tactic by the left to silence its opposition. State attorneys general such as New York’s Eric Schneiderman and California’s Kamala Harris are attempting to force nonprofits to disclose their donors—making them easy targets for liberal groups who want to harass and intimidate individual donors.
When such information does become available, Democratic politicians publicly revile conservative donors; overeager federal and state bureaucracies, taking the cue, then target the donors with audits or inspections. Left-wing activist groups threaten corporate donors with attack ads and boycotts unless they withdraw from the political realm. Democrats want to take this kind of harassment up several notches.
Wall Street Journal: Clinton to Madison: Get Me Rewrite
Editorial Board
“Today, I’m announcing that in my first 30 days as President, I will propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and give the American people—all of us—the chance to reclaim our democracy,” Mrs. Clinton said in a taped speech to the Netroots Nation conference of progressives. First 30 days? Who knew the 225-year-old First Amendment was in need of such urgent revision?
Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that restored the free-speech and association rights of corporations and unions. That decision was rooted, if we can use that word in polite netroots company, in the language of the First Amendment. The constitutional amendment Mrs. Clinton has in mind would have to rewrite James Madison. Dead white males may be out of progressive favor, but we suspect most Americans still trust Madison more than they do the boys at the Daily Kos.
Independent Groups
USA Today: Trump camp endorses a super PAC
Fredreka Schouten
Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort called into a meeting of about 20 potential donors to express support for Rebuilding America Now, and Trump’s vice presidential nominee, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, went further, providing a written statement that the group’s organizers used in a slideshow presentation for contributors, Ken McKay, one of the super PAC’s strategists, told USA TODAY.
McKay said Trump campaign officials provided Pence’s statement in which the governor described the super PAC as “one of the best ways to stop Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump our next president.”
Buzzfeed: Lewandowski Has Been Pitching Donors On His Own Pro-Trump Super PAC
Tarini Parti and Rosie Gray
Asked for comment, Lewandowski said in an email to BuzzFeed News, “I have nothing to do with any Superpacs.” He also denied talking to donors about a potential group.
Donors have so far been mostly skeptical of his pitch, the sources said, especially since he suggested on CNN that Manafort should resign following Melania Trump’s plagiarized convention speech. There are also concerns about what his contract with CNN would allow him to do — issues those involved with competing super PACs are stressing as they respond to donors who have been approached.
“He was pitching donors in the suites the last two nights,” said a GOP fundraiser who deals with major donors. “I don’t know how it’s going, but he’s basically attacking the other two super pacs and saying that they don’t know what they’re doing. It’s a pretty aggressive pitch.”
Convention
Wall Street Journal: Why July? Nominating Conventions Weren’t Always So Early
Byron Tau
But the decline of public financing also came with challenges. In 2012, Mitt Romney would raise more than a billion dollars but found himself out of money in August because of campaign finance rules that force campaigns to divide up their fundraising between pre-convention and post-convention spending. Mr. Romney ran out of pre-convention money and could not spend his general-election funds until he officially became the GOP nominee.
As a result, the Republican Party this year chose to hold its convention in July to avoid the situation that Mr. Romney found himself in. The Democrats followed suit.
Lobbying
Washington Post: Lobbyists have raised $7 million for Hillary Clinton. For Trump? Zero
Catherin Ho
The $7 million figure represents the amount of money that federally registered lobbyists have bundled for the official Clinton campaign since the start of the election cycle in 2015 through June 30. People who raise more than $17,600 from friends, family and colleagues are known as bundlers. Campaigns are required to disclose the names of bundlers if they are registered lobbyists, but are not required to disclose the names of all bundlers.
In addition, lobbyists have raised $2 million for the Hillary Victory Fund, the campaign’s joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, since 2015.
By comparison, Trump’s official campaign nor its joint fundraising committee with the Republican National Committee, Trump Victory, reported any lobbyist bundlers.
FEC
Washington Examiner: FEC Dems approve liberal attack on Cruz in secret vote
Paul Bedard
In recent cases where liberals are accused of violating election laws, the votes have typically been 6-0. But in those where conservative outlets hit liberal politicians, the votes are 3-3, with Democrats refusing to grant the same media exemption to conservatives.
In the newly revealed case, a complaint was filed against Geoff Charles, a shock jock on WHJY of Providence, R.I., for a long anti-Cruz rant…
A listener complained that it amounted to an advertisement against Cruz and should have included a disclaimer at the end…
Democratic commissioners have not always gone along with their lawyers. In case against Sean Hannity’s radio show, Democratic commissioners overruled the FEC’s lawyers to vote against the popular conservative talker.
