Supreme Court
Bloomberg: Kavanaugh Vote Could Slip to Weeks Before Congressional Election
By Laura Litvan and John McCormick
A Senate vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court could push past the Oct. 1 start of the high court’s next term and closer to November congressional elections, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said.
Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa said confirmation hearings probably won’t take place until “sometime during September,” rather than in August, even though the Senate is scheduled to be in session much of this month after Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky shortened the annual recess. Grassley said Oct. 1 remains a goal for a Senate vote, but it may not be met.
“The realistic thing is to say we’ll have the hearing sometime during September, ideally to get it done by the first day of the court, but for sure to get it done before the election,” Grassley said Thursday.
NPR: Campaign Finance Laws And Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh
By Peter Overby
OVERBY: One of Kavanaugh’s decisions is in the news lately because it’s about foreign money… Defending the law that day in 2011 was Adav Noti, then a lawyer for the Federal Election Commission.
ADAV NOTI: All the court needed to say was this ban on foreign nationals spending money in American elections is clearly constitutional under decades and decades of Supreme Court precedent.
OVERBY: But instead…
NOTI: The first question I was asked was by Judge Kavanaugh, who asked me a series of hypotheticals about foreign nationals spending money on issue advocacy, which was not one of the topics that was actually before the court in that case…
NOTI: It seemed like Judge Kavanaugh was interested in writing an opinion that dealt with that topic even though it wasn’t raised in the case.
OVERBY: The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Kavanagh’s opinion. James Bopp is a leading conservative lawyer in campaign finance.
JAMES BOPP: He did recognize that, you know, people who are not citizens of the United States can engage in issue advocacy. In other words, they can talk about, you know, people should be for this or for that. I think that was correctly decided.
OVERBY: Bopp says he considers a different campaign finance decision as Kavanaugh’s best. Kavanaugh wrote in favor of the liberal women’s group EMILY’s List…
BOPP: EMILY’s List is one of the cases decided recognizing – legalizing super PACs prior to Citizens United.
Brennan Center for Justice: Are the Last Key Campaign Finance Laws in Kavanaugh’s Sights?
By Daniel I. Weiner
In his 12 years as a federal appeals court judge, Kavanaugh has cast doubt on the constitutionality of fundraising limits; suggested a way to get around disclosure laws; and even gone out of his way to limit the reach of the foreign spending ban.
In fact, one of his most notable decisions in 2009 presaged Citizens United itself, freeing nonprofit corporations from campaign spending rules. The next year, Citizens United held that all corporations have the right to spend unlimited money on electoral advocacy and set the stage for almost all contribution limits for groups unaffiliated with candidates and parties to be eliminated…
An influential panel of Kavanaugh’s own court, the D.C. Circuit, proclaimed in 2016 that “[d]isclosure chills speech,” and suggested the Court revisit its pro-disclosure jurisprudence. Kavanaugh was not on that panel, but his decisions suggest that he too may be skeptical of disclosure rules. In another case that year, he suggested politically active groups might be able to use 501(c)(3) tax status to evade transparency, with the added bonus of a tax deduction.
Kavanaugh also has sought to narrow the reach of the foreign spending ban. The Citizens United Court vehemently denied its ruling would open the floodgates to foreign spending in our elections, and the Court later summarily affirmed a lower court decision written by Kavanaugh himself upholding the federal ban on some types of foreign campaign spending…
In a 2010 ruling, he wrote that political party fundraising limits could be inconsistent with Citizens United and suggested the Court may want to “clarify or refine” its approach.
Disclosure
American Prospect: Trump’s and the Koch Brothers’ War on Disclosure
By Eliza Newlin Carney
Montana Governor Steve Bullock, a Democrat, has sued the Trump administration on the grounds that Treasury violated procedural rules when it loosened the nonprofit reporting requirements. Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester introduced a bill to reverse the Treasury directive, citing a “threat to our democracy.” …
Now the right-wing “dark money” establishment is poised to score one of its biggest victories yet with the likely confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s record “raises concerns he would vote to strike down disclosure laws, putting him to the right of Justice Kennedy,” warns a brief released by the Campaign Legal Center and Demos…
Democrats on Capitol Hill have fought back with the Disclose Act, which could not pass the GOP Congress, but which reform advocates nevertheless reintroduced this year amid rising concern over foreign money. State and municipal officials have also fought back with laws and ballot measures aimed at forcing politically active nonprofits to identify their donors, but they’ve run into a wall of opposition…
Conservatives argue that the federal and state disclosure proposals on the table violate the First Amendment, trample on the constitutionally protected right to petition the government, and would invite harassment and intimidation of the donors if their identities were revealed. Advocates of the disclosure rules counter that they are narrowly tailored to target big contributors only, and help ensure that nonprofits do not become conduits for foreign money.
