In the News
Albuquerque Journal: Weh: Udall should return $46K contribution
By Michael Coleman
Weh based his request on an ethics complaint filed in June against nine U.S. senators – including Udall – by the conservative-leaning, Washington-based Center for Competitive Politics. The group has alleged that to varying degrees the nine senators used their positions to pressure the IRS to crack down on conservative nonprofit groups, such as the tea party.
Bradley Smith, the group’s chairman, said in a Journal interview Thursday that Udall’s actions were among the “least egregious” of the nine senators, but improper nonetheless.
IRS
National Review: Issa: New Koskinen Testimony Will Turn Up Heat On Lois Lerner
By Tim Cavanaugh
California Republican Congressman Darrell Issa indicated Sunday that upcoming testimony from Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen could further incriminate embattled former IRS official Lois Lerner.
“Either Lois Lerner’s attorney is outright not telling the truth…or the commissioner was inaccurate in his testimony before Congress,” Issa said on Fox News Sunday. “Now the lawyer, Mr. (William) Taylor, is not under oath. The commissioner is.”
Issa, chairman of the House Committee On Oversight and Government Reform, was referring to statements made by Lerner’s legal team that contradicted claims made by Koskinen during recent House testimony. Lerner, former director of the tax agency’s Exempt Organizations Division, was a leader in an IRS campaign to target conservative and Tea Party groups for abuse and suppression. Last year she pled her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before Congress, and she resigned soon afterward. More recently the IRS has claimed that it misplaced a trove of emails relating to Lerner’s potentially criminal actions.
Independent Groups
Intelligence Squared: Is Unlimited Spending On Political Speech A Protected Right?
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the right of corporations and unions to spend money on political speech. That decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, didn’t affect how much money organizations could donate to political campaigns — but it removed limits on how much they could spend themselves.
In a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, legal scholars squared off on a question that gets at the heart of the debate over Citizens United, among other issues: Do individuals and organizations have a constitutional right to unlimited spending on their own political speech?
In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people by the end of the debate is declared the winner. One side took the position that political advocacy is exactly the kind of speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect, and that limiting spending means inhibiting expression. The other argued that spending is not the same as speech, and allowing unlimited spending gives some voices more power than others.
Politico: Court: Super PAC not independent enough
By Bryan Tau
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that free-spending political groups can lose the right to make unlimited expenditures in certain situations.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled in Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell that an anti-abortion, state-level super PAC was not “functionally distinct” enough from a sister committee that gives cash to political candidates and parties.
WP: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
By Brian Fung
Whatever your politics, chances are you’re among the vast majority of Americans who believes there’s too much money in the whole business. With the Supreme Court knocking down one campaign finance barrier after another, money in politics has only grown more central to U.S. culture — not less. Even as the cycle of spending and giving accelerates, it’s not clear what, if anything, ordinary voters can do about it.
Except, perhaps, to fight money with money.
Chicago Tribune: Emanuel super PAC gets nearly $1 million in one day
By Bill Ruthhart
Some of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s biggest campaign donors dropped $950,000 in one day into a new super political action committee created to help back his run for re-election in 2015.
Illinois election law caps the amount individuals can contribute to Emanuel and other candidates’ campaigns at $5,300, and those rules limit corporate donations to $10,500.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
NY Times: Give Scotusblog a Seat in Court
Editorial
What’s the problem? The Supreme Court has traditionally recognized credentials issued by the Senate’s Standing Committee of Correspondents, which is made up of journalists from mainstream news organizations. In April, the committee denied Scotusblog’s latest request for a credential because its founder and publisher, Tom Goldstein, is a lawyer whose firm argues regularly before the court. The committee said that that violates its rule against lobbying the federal government. It also said the site is not independent from Mr. Goldstein’s firm.
These arguments are tenuous at best. Litigating is not lobbying, but, even so, the committee has credentialed, among others, foreign journalists fromstate-run publications whose countries routinely lobby. And Mr. Goldstein has erected firewalls to assure that the firm’s work does not editorially influence the blog.
The committee should reconsider its edict. Professional standards are necessary, but, by any measure, Scotusblog meets them. Its importance is demonstrated by its audience, which is not just top journalists and members of the public. According to the site’s internal data, Scotusblog’s single biggest user is the Supreme Court itself.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Wall Street Journal: The Democrats’ Top Leaders Wilt in the Polls
By Karl Rove
Let’s take the president and the IRS targeting of tea party and conservative groups. When the practice was revealed in May 2013, Mr. Obama called it “outrageous,” saying “there’s no place for it.” He wanted the IRS “held fully accountable” since the agency “requires absolute integrity.”
By December 2013 the president was playing down the scandal. IRS agents “in Cincinnati,” he explained to Chris Matthews on MSNBC, “for bureaucratic reasons” were simply “trying to streamline a difficult law,” yet “suddenly, everybody’s outraged.” He even blamed “liberal commentators” for joining the criticism of the IRS because “that is what gets news.”
These days the White House routinely suggests that the IRS targeting is a “fabricated issue” and “phony scandal.” Yet 76% in a June 24 Fox News poll said they believe IRS employee emails were “destroyed deliberately,” suggesting that Americans believe it was part of a coverup.
Roll Call: How Parties Communicate Without Coordinating
By Nathan L. Gonzales
Party campaign committees and outside groups aren’t allowed to coordinate, but as they outline their fall television ad strategies, interested groups are doing a very public dance to ensure they don’t step on each others’ toes and waste money duplicating efforts.
Now we have some specific examples of districts where this collaboration is taking place.
Lobbying and Ethics
National Journal: Ethics Chair: House Will Reverse Itself on Disclosure of Free Trips
By Shane Goldmacher
House Ethics Committee Chairman Mike Conaway said Thursday that his panel would undo its controversial decision to delete the requirement that lawmakers list free trips they receive on their annual disclosure reports.
“We will reverse that decision,” Conaway said during an appearance on a local radio talk show in his Texas district. “Heard first in Brownwood, Texas,” the Republican told listeners, one of whom provided a recording to
National Journal.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Freebies flow at Missouri Capitol; pols accept more than $600k from lobbyists
By Walker Moskop
Missouri public officials took in $680,000 in lobbyist gifts during the 2014 legislative session, with nearly all of it going to state lawmakers.
That represents a 10 percent decline from the first five months of 2013, and is about the same as in 2011 and 2012, according to Missouri Ethics Commission data.
FEC
Roll Call: FEC Seeks Answers From Pro-Cochran Super PAC
By Kent Cooper
The federal agency regulating and monitoring money in federal elections is seeking answers from a pro-Cochran Super PAC regarding what appears to be campaign finance violations.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has sent a Request For Additional Information (RFAI) to Mississippi Conservatives, a Super PAC supporting the re-election of Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. The committee has until August 1st to respond, or the failure to do so “could result in an audit or enforcement action.”