Washington Examiner: Regulator sniffs scented oxygen on taxpayer-funded RNC trip
Rudy Takala
Five of the federal agency’s six commissioners are in the city for the convention, a spokesman for the agency said Wednesday, in addition to five agency staffers. Just one of the commissioners, Republican Lee Goodman, committed to covering his own costs on the trip…
Other commissioners at the convention included Republican Caroline Hunter and Democrats Ellen Weintraub and Steven Walther. Commission Chairman Matthew Petersen, a Republican, did not attend.
Since public funding for party conventions ended in 2014, some observers have argued that the need for FEC commissioners to attend on the taxpayers’ dime has significantly diminished. That is particularly true of cross-party attendance, which critics say looks voyeuristic and amounts to taxpayer-funded opposition research.
Political Parties
Politico: Reince Priebus’ Surrender
Eli Stokols
But Trump’s unexpected rise last fall presented Priebus with a choice: continue to fight for the vision of the more modern, inclusive GOP he had laid out three years earlier or finish out his third and likely final term as, in the words of Bill Kristol, an “obedient, compliant apparatchik willing to subordinate a grand old party to a new strongman.”
Priebus chose to stay to aid and coach a candidate who may undermine the very things he has dedicated his tenure to improving.
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: Trump starts stashing cash in the bank
Isaac Arnsdorf
The Trump campaign disclosed $26.7 million in contributions in June, 45 percent of which came in checks smaller than $200 — an impressive debut for a small-dollar fundraising operation that was basically non-existent before.
Trump pitched in a little more than $2 million, making good on his pledge to match that amount in response to the campaign’s first fundraising email last month.
Trump also appeared to fulfill his promise to forgive his loan to the campaign, after repeated efforts to quell suspicions that he might try to pay himself back with other people’s money: the latest filing for the first time showed no debts owed by the campaign.
Washington Post: Analysis: Did Trump speechwriter’s apology reveal a violation of federal election law?
Philip Bump
But there’s another problem. The letterhead of the statement: The Trump Organization, which is to say Donald Trump’s personal business. And notice how McIver describes herself: As an employee of the Trump Organization, not the campaign.
If Trump used corporate resources to write a political speech, that could be illegal…
“On the face of it, this looks like a corporate violation,” explained Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. And that is “a violation of federal law. It can result in civil penalties to the corporation and the campaign.” If the campaign used corporate resources “willingly and knowingly,” the offense is a criminal one.
Noble notes, however, that the campaign has regularly used corporate staff for the campaign — but have properly accounted for that use by paying the staff from the campaign.
WFYI: Indianapolis: What Will Happen To The Money In Pence’s Gubernatorial Campaign Account?
Brandon Smith
Through the last campaign finance filing period – which ended June 30 – Pence had more than $7 million in his gubernatorial campaign account. That money is now in limbo as state Republicans wait to see what the governor will do with it.
He can’t directly transfer it to the presidential campaign; federal campaign finance laws don’t allow that. But Pence could transfer the money to, say, a super PAC, which could then give it to the presidential campaign. He could also simply keep the money in his state account – much like Evan Bayh did when he abandoned his Senate reelection bid in 2010.
Candidates and Campaigns
Sacramento Bee: California wants people to prove they are not lobbyists
Alison Noon
The commission will consider whether to change the process so investigators who suspect people of unregistered lobbying can require them to provide evidence that the investigators would then use to determine whether or not the unregistered lobbying actually took place.
Lobbyists are required to register with the state if the amount they make for communicating with government officials reaches $2,000 in any given month. The change would allow investigators to demand evidence about their financial gains generated through contact with government officials.
Critics say the proposal would illegally require alleged unregistered lobbyists to prove their innocence.
Missouri Times: $2 million donation shows clear difference between the federal and Missouri system
Travis Zimpfer
Besides the “upstream contributor,” the financier of the SEALs for Truth PAC, being hidden in the shadows, the donation was so large it led to questions about who would pour so much money into a Missouri race from outside the state…
“Missouri does have a law which prohibits essentially giving money to one entity when you’re basically hiding the upstream donor,” Ketcher says. “If you do that intentionally, where you move money from one entity to one entity, and you know ahead of time that we’re going to earmark this money to this entity through another entity, that would be a crime.”
Legitimate nonprofits, he says, that have long term interests, like a chamber of commerce or the Associated Industries of Missouri, and occasionally get involved in political donations are perfectly appropriate.