Online Speech Platforms
Reason: Facebook Removes More Fake Pages Trying to Make You Mad About Politics
By Scott Shackford
Only a handful of pages had any significant number of followers, but in total, 290,000 accounts followed at least one of the pages, all of which were made since 2017. Based on the information Facebook released, this particular group of fake pages was targeting people on the left. One of the fake pages-for a group called “Resisters”-created a Facebook event called “No Unite the Right 2” in Washington, D.C., to take place on August 10; it apparently coordinated with five real organizations to co-host it. Facebook canceled the event and warned the other groups what was going on. The event had attracted 2,600 interested users, and 600 people said they would attend…
At this point, Facebook does not have enough information to say with any certainty that Russian interests are responsible for this latest round of content and advertising ($11,000 worth)…
Facebook doesn’t offer any evidence that these campaigns are targeting any particular candidate.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, is already responding to demand changes in laws to censor these campaigns: “Today’s disclosure is further evidence that the Kremlin continues to exploit platforms like Facebook to sow division and spread disinformation, and I am glad that Facebook is taking some steps to pinpoint and address this activity. I also expect Facebook, along with other platform companies, will continue to identify Russian troll activity and to work with Congress on updating our laws to better protect our democracy in the future.”
But what Facebook has released so far is really just an attempt to magnify already existent cultural divisions. These pages are peddling anger and outrage. People can choose whether to care or be outraged. This apparent threat to democracy is a handful of outside actors telling a certain group of people exactly what they want to hear. If that’s a threat to our democracy, it’s way too late.
Congress
The Verge: Sen. Ron Wyden on Breaking up Facebook, Net Neutrality, and the Law that Built the Internet
By Colin Lecher
Let’s go all the way back to 1996 and talk about Section 230. I think historians are completely in agreement that this is the law that made the internet what it is today.
“We thought it was going to be helpful. We never realized it was going to be the linchpin to generating investment in social media. We envisioned that the law would be both a sword and a shield. A shield so that you could have this opportunity, for particularly small and enterprising operations to secure capital, and then a sword [by allowing them to moderate without facing liability over the practice], which said you’ve got to police your platforms. And what was clear during the 2016 election and the succeeding events surrounding Facebook, is that technology companies used one part of what we envisioned, the shield, but really sat on their hands with respect to the sword, and wouldn’t police their platforms.”…
Apart from control of personal data, a lot of people are concerned about Facebook’s moderation calls. Recently, the company came under fire for not banning Infowars. Do you agree with Facebook’s decision?
“I’m somebody who has consistently tried to find ways to get the spirit of the First Amendment out there, but we’re having some real thoughts with respect to Infowars.”
What are your thoughts?
“I think we know that there’s a real potential for downside. And on some of these issues, you have to square your First Amendment concerns with the potential downsides.”
Does that concern you? That Facebook won’t act on this?
“For me, it’s a battle between my heart, which is with the First Amendment. So my heart’s with speech being out there and peoples’ opportunities to make judgment. But I’m concerned about what I’ve heard.”
Harassment
Washington Post: The Daily 202: Koch network warns of ‘McCarthyism 2.0’ in conservative efforts to harass professors
By James Hohmann
[John Hardin, the director of university relations for the Charles Koch Foundation] said it’s not just liberals who are shouting down conservative speakers and trying to crowd out ideas they don’t like. He specifically faulted Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump student group, that has created a “Professor Watchlist” website to identify liberal faculty members.
“Instead of supporting groups that put professors that they disagree with on watch lists,” Hardin said, “we support folks who take those professors to lunch, who co-teach with those professors and who collaborate with those professors.”
The website for the “Professor Watchlist” site says its “mission” is “to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” Students are encouraged to “submit a tip” to draw attention to liberal academics in their midst.
Sarah Ruger, the director of Free Speech Initiatives for the Charles Koch Institute, called the site an example of something that “keeps [her] up at night.”
“It’s truly McCarthyism 2.0,” she said, referring to the 1950s red-baiting of the late senator Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.). “It’s a platform that exists to put the names and the profiles of self-identified progressive professors out there and encourages conservative students to intimidate them. … If there’s anything political tribes can agree on today, it’s that they all want to censor someone. They just disagree on who should be silenced. That’s entirely antithetical to who we are.”
FEC
Roll Call: Federal Contractors Made Illegal Pro-Trump Super PAC Contributions, Complaint Says
By Stephanie Akin
A politically connected contractor made a $500,000 contribution this spring to a pro-Trump super PAC the day after it received a payment of almost the same amount as part of a Department of Defense contract, a watchdog group said.
The Campaign Legal Center flagged that contribution and a $50,000 contribution from another company to a super PAC supporting Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s Senate campaign, in separate complaints to the Federal Election Commission filed Wednesday afternoon.
The donations represent rare violations of a 75-year-old ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, said Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at the Campaign Legal Center.
“This seems like a brazen violation of well-established law,” he said. “It’s possible that both of these entities are ignorant of the federal contractor ban. But it’s also possible that they expect that they can make large contributions to fed super PACs and get away with it because the FEC has been so reticent to enforce the law.” …
AshBritt founder and chairman Randy Perkins disputed the allegations in the complaint as “absolutely not correct.”
