In the News
Constitution Daily: What’s the next big controversy on campaign finance?
Lyle Denniston
Efforts to narrow disclosure duties to “express advocacy” both succeeded and failed in a pair of court rulings that, by coincidence, were issued on the same day, July 16. The conflicting results are the kind that will often lead the Supreme Court to step in to say who was right.
In one of the new rulings, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring public disclosure of campaign coordination could only be enforced when the aim is to persuade voters to cast their ballots for or against a named candidate (that is, express advocacy). When the joint activity is aimed only at promoting an issue (that is, issue advocacy), the First Amendment does not allow it to be regulated at all, through disclosure or any other form of campaign controls, the majority of the state court decided.
In the other ruling issued that day, the federal court of appeals that sits in Philadelphia (for the Third Circuit) ruled just the opposite. The publication close to Election Day of an issue-oriented ad, it decided, does not gain protection under the First Amendment from mandated public disclosure just because it does not amount to express advocacy. It is still an attempt to influence voters, and they are entitled to know who is paying for that attempt, the court made clear.
There are, of course, talented lawyers on both sides of this developing controversy, and there are dedicated clients on each side, so the chances that this will move on to the Supreme Court in a clearly framed test case seem strong.
CCP
The Donald and Donor Disclosure
Scott Blackburn
But should Trump mockery extend to his supporters? The Daily Beast certainly thinks so. On Friday, they published a story entitled, “Inside the Mind of a Trump Donor: ‘I Was Probably Drunk.’” If the headline didn’t get the message across clearly enough, the author of the piece, Olivia Nuzzi, set out to find and ridicule anyone who is crazy enough to express their support for The Donald’s presidential campaign. To do this, Nuzzi used the personal information of donors, which is legally mandated to be reported to the government and made publicly available, to track down and telephone all 63 Americans who dared give Donald Trump more than $250.
Thus, an expression of support for Donald Trump apparently comes with an enormous cost – the loss of your privacy and public shaming by a major media outlet. And make no mistake, these individuals were undoubtedly expressing their political views with their donations, and they were undeniably shamed for doing so.
Disclosure
The Hill: Dems urge Obama to veto bill over campaign finance restrictions
Cristina Marcos
The provisions in question would prevent the Obama administration from issuing rules to require federal contractors or nonprofit social welfare organizations to publicly disclose campaign activities. Another part of the bill blocks the creation of regulations directing corporations to reveal campaign spending to shareholders.
Wisconsin John Doe
The Federalist: Wisconsin Activists Raided By Political Enemies Win In Court
Gabriel Malor
The Wisconsin Supreme Court laid bare this pretext, noting both that “the basis for [the John Doe special prosecutor’s] theory has evolved over the course of the various legal challenges to his investigation” and that his theory of the election law was so broad it “would require an individual to surrender his political rights to the government and retain campaign finance attorneys before discussing salient political issues.” Naturally, the investigators’ theory was abhorrent to both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and to the Wisconsin Constitution’s Article 1, Section 3 analog.
New York Times: Scott Walker Proposes Shutting Wisconsin Ethics Board
Julie Bosman
Mr. Walker would replace the board with “something completely new that is truly accountable to the people of the state of Wisconsin,” he told reporters after a bill-signing ceremony.
Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Mr. Walker, said in an email that the governor “supports overall reform and an investigation into the actions of the Government Accountability Board.”
Ms. Patrick said the governor was willing to work with the State Legislature to find a replacement for the board “in a way that is fair, transparent and accountable to Wisconsinites.”
FEC
CPI: Center for Public Integrity sues Federal Election Commission for documents
Center for Public Integrity
Last August, Center for Public Integrity senior political reporter Dave Levinthal filed a FOIA request asking the FEC to provide “any and all scheduling documents and/or records” for the FEC’s six commissioners covering a period from Oct. 21, 2013, to Aug. 14, 2014…
Office schedules or related communications for commissioners Lee Goodman, Caroline Hunter, Matthew Petersen, Steven Walther and Ellen Weintraub were not included, and to date, have not been released. The FEC has not explained why, although it has confirmed that it possesses additional documents responsive to the Center for Public Integrity’s FOIA request.
