In the News
More Soft Money Hard Law: The Contribution Limits As We Have Them, and the Varieties of Reform
By Bob BauerIf the contribution limits are not violated, then their everyday normal operation generally escapes notice. We just assume regular order; the campaign finance law works as it should. A donor gives within the limit, the donation is reported, and all is well. The Center for Competitive Politics has challenged this complacency and raised one interesting question about the limits as they are now structured.Right now, CCP points out, an incumbent can collect a full $2,600 for a primary election she is certain to win, perhaps even one in which she draws no opponent, and beyond that, even an “election” in which, unopposed, she does not appear on the ballot by operation of state law. She can save this money for the general election, and then add to it a separate $2,600 given by the same contributor specifically for that same general election—for a grand total of $5,200. But a contributor to her opponent who has not given before the primary is limited to giving $2,600 for the general election to that candidate. CCP alleges First Amendment and Equal Protection violations. If $5,200 does not corrupt one candidate, it cannot corrupt the other, and the difference should not be one of timing resulting from the “artificial distinction between primary and general elections.” Complaint at ¶ 18, Holmes. v. Federal Election Commission, No. 1:14-cv-01243 (D.D.C July 21, 2014). The asymmetry here benefits the incumbents who most often can escape primary competition and can save most of the money for the general.This may seem a small problem, hardly worth worrying about when Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions and 501(c)(4)s operate (mostly) outside the FECA. But it is for just the reason that regulation is lagging behind profound changes in constitutional law and political practice that an issue like this takes on added importance. Candidates and political parties could use all they help they can get. The rights of contributors, not all of them the much criticized mega-donors, are also appropriately considered. Meanwhile, those groups active on the “outside” of the regulated system are prospering.
IRS
The Hill: IRS wrongly allowed contractors access to sensitive data
By Bernie Becker“Allowing contractor employees access to taxpayer data without appropriate background investigations exposes taxpayers to increased risk of fraud and identity theft,” said J. Russell George, the inspector general.George’s audit comes as the IRS escalates its efforts to combat identity theft and as lawmakers investigating the agency’s improper scrutiny of Tea Party groups have questioned the IRS’s handling of confidential information.In its report, the inspector general’s office even made a glancing reference to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified information about U.S. surveillance efforts.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: A Climate Crusader’s Comeuppance
By Kim StrasselThe Steyer grand plan began unraveling from the start, when stories about his pledge noted that he might target Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu for her support of the Keystone XL pipeline. Mr. Steyer and his NextGen Climate Action PAC had in 2013 won activist praise for defeating a pro-pipeline Democrat in a Massachusetts primary, and the Louisiana idea was to start his midterm strategy with a similar litmus-test bang. A Landrieu attack would send a message: Democrats who bucked the climate agenda would get beaten, whereas those who embraced it would be rewarded with Mr. Steyer’s campaign cash.Democratic leaders instead flipped out, and quickly schooled Mr. Steyer in the political realities of red states and the magic Senate number of “51.” Within days of the pledge, Steyer operative Chris Lehane was tamping down the Landrieu story, insisting Mr. Steyer did not plan to “tea party” Democrats. “We do think it’s really, really, really important from a climate perspective that we maintain control of the Senate for Democrats,” he explained.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
PennLive: Super PAC suit: U.S. judge kills Pa. regulation curbing union, corporate political donations
By Matt MillerGeneral Majority filed suit against the state in February and Caldwell issued an order in March temporarily barring Pennsylvania from enforcing an Election Code provision that blocked “political committees” from receiving donations from corporations, unions and unincorporated associations. Such committees make independent expenditures on political causes and don’t contribute to candidates or coordinate spending with political party committees.Given the Citizens United ruling, and the admissions of state officials, there is no doubt that Pennsylvania’s regulation “amounts to an impermissible restriction of protected First Amendment activity,” Caldwell wrote.
Denver Post: Citizens United suing Colorado over “Rocky Mountain Heist” funders
By Joey BunchCitizens United filed a lawsuit against Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler in federal court in Denver Thursday, the first step in a legal fight that could rewrite the ways states handle election disclosures.The Virginia-based conservative group is finishing a movie called “Rocky Mountain Heist,” about those who have influenced Colorado’s political swing to the left over the past decade, calling out advocacy groups and politicians, likely including Gov. John Hickenlooper and Sen. Mark Udall, who are in tough races this fall.In June, Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert ruled that the group would need to disclose the movie’s financiers under state campaign laws. The organization contended it deserved the same free-speech protections as traditional media and liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
The Hill: Pastor says he was paid by McDaniel camp
By Cameron JosephMississippi pastor Stevie Fielder says he was paid by Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel’s (R) campaign to give an interview to a conservative blogger in which he said Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-Miss.) campaign had asked him to pay people to vote for Cochran.Fielder had told conservative blogger Charles Johnson that he had been asked by a Cochran staffer to pay black Democrats $15 to vote for Cochran in his hard-fought primary. He’s now under investigation.Johnson has said he paid Fielder $2,000 for the interview and related texts and emails, and is now reportedly facing a subpoena from the state’s attorney general. But Fielder told Mississippi Public Broadcasting that it was McDaniel’s campaign spokesman, Noel Fritsch, who paid him.
State and Local
California –– LA Times: Panel wants L.A. to look at using prizes to boost voter turnout
By DAVID ZAHNISERAlarmed that fewer than one-fourth of voters are showing up for municipal elections, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission voted Thursdayto recommend that the City Council look at using cash prizes to lure a greater number of people to the polls.On a 3-0 vote, the panel said it wanted City Council President Herb Wesson’s Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee to seriously consider the use of financial incentives and a random drawing during its elections, possibly as soon as next year.
Texas –– The Hill: Rick Perry’s PAC unveils immigration ad
By Jesse ByrnesTexas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) new PAC unveiled its first ad on late Tuesday, hitting the Obama administration over the border crisis.
Virginia –– Politico: Catching up with the McDonnells
By Katie GlueckMcDonnell is expected to testify as soon as next week, and when he does he will have a shot at personally making the case that he wasn’t directly involved in, or aware of, many of his wife’s dealings with Williams, and that, more broadly, he didn’t trade favors for money.He got some help from Williams, who told the court at one point that he wasn’t sure whether McDonnell knew of several interactions he had with Maureen McDonnell.“Even if they show Maureen was complicit, in order to get the conspiracy charge against the governor and Mrs. McDonnell, they have to show he played an active role,” James said. “It’s not enough that Maureen was doing some of the things she was doing.”
