In the News
Argus Leader: My Voice: Get ready for the election tax
Ben Lee
Paying for campaign spending is the worst possible use of our tax dollars. The Democracy Credit program would be capped at $12 million, yet that’s $12 million that could go toward any other, far more valuable purpose. If the funding for roads, schools, or other state services were ever jeopardized, at least we’d have glossy fliers and television ads promoting Joe Blow’s latest run for public office, right?
That’s not how politics should function. South Dakotans don’t need a “stimulus package” to get involved in doing our civic duty or supporting causes. We’re in the ranks of states with strong levels of voter turnout. Pouring our money into elections won’t change that level of engagement.
Instead, it’ll just create opportunities for would-be politicians or incumbents to game the system. That’s how it works out in other states with public election financing. As the Center for Competitive Politics puts it, taxpayer-funded elections “exacerbate election fraud and facilitate new and creative forms of campaign finance corruption[.]”
Independent Groups
Reuters: Dumb money: How political mega-donors got it wrong
Michelle Conlin
In the 2016 election, though, the “smart money” turned out to be dumb. Establishment-backed candidates (Jeb Bush) either sputtered out or had to spend more than expected (Hillary Clinton) to fend off rivals. Insurgents relying on their own pocketbooks (Donald Trump) and small-dollar donors (Bernie Sanders) prevailed beyond all expectations. And the cash dumps of people like the Wilkses wound up turning into cautionary tales in the campaign-finance industrial complex. Critics who predicted that Citizens United would amount to a billionaires’ pay-for-the-presidency melee turned out to be wrong, too. When former Florida Governor Bush announced in June 2015 that his Super PAC had raised more than $100 million in just six months, his fundraising juggernaut was expected to give him the edge that would lead to a GOP coronation. Instead, he performed so dismally in the nominating contests he dropped out after the third one.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Bernie Sanders supporters launch new group in Texas
Patrick Svitek
Allies of former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders are launching a group aimed at influencing Democratic politics in Texas beyond the 2016 race for the White House.
The group, Revolution Texas, will promote causes at the state level that align with Sanders’ priorities during his campaign, which included reducing income inequality, making college debt- and tuition-free, and overhauling the campaign finance system. Among those spearheading the effort is Jacob Limon, who served as Sanders’ Texas state director.
Bloomberg: Trump Has Third Person in Mind to Hit With Super-PAC Beyond Cruz, Kasich
Mark Halperin and Kendall Breitman
Donald Trump plans to create and fund super-PACs specifically aimed at ending the political careers of Ted Cruz and John Kasich should either run for office again, after both snubbed the Republican nominee during his party’s convention this week, a person familiar with Trump’s thinking told Bloomberg Politics on Friday.
Donald Trump confirmed his plans during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” broadcast on Sunday, saying “I’ll probably do a super-PAC, you know, when they run – against Kasich for $10 million, to $20 million against Ted Cruz.”
Bloomberg: Alex Castellanos Revs Up Super-PAC for Trump
Betsy Fischer Martin and Tammy Haddad
Though Trump disavowed super-PACs in the primary, and mocked rivals for accepting their unregulated donations, Castellanos said that Rebuilding America Now has the candidate’s backing.
“We had a meeting Wednesday with contributors and Paul Manafort called in, gave our contributors a briefing on the state of the campaign and let folks know that there’s no better way to help elect Donald Trump than to support our PAC, Rebuilding America Now,” Castellanos said.
Free Speech
Mother Jones: Should We Allow Nonprofits to Endorse Candidates
Kevin Drum
Until recently, though, I had no idea why non-profits weren’t allowed to endorse candidates. Then I began hearing about the “Johnson Amendment” from Donald Trump. Obviously someone put a bug in his ear, and he’s been repeating it like a mantra for weeks now. So what’s this all about?
“The “Johnson Amendment,” as the 1954 law is often called, is a U.S. tax code rule preventing tax-exempt organizations, such as churches and educational institutions, from endorsing political candidates. At the time, then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson was running for re-election, and he and other members of Congress pushed the amendment to stop support for their political opponents’ campaigns, George Washington University law professor Robert Tuttle has explained. Many have also argued the amendment served to stop black churches from organizing to support the civil rights movement.”…
Within whatever framework of campaign finance law we happen to have, is there any special reason that nonprofits shouldn’t be able to endorse, organize, and spend money on behalf of a candidate? I have to admit that no really good reason comes to mind. Am I missing something?
Political Parties
Politico: Wasserman Schultz steps down as DNC chair
Marc Caputo and Daniel Strauss
But Wasserman Schultz became fatally damaged goods in her own party after the WikiLeaks release showed Wasserman Schultz referring to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver as “damn liar” and an “ASS” and said the senator has “never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”
The emails fed the criticism from progressives and Sanders’ supporters that Wasserman Schultz and her team were hostile to his campaign from the start and had done their best to help Clinton win the Democratic nomination at the Vermont senator’s expense.