He said he paid for the contribution from his personal money but it came from a loan distribution account that he maintains in the company name.
“There was a reporting error and that $500,000 was made by me personally, Randy Perkins, not by AshBritt,” he said.
Perkins, who unsuccessfully ran for the House as a Democrat from Florida’s 18th District in 2016, also said the supplemental to the contract referenced in the FEC complaint referred to one of many payouts to a contract that dated to September 2017.
Candidates and Campaigns
Associated Press: Corporate donations are new test for Democratic candidates
By Lisa Lerer
When Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., started the “NO PAC Caucus” in July 2017, only two members joined his cause – Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who’s now challenging Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas, and Democratic Rep. Jared Polis, the party’s gubernatorial nominee in Colorado.
“There wasn’t a lot of interest. I was told it would unnecessarily ruffle feathers,” said Khanna. “But now it has really caught people’s imagination across the country.”
The pledge may be more symbolic than financial…
“Corporate PACs making contributions is not where the major campaign finance action is these days,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine. “If you asked me to name the top 10 things wrong with campaign finance, I’m not sure corporate PAC money would be among them.” …
The no-corporate PAC pledge is a fairly cheap way for candidates to signal their campaign finance bona fides, particularly for challengers who tend to get less from those groups…
On Monday, Cruz attacked O’Rourke for accepting contributions collected by a political action committee…
O’Rourke’s campaign said the PAC did not contribute directly to his campaign but bundled hundreds of individual contributions. “What is important to know is that no special interests, no political action committee, no corporation has the ability to purchase influence or access,” he told reporters at a town hall on Monday evening.
Mercury News: ‘We need to reclaim this party:’ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fires up progressives in San Francisco
By Casey Tolan
Urging activists to pull the Democratic Party to the left, progressive superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got a hero’s welcome Tuesday night from Bay Area fans hungry for her stridently liberal message.
The 28-year-old New Yorker, who electrified liberals by defeating the fourth-highest-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives last month, closed out a cross-country tour at a packed Mission District theater…
And while she railed against the influence of money in politics in her speech, she also held a fundraiser at a women-only clubhouse in the Mission where tickets went for up to $2,700. The money went to her general election coffers, even though she is an overwhelming favorite in her Bronx-and-Queens district. “We’ve still got an election to win in November,” her spokesman Corbin Trent said in an interview.
The States
NM Political Report: ‘Burque Bucks’ campaign clears first hurdle
By Andy Lyman
At a press conference outside city hall on Tuesday, a coalition of local non-profits announced they collected nearly 28,000 petition signatures aimed at getting a public finance voucher program on the general election ballot in November. The proposed program, called Democracy Dollars and more recently dubbed Burque Bucks, would provide each Albuquerque resident a $25 voucher to contribute to the publicly-financed candidate of their choice…
The original program included a fund-matching component that gave additional money to publicly-financed candidates who were up against privately-funded opponents with more money. In 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court deemed matching funds unconstitutional.
But the city’s original matching program is part of the reason Burque Bucks won’t need a tax increase for funding. According to the campaign’s website, the city already has $3 million fund originally set up to pay for the now-defunct matching program. That money, called the Open and Ethical Elections Fund, is also earmarked for the already-existing public financing program.
In 2009, all three Albuquerque mayoral candidates used public financing, including eventual winner Richard Berry. By 2013, Berry opted not to run a publicly-financed campaign and raised about $800,000 in cash donations.
In 2017 only one mayoral candidate, Mayor Tim Keller, ran his campaign on public money. But, an Albuquerque election ethics board decided that Keller’s campaign violated the provision by accepting checks as in-kind, or goods and services, contributions. Other candidates in 2017 said qualifying for public financing and trying to compete against privately-funded candidates made running for office too difficult.
Chicago Sun-Times: Enough is enough – Illinois needs reforms to get big money out of our elections
By Ibie Hart
One of the most obvious reforms we must demand is passage of a fair elections bill at both the local and statewide level.
Fair elections laws allow candidates to voluntarily participate in a system in which they raise a certain amount of money from small-dollar donors that is matched with public funds. This type of reform will incentivize candidates to focus on their constituents, not raising money from big donors. It has the potential to open the field for candidates from all walks of life, not just the uber-wealthy or well-connected. Imagine a gubernatorial race in which we didn’t have to choose between two self-funding billionaires. Everyday people, like you and me, can run for office and win with this reform. It has already been tested and proved successful in states and cities across the country, including in New York City and Connecticut.
Another option would be to adopt a “democracy voucher” reform, like the one that has been a success in Seattle, Washington. This reform would give every resident a voucher of money to give to the candidates of their choice. Research shows the program has been successful in diversifying the pool of candidates who run for office, and has expanded the small-donor pool to better reflect low-income and minority communities. The voucher program also increases civic engagement by allowing those who do not have income or citizenship to engage with the democratic process.
