Supreme Court
The Hill: Campaign finance expert on how to get money out of politics (Video)
Election Law Professor Richard Hasen discusses what might be the next campaign finance case to enter the Supreme Court’s docket.
The Courts
Wisconsin State Journal: Conservative news outlet sues Tony Evers administration over access
By Riley Vetterkind
A conservative news outlet is suing Gov. Tony Evers, claiming his Democratic administration regularly excludes its writers from the access afforded by other media outlets.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Tuesday, argues Evers and his communications team violated the U.S. Constitution by preventing the conservative MacIver News Service from receiving advance notice of the governor’s news conferences and barring it from attending a briefing on the state budget attended by other news outlets.
The lawsuit claims the governor’s actions violate the First Amendment’s guarantees protecting free speech and the press, and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The John K. MacIver Institute – the MacIver News Service’s parent organization – and writer Bill Osmulski are plaintiffs in the lawsuit…
The law is clear that there has to be a very compelling reason to deny press access, and singling out a particular outlet because you disagree with their viewpoint is not allowed, said Howard Schweber, a law school and political science professor at UW-Madison. He drew a parallel with President Donald Trump attempting to bar a CNN reporter from the White House. Trump ultimately relented.
“It’s practically a slam dunk,” Schweber said.
Robert Dreschel, a journalism professor at UW-Madison and an expert on media law, said it appears Evers wasn’t following any standards or guidance when MacIver was denied access.
“That’s very troublesome,” he said. “They have to be able to give some kind of reasons beyond just saying ‘Not you.’ Otherwise, you do raise legitimate First Amendment questions.”
Bloomberg: NRA Wins First Round Over L.A. Law It Says Is About Shaming
By Erik Larson
A federal judge in Los Angeles rejected the city’s request to throw out a National Rifle Association lawsuit challenging a new law that requires contractors to disclose all business ties to the organization.
The NRA says the law violates its First Amendment rights to free speech and association by discriminating against the group over its viewpoints and trying to freeze out its corporate supporters.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson on Monday rejected the city’s argument that contractors’ involvement with the NRA — such as offering discounts — isn’t “expressive” within the meaning of the First Amendment.
“That is rejected,” Wilson, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing on the city’s request. “It is expressive, so there is a First Amendment issue.”
The judge is still considering an NRA request for an order blocking the ordinance while it pursues its lawsuit to nullify the measure. He set another hearing for Sept. 9.
The NRA’s lawyer, Sean Brady, told Wilson that the Los Angeles ordinance is aimed at discouraging companies from partnering with the organization by putting their city contracts at risk — even if the law itself has more benign language.
“The government cannot curtail support for an organization because of its speech,” he said. The city wants to subject NRA supporters “to ridicule and boycott,” he said…
Benjamin Chapman, the city’s lawyer, compared the ordinance to a sunshine law, saying it was about transparency.
CNN: Labor union sues over banning talk of ‘resistance’ or impeachment by federal employees
By Geneva Sands and Ellie Kaufman
The largest federal employee union is suing the federal government over guidance issued to federal employees last year warning against the use of terms like “resistance” or “#resist” in statements regarding President Donald Trump.
The lawsuit, brought Tuesday by The American Federation of Government Employees and AFGE Local 2578, contends that the guidance stifles speech of federal employees and violates their First Amendment Rights.
In November, the Office of Special Counsel told federal employees that use of the “resistance” terms when discussing the President, as well as supporting or opposing impeachment of any candidate running for political office, which includes the President who is running for re-election, could be considered a violation of the Hatch Act.
Federal employees were told that any statements relating to “resistance to Donald J. Trump, usage of the terms ‘resistance,’ ‘#resist’ and derivatives thereof is political activity.” The guidance says that while those terms were initially used to oppose administration policies, they have now become “inextricably linked with the electoral success (or failure) of the President.” …
The groups suing the government argue that these terms, as well as impeachment discussion are outside of partisan political activity and should therefore not be restricted, pointing out that impeachment is a constitutional process, not electoral.
Lexington Herald-Leader: Prosecutor: Father of Alison Lundergan Grimes made secret donations during her campaign
By Bill Estep
A former chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party and a prominent political consultant flouted federal campaign law to make illegal contributions to the 2014 U.S. Senate campaign of Alison Lundergan Grimes, a federal prosecutor argued Tuesday.
It is illegal for corporations to contribute to campaigns.
However, Grimes’ father, Lexington businessman Jerry Lundergan, and strategist Dale Emmons, a close family friend, schemed to make secret donations to Grimes through Lundergan’s companies, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kate K. Smith said.
“They decided that rule did not apply to them,” Smith told jurors as the trial for Lundergan and Enmons got underway in federal court in Frankfort.
But Lundergan’s lawyer told jurors that some of the spending by Lundergan at issue in the trial was for activities that were not related to Grimes’ campaign.
