Campaign Finance
Washington Examiner: Politics ain’t broke, so reforms wont fix it
Jeff Milyo
Now again we see op-ed pages and political stump speeches about the corrosion of our democracy by money. Reform is demanded; the time for talk is over; man the gyrocopters! The Supreme Court’s constitutional protection of political speech and association often frustrates reform efforts and is seen by would-be reformers as extreme and either naïve or malignant.
But campaign finance reformers are themselves demagogues who exploit the system. Arguments for reform appeal to emotion; they are not based on a rational and scientific understanding of democracy. Campaign finance reformers are like witch doctors of democracy, who conjure visions of evil spirits called Soros or Koch. And they offer the panacea of reform. American democracy can be saved, they assure us, but only with a blood-letting of fundamental freedoms.
IRS
New York Times: I.R.S. Expected to Stand Aside as Nonprofits Increase Role in 2016 Race
Eric Lichtblau
The I.R.S. put out its first proposal for regulating nonprofits’ political work in 2013, just as the controversy was building over the targeting of Tea Party groups. Both liberals and conservatives attacked the move as chilling political speech, and the agency shelved the proposed rules.
“Because of the way the I.R.S. has been attacked, they’ve become extremely hesitant to act,” said Miriam Galston, a campaign finance specialist at George Washington University who believes tougher restrictions are needed.
For nonprofits active in politics, she said, “it’s going to be pretty much open season.”
That would not disappoint conservatives who oppose stricter campaign-finance regulations. “The I.R.S. shouldn’t play political referee,” said Donald F. McGahn, a former Republican commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, “and if they attempt another rule-making, they run the risk of looking partisan, ideological, or worse.”
The Blaze: IT Boss at IRS ‘Blown Away’ After Learning What Happened to Backup Tapes Likely Containing Lerner Emails
Jason Howerton
In addition to telling the IG’s office that he was “blown away” by the tax agency’s handling of the backup tapes, IRS Chief Technology Officer Terry Milholland also confirmed that the tapes “were destroyed as a result of IRS management.”
Further, the IRS “did not fully identify as a source or perform recovery attempts” for Lerner’s emails and and as many as 24,000 emails “may not have been provided to Congress,” according to the report. The internal IG report is not expected to be released to the public.
Democratic lawmakers have claimed Republicans’ investigation into the IRS scandal is politically motivated and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
U.S. News: Internal report finds no evidence IRS employees told to destroy information
Associated Press
While the 22-page report found no evidence that IRS employees intended to destroy data or hard drives, it also found that employees made no effort to uncover additional emails as Congress pressed for information.
The report reiterates many of the details spelled out in congressional testimony last month, when government investigators said IRS employees erased computer backup tapes a month after officials discovered that thousands of emails related to the scandal had been lost.
The investigators, however, concluded that employees erased the tapes by mistake, not as part of an attempt to destroy evidence.
Free Speech
Washington Post: The trouble with the ‘dignity’ of same-sex marriage
Jonathan Turley
But Kennedy’s moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the “dignity” of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences…
Obergefell would be a tragic irony if it succeeded in finally closing the door on morality and speech codes only to introduce an equally ill-defined dignity code. Both involve majoritarian values, enforced by the government, regarding what is acceptable and protectable. Substituting compulsory morality with compulsory liberalism simply shifts the burden of coercive state power from one group to another.
None of these concerns take away from the euphoria of this liberating moment. And the justices can certainly tailor their new right in the coming years. But if we are to protect the dignity of all citizens, we need to be careful that dignity is not simply a new way for the majority to decide who belongs and who does not in our “Nation’s social order.”
Independent Groups
Huffington Post: Pat Toomey’s PAC May Have Broken FEC Rules By Donating To A Super PAC Run By His Former Aides
Paul Blumenthal
According to FEC records, Toomey’s Citizens for Prosperity in America Today made a $50,000 donation on Jan. 28, 2015, to Prosperity for Pennsylvania, a super PAC launched by former Toomey aides. It is the first contribution from a leadership PAC controlled by a lawmaker to a super PAC whose apparent sole purpose is to support that same lawmaker’s election.
This could prove problematic since leadership PACs are, by definition, “directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled” by a candidate or lawmaker. Under the FEC’s coordination rules, the groups are required to be “independent” from the candidates they support, meaning they are banned from making independent expenditures to help elect their controlling lawmaker. The contribution by Citizens for Prosperity in America Today to the super PAC appears to be an attempt to circumvent the coordination rules.
Citizens United
Concord Monitor: On campaign finance, it’s time for citizen action
Craig Yergeau
Is Congress ever going to let us vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United?…
It’s been almost 130 years since the Supreme Court invented corporate personhood in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific. Lots of people – including Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas – believed that decision would be reversed. But that hasn’t happened; after Hobby Lobby, corporations even have religious rights. How long are we going to wait for the Supreme Court to fix the problem it created?
Orlando Sentinel: Cue Huey Lewis: Readers go back in time, alter history
Darryl E. Owens
Thirty years ago, Michael J. Fox starred as a teen time traveler in “Back to the Future.”
Suppose we could climb into a time machine and change the past. What would we alter and why?
I asked my Facebook friends. And they delivered answers that swung from the comical to surprisingly sober, philosophical meditations.
So, buckle up, power the Flux Capacitor to 1.21 gigawatts, set the time-clock and floor it. The speedometer just flashed double-eights:…
Concerned with the tsunami of dark money flooding U.S. elections, several time travelers revisited Jan. 21, 2010 — when the Supremes ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that unlimited corporate spending on political ads amounts to protected speech.
The States
Yellow Hammer News: Alabama’s new campaign finance law reform makes political process more transparent
Sen. Arthur Orr
For instance, this reform increases transparency by lowering the threshold for filing an electronic campaign report from $10,000 to $5,000 and requires a candidate to file campaign contributions of any amount in a more reasonable time…
An even more important aspect of the reform is putting the Ethics Commission in charge of overseeing Alabama’s political campaign spending. The Ethics Commission, a non-political entity, is now empowered to supervise the campaign process and if necessary, investigate claims of illegal activity. The Ethics Commission will have the power to subpoena documents and will act as an impartial umpire over campaign financing. If the Commission should discover illegal activity, it will submit the evidence to the local district attorney or to the Attorney General for prosecution.
Portland Tribune: My View: Voters support fixing campaign finance potholes
Adam Davis
A bill to rein-in unlimited campaign contributions (SJR5) was sent to the Legislature by Secretary of State Kate Brown before she became governor. Intended as a very basic referral to the voters, SJR 5 simply authorizes constitutional permission to the Legislature or the electorate to set campaign contribution limits. It doesn’t set limits, just allows them to be set via statutory law.
Key legislators, fearful that the public might set limits too low or fearful that any actual limitation won’t pass constitutional muster or result in independent (dark money) becoming a more potent element of the equation, have bottled up SJR5.
Detroit News: Dark money clouds energy debate
Thomas Lyon
The next time you hear a TV ad sponsored by “Concerned Americans for a Better World” or from a “free-market think tank” pay careful attention. Do they disclose who is funding them? Do they provide rigorously documented facts? Or, more likely, are they offering simple slogans backed only by scary assertions?