Washington Post: Leaked DNC emails reveal the inner workings of the party’s finance operation
Matea Gold
The DNC emails show how the party has tried to leverage its greatest weapon — the president — as it entices wealthy backers to bankroll the convention and other needs. At times, DNC staffers used language in their pitches to donors that went beyond what lawyers said was permissible under a White House policy designed to prevent any perception that special interests have access to the president.
Top aides also get involved in wooing contributors, according to the emails. White House political director David Simas, for instance, met in May with a half-dozen top party financiers in Chicago, including Fred Eychaner, one of the top Democratic donors in the country, the documents show.
New York Times: As Democrats Gather, a Russian Subplot Raises Intrigue
David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth
An unusual question is capturing the attention of cyberspecialists, Russia experts and Democratic Party leaders in Philadelphia: Is Vladimir V. Putin trying to meddle in the American presidential election?
Until Friday, that charge, with its eerie suggestion of a Kremlin conspiracy to aid Donald J. Trump, has been only whispered.
But the release on Friday of some 20,000 stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, many of them embarrassing to Democratic leaders, has intensified discussion of the role of Russian intelligence agencies in disrupting the 2016 campaign.
FEC
Washington Examiner: FEC Dems trolling for violations at GOP Convention t-shirt stands
Paul Bedard
Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are trolling through the Republican National Convention looking for violations of elections laws, even at the t-shirt stands.
Commissioners Ann Ravel and Ellen Weintraub are here looking into what vendors are offering and if they are following the rules. They are paying attention to groups also looking for violators at the convention.
Weintraub even took a picture, posted on Twitter, of one vendor’s stand and wrote, “We’re on it — RNC vendors appear to be compliant!”
Influence
Los Angeles Times: Alexandra Pelosi wants to take you on a ‘light romp into the mega-donors’ who fund campaigns
Meredith Blake
What brought you to this subject?
My kids [ages 8 and 9] were die-hard Bernie [Sanders supporters], all the way. We went to Washington Square Park to see Bernie speak; it was like going to Woodstock for my kids. However, as much as I appreciate his message, he oversimplified money in politics a little bit.
It’s such a complicated issue, but what I have found is that people want you to be either [New Yorker staff writer] Jane Mayer and accuse the Koch brothers of destroying our democracy, or they want you to be the true defender of Citizens United. They want the film to be an investigative deep-dive into how democracy is funded. That’s not what this is. This is a light romp into the mega-donors who are funding our election.
Candidates and Campaigns
Los Angeles Times: Under pressure from Bernie Sanders, Democrats poised to change how they pick nominees
Chris Megerian
The final deal approved by the rules committee on Saturday will create a commission that will draft changes to the superdelegate system. Only elected officials would be allowed to be superdelegates, reducing their numbers by two-thirds.
Although the commission’s final report — due in 2018, two years before the next presidential election — would still need to be approved by the full Democratic National Committee, the Sanders campaign is confident in the process.
Vox: Americans trust Donald Trump to take on the “special interests.” They shouldn’t.
Jeff Stein
Trump’s conception of how money influences politics is clear: Like many Americans, he essentially imagines that Clinton — and his Republican rivals before her — engage in a quid pro quo in which donors are transactionally rewarded for their campaign contributions. This idea posits a direct line of influence from lobbyist to politician, and then back the other way for the return back-scratch…
There’s just one problem with this criticism: it’s wrong. According to most campaign finance experts I’ve interviewed, the real problem with our campaign finance system is not that donors are transactionally rewarded for their gifts. Instead, what happens is that politicians’ dependence on special interest money generally elevates the priorities of the wealthy across the board.
Bloomberg: In Kaine, Clinton Adds Fundraising Power to Campaign
Bill Allison
Kaine was a finalist for the number two spot in 2008 with Barack Obama. Instead of vice president, Obama tapped Kaine to follow Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a position he held from January 2009 to April 2011. The party raised $111 million while Kaine was in charge.
Those connections could help Clinton widen the money gap with Trump, according to Ankit Desai, a lobbyist for Cheniere Energy who has raised money for both Kaine and Clinton. “With his experience in the DNC, he has a network of large-dollar donors and extensive support from small-dollar donors as well,” Desai said.
The States
CBS Connecticut: State Democrats Respond To Federal Campaign Finance Probe
Previously, the state Elections Enforcement Commission tried to investigate the matter, but the party fought the investigation in court. The state agency eventually accepted a $325,000 payment from the party.
In return the party avoided having to turn over emails between Democratic officials.
Democrats allegedly went around state campaign finance rules by using federal get out the vote money, to pay for a mailer supporting the governor’s state re-election campaign.