In other cases, Lundergan paid for some of Grimes’ efforts in the early, hectic days before the campaign was fully staffed and unintentionally failed to get reimbursed by the campaign, Lundergan’s attorney J. Guthrie True said.
When those oversights came to light later, Lundergan billed Grimes’ campaign and it repaid the money, True said.
“The evidence is going to show that some mistakes were made,” True told jurors, but Lundergan did not deliberately break any law.
Emmons’ attorney, Brandon Wayne Marshall, said Emmons is an accomplished political consultant, but had no experience in the complex financial reporting required in federal campaigns.
Emmons “did not willfully break the law,” Marshall told jurors.
Courthouse News Service: Abortion Protester Wins Appeal
By Kelsey Jukam
An anti-abortion protester is entitled to an injunction allowing him to to stand near the entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, and spread his “message,” the Sixth Circuit ruled. The court found that the street connected to the abortion clinic’s parking lot is privately owned, but it “has all the trappings of a public street” and can be considered a public forum protected under the First Amendment.
Politico: Duncan Hunter’s trial pushed back, pending appeal of ruling
By Associated Press
Rep. Duncan Hunter won’t go on trial until next year on corruption charges that involve the spending of campaign cash on vacations, extramarital affairs and other items, a U.S. judge decided Tuesday.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Whelan changed the trial date from Sept. 10 to Jan. 14 after defense attorneys raised questions about whether an appeals court must first consider their motion to dismiss the case against the California Republican…
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals usually doesn’t rule on a criminal case before a trial has concluded.
In Hunter’s case, the judges are allowing his attorneys to show why the court should make an exception. The 9th Circuit set a Sept. 6 deadline for the defense to submit their arguments, and the prosecution can file its response after that. Prosecutors have asked the court to dismiss the motion.
Defense attorneys also have argued that prosecutors were politically motivated and got the 42-year-old congressman – a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump – indicted only months before the 2018 election.
Hunter’s lawyers also say that if Hunter does go to trial, it should be moved out of San Diego to a more Republican-friendly area.
Whelan said Hunter easily won a sixth term after being indicted and therefore he should be able to be tried fairly in San Diego County. The judge also disagreed that prosecutors were on a political hunt and refused to toss the case.
Congress
The Fulcrum: Cruz, Ocasio-Cortez still discussing revolving door bill
By Geoff West
The government reform group RepresentUs recently drafted a petition asking Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez to follow through on their idea, gathering more than 8,000 signatures.
In late July, members of the Austin chapter of RepresentUs met with Cruz’s district staff to deliver the letter and were told Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez were still in communication about the legislation.
“We left feeling very satisfied with the experience,” Paula Barkan, Austin chapter leader of RepresentUs, said of the meeting. “We were on the same page.”
Ellen Moorhouse, communications manager at RepresentUs, said the group is now hoping to schedule a meeting with Ocasio-Cortez’s staff in New York to deliver the same petition.
Ocasio-Cortez’s team didn’t respond to an email about the petition, but she indicated in an interview in early June that the tweet exchange wasn’t just talk.
“Our legislative teams are meeting,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Young Turks, adding that she was hoping to work with Cruz on legislation that banned former members from working not only as registered lobbyists but also as so-called shadow lobbyists, or non-registered consultants hired by lobbying firms to help influence policy.
“The real question here that we’re trying to figure out in this collaboration is how far he’s willing to go,” she told TYT.
In early June, at least, she said she was “encouraged” by the progress, especially since Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas and former chief of staff for Cruz, had also reached out to her office in support of the ban.
Fundraising
New York Times: Many Democrats Love Elizabeth Warren. They Also Worry About Her.
By Jonathan Martin
She was more sure-footed on an issue that has prompted alarm among elected Democratic officials and operatives: her refusal to hold fund-raisers or seek four-figure checks from the party’s wealthy donors.
While she has made this commitment central to her primary campaign, implicitly scorning her rivals who are raising money in the traditional fashion, Ms. Warren said she would not shun big money if she becomes her party’s nominee.
“I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament,” she said, making clear that her policy only applies in the primary and not in the general election, when Mr. Trump is expected to lean on a range of well-heeled individuals and interests.
The States
Seattle Stranger: Seattle Might Try to Block Amazon from Spending in City Elections
By Lester Black
[Seattle City Council member Lorena] Gonzalez sent an ordinance to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) that would heavily curtail the fundraising ability of independent expenditure committees, also known as super PACs, by limiting their donations to $5,000 per person or corporation. The law would also effectively block multinational corporations like Amazon from spending any money in Seattle elections by banning companies with foreign ownership from giving to independent expenditure committees.
The law isn’t expected to be introduced to the full city council until at least 2020…
If the city council passed the law, it would almost certainly be challenged in court, which may be the ultimate goal of the legislation. Gonzalez’s bill is heavily modeled on a draft law created by the nonprofit Free Speech for People. John Bonifaz, the president of the nonprofit, attended Tuesday’s SEEC meeting and told the commissioners that he believed the legislation would hold up in court and possibly overturn early court rulings. Bonifaz brought with him letters of support from multiple law school professors and a chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC)…
Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, said in a letter to the SEEC that the proposed legislation would provide a strong case for the Supreme Court overruling the lower court’s Speechnow.org decision.
