In the News

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Is Multnomah County’s Political Contribution Cap Constitutional?

By Jeff Mapes

The stakes go well beyond Multnomah County. Both sides say it could activate statewide contribution limits that were passed by Oregon voters 11 years ago.

“This case could bring to life the 2006 measure that the Supreme Court so far has said is just dormant,” said Greg Chaimov, a former chief lawyer for the state Legislature who is representing several business groups challenging the Multnomah County limits.

In addition, the Virginia-based Center for Competitive Politics is seeking to intervene in the Multnomah County case. The group participates in legal cases around the country fighting restrictions on political spending… 

Owen Yeates, an attorney for the Center for Competitive Politics, said the Multnomah case is “one of the first few challenges” in the courts trying to “push Citizens United the other way.”

He said a major reason his group is seeking to intervene in the Multnomah County case is to make sure that “U.S. Supreme Court protections for independent speech remains strong.”

CCP

Are Tax-Financed Campaigns Worth the Price?

By Joe Albanese

The “dominance” of wealthy donors in the political system is typically far overblown. Candidate spending, which comes from contributions that are limited and publicly disclosed by law, tends to dominate elections. In 2016, candidates were only outspent by “outside spending” in 26 races out of 470, and the vast majority of “outside spending” comes from political committees that must abide by contribution limits, disclosure requirements, or both. And far from being marginalized in elections, small donors have shown that they can play an outsized role in recent elections when sufficiently motivated. Just ask Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Further, allowing donors the option to pool their resources through nonprofit advocacy organizations and PACs, rather than candidate contributions alone, would enhance their political influence even further.

If the ultimate benefits of coaxing more small donors with taxpayer dollars are unclear, the downsides are explicit. The fiscal cost is one factor, of course: between 2001 and 2013, New York City, for example, granted over $19.2 million just to taxpayer-financed candidates who were ultimately investigated for various campaign finance abuses. But such programs also mean that taxpayers are forced to subsidize politicians, even ones they disagree with politically, or who run openly bigoted campaigns.

Free Speech

The Intercept: The Misguided Attacks on ACLU for Defending Neo-Nazis’ Free Speech Rights in Charlottesville

By Glenn Greenwald

For representing Yiannopoulos, the civil liberties group was widely accused of defending and enabling fascism. But the ACLU wasn’t “defending Yiannopoulos” as much as it was opposing a rule that allows state censorship of any controversial political messages the state wishes to suppress: a rule that is often applied to groups which are supported by many who attacked the ACLU here.

The same formula was applied yesterday when people learned that the ACLU of Virginia had represented the white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville after city officials tried to ban the group from gathering in Emancipation Park where a statue of Robert E. Lee was to be removed (city officials tried to move the march to an isolated location one mile away). One board member of the ACLU of Virginia, Waldo Jaquith, waited until the violence erupted to announce on Twitter that he was resigning in protest of the ACLU’s representation of the protesters – as though he was unaware when he joined the Board that the ACLU has been representing the free speech rights of neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups (along with Communists, Muslims, war protesters and the full spectrum of marginalized minorities and leftists) for many decades…

The flaws and dangers in this anti-free-speech mindset are manifest, but nonetheless always worth highlighting, especially when horrific violence causes people to want to abridge civil liberties in the name of stopping it.

The Courts

Slate: This Lawsuit in Alaska Could Upend the Campaign Finance Landscape

By Aaron Mak

Thompson v. Hebdon concerns the state’s campaign finance laws, which are some of the most stringent and progressive in the country. One of Alaska’s most contentious provisions caps the amount of money that state-level candidates can receive from out-of-state donors and is now part of a lawsuit that will soon go before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court upheld the restrictions.

The challenger to the law is David Thompson, who in 2015 donated $100 to support the re-election of his brother-in-law, former Republican Alaska state Rep. Wes Keller. Thompson lives in Wisconsin, and Keller had already reached the limit for out-of-state contributions, so the campaign had to return the money.Thompson’s lawyers are aping the arguments in Citizens United, contending that this limit on campaign contributions is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech. Thompson told the Alaska Dispatch News, “I thought it was pretty restrictive and it held up my ability to speak out.”