“It’s unfortunate that we have to file a lawsuit to obtain what should be publicly available information,” said Deputy Executive Editor John Dunbar… “But we could see no other option.”
Lobbying
Bloomberg: Jeb Bush Takes Aim at Revolving Door in Washington
Michael C. Bender
U.S. lawmakers leaving Congress should be banned for six years from lobbying, tripling the current prohibition, and prevented from influencing government as consultants, said Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush.
The Republican presidential candidate also proposed weekly, online disclosure of lobbyists’ meetings with members of Congress, and an expansion of the definition of lobbying to capture the growing class of what has come to be known as “unlobbyists,” which Bush defined as an “ambiguous class” of individuals who don’t register to lobby but belong to “the cadre of ‘government relations’ and ‘government affairs’ specialists now populating the Capitol.”
Citizens United
The New American: Citizens United for Free Speech
Joe Wolverton, II
If I know that lawmakers can’t do anything to benefit my bottom line, then I won’t bother spending any money on them. Unless, of course, I simply want to support them for our similar views of the rightful role of government. If I know that no matter how much I pay a politician, he’ll never be able to put roadblocks of regulations in the path of my competitor, then I won’t try to buy him. If I know that no matter how much my company would benefit from opening a new theatre of some foreign war or getting the United States involved in some international conflict, there is no way a politician could make that happen, then I’m not going to bother buying one.
The bottom line, then, regarding the restrictions on the use of money by individuals or groups is that in a free society, there is no justification for allowing the government to deny them their fundamental right of free speech, including the spending of money as an expression of that speech. Instead of making it illegal for any politician to accept over $100 “from any person or entity,” those interested in fixing the problem should work to make it impossible that even $1 be used by politicians to do anything that lies outside the constitutional restrictions on their power.
Candidates and Campaigns
Las Vegas Review-Journal: No longer running, Reid refunds $864K to donors
Steve Tetreault
The money had been given to the Nevada Democrat and earmarked for his participation in the 2016 general election campaign, which will not happen since he announced on March 27 he will not be running again. The FEC required the refunds be made within 60 days…
Reid has not indicated what he might do with his unused campaign money when he leaves office. Federal rules say he can‘t convert it to personal use. But he can give it to nonprofits, make contributions to the Democratic Party or to other candidates within allowable limits.
The States
New York Times: New York’s Big Money Loophole
Editorial Board
Nearly two decades ago, New York’s Board of Elections quietly created a gigantic loophole in the state’s campaign finance laws when it decided that limited liability companies were no different from people when it came to donations to candidates. Under state law, corporations are limited to political donations of $5,000 a year. But limited liability companies are allowed to donate $60,800 a year to any statewide candidate, just like individuals.
The Orange County Register: Cleaning up politics or ‘vindictive’ nosy neighbor? Shirley Grindle is making last stand as a watchdog
Martin Wisckol
Grindle has since become a one-woman wrecking crew of enforcement, perusing campaign reports, filing complaints and winning judgments against candidates who stray from the law. She hopes voters will cement her legacy next year by approving a county commission to take over and expand the job she’s been doing.
Glendale Star: Hockey charity broke the law, IRS told
Sterling Fluharty
“It appears that, after the political committee was consistently unsuccessful in raising adequate funds to repay his loans, Fallar, with the assistance of Wyatt, resorted to using their insider positions at Desert Hockey Development to deceptively use the appearance of being a public charity supporting youth development programs to raise significant funds that they could then contribute to their political committee in order to retire Fallar’s loan debt that could not otherwise be repaid,” claims the complaint.
Philadelphia Inquirer: Teachers’ union gets schooled for violating campaign law
Mensah M. Dean
“The union was flagged for giving a $11,500 donation to its parent union, the American Federation of Teachers – Pennsylvania Chapter, whose political committee on March 9 wrote a check for that amount to Gym’s campaign.
The Board of Ethics said that while Jordan “did not explicitly direct, suggest or request that” the AFT give the $11,500 to Gym’s campaign, the circumstances in which the PFT contributed the money to the AFT “created an implied suggestion that” the funds were meant for the support of Gym.