“Dollar limits on contributions to super PACs are constitutional under Supreme Court precedent,” Tribe said. “The US Supreme Court has upheld limits on contributions to political action committees in the past, did not address such limits in Citizens United, and has never created a special loophole or exception for super PACs.”
Texas Tribune: Texas Democrats sue over Michael Quinn Sullivan and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen meeting
By Cassandra Pollock and Emma Platoff
Texas Democrats are suing over a June 12 meeting House Speaker Dennis Bonnen had with one of his top lieutenants and Michael Quinn Sullivan, a hardline conservative activist, saying the three were engaged in serious campaign finance violations and demanding that Sullivan produce a full recording of the gathering that he has shared with only a small group of Republicans…
Sullivan is named as a defendant, along with an “unknown political committee” that the lawsuit said includes Bonnen and state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock.
Filed Thursday in Travis County District Court, the suit claims that Sullivan, along with Bonnen and Burrows, effectively created a political committee during their meeting by discussing the targeting of certain Republicans in the 2020 primaries. That committee was not registered with the state, the lawsuit claims – one of a suite of campaign finance violations the lawsuit alleges.
Sullivan has accused Bonnen and Burrows, who chairs the House GOP Caucus, of offering Sullivan’s group, Empower Texans, long-denied House media credentials in exchange for politically targeting 10 Republicans in the upcoming election cycle. Sullivan later revealed he secretly recorded the meeting, though he has not yet publicly released it. Bonnen has forcefully pushed back on Sullivan’s account of the meeting. Burrows has not yet publicly weighed in…
The lawsuit alleges that the meeting between Sullivan, Bonnen and Burrows was itself illegal, since it occurred at the Texas Capitol. It also alleges that Bonnen is “described to have offered valuable government benefits” for “political contributions and expenditures against his targeted political enemies.” …
Meanwhile, the powerful House General Investigating Committee, which has subpoena powers, is set to launch an investigation into the allegations.
Courthouse News Service: Judge Unseals Warrant Used to Search Journalist’s Home
By Maria Dinzeo
More court documents unsealed Tuesday indicate a San Francisco judge signed off on a police raid of a freelance journalist’s home despite knowing the man is a member of the press.
San Francisco Superior Judge Gail Dekreon specifically approved a search of Bryan Carmody’s home and personal phone….
Four judges have since unsealed and quashed, or set aside, search warrants of Carmody’s home, office and phone. On Friday, Judge Joseph Quinn is expected to rule on motions to quash and unseal a fifth warrant for Carmody’s phone records.
Tuesday’s unsealed warrant signed by Dekreon shows that Police Sgt. Joseph Obidi described Carmody as someone who “makes a career out of producing/selling hot news stories.” …
Glen Smith, litigation director at the First Amendment Coalition, a free press advocacy group that fought to unseal the warrants, said it should have been pretty clear to Dekreon that Carmody was a reporter protected by California’s journalist shield law.
“The face of that warrant application is that this guy was a journalist. The SFPD didn’t put it up in neon lights that he was a journalist with a press pass, but when you read the description of what this was doing, it becomes apparent he was a journalist,” Smith said by phone…
Portions of Tuesday’s warrant echo a warrant to search Carmody’s office, signed by Judge Victor Hwang.
Hwang unsealed and quashed that warrant last week, which notes that Carmody told police investigators that he “profits financially from every story he covers” and that police knew him as a “stringer,” or freelance news reporter.
Smith said neither Hwang nor Dekreon have really taken responsibility for violating Carmody’s civil rights, noting that the California Penal Code § 1524(g) protects a journalist’s confidential sources from search warrants. The warrants these judges issued contained the most detailed information about Carmody’s press activities.
Washington Free Beacon: Florida’s Gillum Moving PAC Activities Over to Nonprofit
By Todd Shepherd
The political action committee that sustained and supported Andrew Gillum’s 2018 campaign for governor of Florida appears to be shifting a significant percentage of its activities to a nonprofit, according to new campaign finance filings…
After Gillum lost a close election to Republican Ron DeSantis, he announced he would assume control of the PAC to lead a years-long voter registration effort in hopes of boosting Democrats.
In the most recent monthly campaign finance filing with the state, the Forward Florida PAC transferred $500,000 to Forward Florida Action, Inc., earmarked for “ballot initiative programming.”
Florida Politics reported that the nonprofit was established sometime in April.
The move is likely to result in a diminished ability to track the activities because of fewer reporting requirements for the 501(c)4 nonprofit…
[I]n the wake of the election, he took fire over the PAC because he closed out the election with roughly $3 million in cash on hand. Supporters were left wondering how so much money went unspent in a remarkably close election decided by about 34,000 votes out of an electorate of 8 million.