Attorneys for Alaska are citing as precedent Bluman v. FEC, a 2012 Supreme Court case ruling that foreign citizens do not have the right to contribute money to U.S. elections.  

Congress

Raleigh News & Observer: A good government bill from David Price

By Editorial Board

His “We the People Act of 2017” is similar to and goes beyond the similarly named legislation of last year. But it has an appropriate title.

Here is some of what Price would do:

Loopholes that have allowed big-money groups to put hundreds of millions of dollars into federal elections would be largely closed, with more disclosure rules and more timely reporting of contributions required of campaigns. The hocus-pocus of moving money around from one group to another and dodging reporting contributions through all those groups with various numbers and letters in front of them would be diminished. The goal would be to require contributions of all kinds to be disclosed.

Price would have a new federal agency formed to oversee campaign finance and to enforce its laws. The agency would have the power to penalize those who broke campaign finance laws with financial penalties…

Price’s bill also would strengthen delays in and restrictions on lobbying by former government officials who join the private sector, and would toughen lobbying laws in general. 

The Hill: FEC ‘reform’ a smokescreen to weaponize government against free speech

By Dan Backer

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) recently introduced the Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Act. Despite the innocuous name, this is yet another attempt to weaponize government against free speech, free association and political dissent.

The legislation would overhaul the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by lowering the number of FEC commissioners from six to five, supposedly putting an end to “gridlock.” The bill would also “reduce partisanship” by limiting commissioners to serving one term and granting the president power to nominate an FEC “chair” to serve for 10 years. This chair would have the authority to act independently of other commissioners, centralizing power in a single unelected political appointee…

Donnelly’s legislation will openly weaponize the FEC, as it allows one side of the aisle to impose its will when there is legitimate disagreement over complex legal matters. The House version of the bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) already has more than 10 bipartisan co-sponsors…

For decades, the independent, six-member FEC has remained bipartisan by design, precisely because it has the power to restrict speech about politics-the very heart of our freedoms of speech and association.

IRS

Wall Street Journal: Trump’s IRS Swamp

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Voters put a Republican in the White House in part to impose some belated accountability on the scandal-laden Obama administration. And the supreme scandal was the IRS’s assault on tea-party groups-a campaign inspired by congressional Democrats, perpetrated by partisan bureaucrats like Lois Lerner, and covered up by Mr. Obama’s political appointees. This abuse stripped the right to political speech from thousands of Americans over two election cycles. To this day, no one has answered for it.

The groups targeted are still doggedly trying to obtain justice through lawsuits that have dragged on for years. They believed Mr. Trump’s election would bring an end to the government obstruction. It hasn’t…

It’s time for some judgment. Senior leaders in the Justice Department may be wary of replacing or redirecting attorneys on the IRS cases, fearing it might provoke another round of media caterwauling. The White House may be wary of canning Mr. Koskinen, thinking it would be cast as another high-profile firing. But Mr. Trump was hired to impose exactly that sort of accountability. If he’s going to get rapped for dramatic moves, it might as well be for doing something that serves justice.

The States

Washington Post: Recent history shows D.C. needs campaign finance reform

By Phillip Enright

In the 40 years of D.C. home rule there have been seven mayors, all Democrats, of the District, with major scandal surrounding two. Marion Barry’s transgressions led him to jail. A shadow campaign around Vincent C. Gray’s 2012 successful mayoral bid sent five people to jail.

And a minor scandal erupted when it was discovered that Muriel E. Bowser’s 2014 campaign accepted $11,000 in donations over the allowed limits…

While other elected officials have played by the rules, the impropriety of a few elected officials may increase the cost of campaigns, forcing other candidates to find money any way they can.

The council recently held public hearings on bills intended to clean up the campaign finance system in the District. These bills are important if we want a clean and fair election next fall.