In the News

Huffington Post: “Dark Money” Fell in 2016, but is that Good News?

By Luke Wachob

The ability to support causes privately is probably less important to the wealthy than anyone else. People who give millions of dollars to political causes can afford the security they need to be safe from potential harassers. It is the rest of us who might have reason to worry about declaring our political affiliations next to our name, home address, and employer. Yet federal law says that information must be disclosed when a donor gives just $200 to a candidate, PAC, or party.

We should be glad that a small role remains for groups that are unable to comply with the burdens of campaign finance regulations. Forcing citizen groups to operate like PACs would only further alienate Americans from public policy. And in the era of Trump, the benefits of donor privacy are increasingly recognized by progressives.

Surely there are wealthy donors who contribute to nonprofits. But new disclosure rules would barely inconvenience them; they can and do spend most of their political money elsewhere. More importantly, advocacy nonprofits are the best avenue available for average Americans to associate privately in support of a cause without fear of harassment and intimidation. That side of the equation should not be ignored.

CCP

Issue One Interview Unwittingly Undermines Narrative of Campaign Finance Corruption

By Joe Albanese

The common narrative is that rich donors get undue influence in the policymaking process because they know their contributions can make or break a campaign; lawmakers are consequently forced to spend most of their time trading favors or begging for money, rather than governing or interacting with “real” voters.

That’s the narrative, at least, that Issue One’s interviewer was clearly trying to coax out of Castle. But almost every answer he gave seemed to weaken its persuasive power.

Did Castle feel the need to constantly fundraise to keep his office? “I rarely called anybody about contributing” while running for lieutenant governor once and governor twice. When running for Congress, “I was told to make phone calls, which I did a little bit, but not a lot…”

Did his party pressure him to raise money? “From time to time,” he explained. “I was never a full committee chair or in party leadership, so few fundraising requirements were placed on me.”

Did he feel beholden to donors demanding special access to the policymaking process? “The vast majority of people who contributed to me – and I’m sure to most members of Congress – support you because they support what you believe in and stand for, and they don’t have any requests or demands or whatever.”

CCP Job Opening: Attorney, First Amendment Litigation

The Center for Competitive Politics is expanding its litigation team. We are looking for an experienced attorney to take a leading, independent role in First Amendment cases brought in federal and state courts.

[Please click on the link above for a detailed description of job responsibilities, requirements, and instructions on how to apply.]

Free Speech

National Review: ‘Get Tough or Shut Up’: The Malicious Spirit Loose in the Land

By David French

Political rage is transcending basic human decency, any semblance of tolerance, and even faith itself. It’s a general truth in politics and culture that a nation is defined by those who care the most, and increasingly, those who care the most have lost their moorings. There is a malicious spirit loose in the land…

People in error have to be called out, investigated, shamed, and punished. The deeper you move into the ideological cocoon, the less tolerance there is for debate…

There are reasons why conservative professors have called me from their office, closed the door, and shared their true opinions only in whispers. They knew their lives would be turned upside down if the wrong ears were listening.

But we on the right are wrong and smug to think that only the Left is losing its sense of proportion or perspective. From the Bully Pulpit of the White House to the tiny pulpits of personal social media, amoral angry populists lash out with a degree of fury and rage that I’ve never seen in my adult life. The goals are similar, to “destroy” careers or to wage “war” on opponents, and it’s not just pundits fighting pundits or politicians fighting politicians. It’s neighbors versus neighbors.

Bloomberg: We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs

By Megan McArdle

I find myself in more and more conversations that sound as if we’re living in one of the later-stage Communist regimes. Not the ones that shot people, but the ones that discovered you didn’t need to shoot dissidents, as long as you could make them pariahs — no job, no apartment, no one willing to be seen talking to them in public.

The people I have these conversations with are terrified that something they say will inadvertently offend the self-appointed powers-that-be…

Social media mobs are not, of course, as pervasive and terrifying as the Communist Party spies. But the Soviet Union is no more, and the mobs are very much with us, so it’s their power we need to think about.

That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose.

Washington Post: To fight bigotry and hate, don’t muzzle it. There’s a better way.

By Margaret Sullivan

Why not just forbid these demonstrations altogether? If you think that might be wise, here’s a thought experiment: Imagine a civil rights march that is shut down because officials fear a violent response from racists.

“It’s not that difficult to remember a time when rallies for equality and civil rights were considered offensive and unpopular,” Silverman said. “The First Amendment exists to protect that offensive and unpopular speech.”…

“Off with their heads” seems to be the prevailing response when we hear something that strikes us as vile.

That’s not what America stands for, as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in dissenting to a decision (eventually overruled) denying citizenship to a Quaker pacifist woman who wouldn’t state that she would take up arms in defense of the United States.

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other,” Holmes wrote, “it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

The Courts

KTVH Montana: MT Supreme Court upholds landmark campaign-finance verdict against Wittich

By Mike Dennison

The Montana Supreme Court Wednesday rejected an appeal from former state lawmaker Art Wittich in a landmark campaign-finance case, upholding a verdict that he accepted illegal campaign contributions in a 2010 state Senate race.

A District Court jury in Helena last year found that Wittich violated campaign-finance laws by accepting illegal, unreported help from several conservative political groups. District Judge Ray Dayton of Anaconda later ordered Wittich to pay $84,000 in fines and court costs.

Wittich, an attorney from Bozeman, asked the Supreme Court to vacate the findings and order a new trial…

In an interview Wednesday, Wittich told MTN News he’s disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which he said sets a “dangerous precedent.”

Donors

CRP: The gender gap in campaign contributions continues into 2018

By Doug Weber

Historically, men have made the vast majority of campaign contributions to candidates, but women-whose campaign cash favors Democrats in general, and Democratic women in particular-saw a boost in 2016, when they gave in record numbers to Hillary Clinton.

Despite the infusion of cash from female donors in 2016, men still dominated the list of the top 100 overall donors, taking up all but 19 spots on the list, as of August. The top 10 male donors alone gave $155.4 million-much more than the $96.8 million given by the top 100 women combined.

Female candidates tend to benefit most from contributions from women, and thus far in 2018, the trend shows no sign of waning.

Looking at campaign contributions, an analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows that eight of the top ten politicians with the highest percentage of itemized contributions from women-that is, donations of $200 or more-are, themselves, women.

The States

Courthouse News Service: Bill to Bring Light to Campaign Financing Heads to California Senate

By Derek Fleming

Efforts to illuminate “dark money” in politics took a step forward Wednesday, as California lawmakers brokered a deal to move a disclosure bill to the state Senate next week.

Assembly Bill 249 – the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, or DISCLOSE, Act – would require disclosure of who pays for political ads and reign in the influence gained by so-called Super PACs following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC…

The measure will be heard in the Senate Elections Committee next week, where state Sen. Henry Stern has said he will do all he can to move it forward.

Metro US: Ben & Jerry’s Founder in Philly to talk about how corporate money impacts state elections

By Hayden Mitman

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, may be best known for what he adds to his frozen treats – like the cherries and fudge in the company’s famed Cherry Garcia ice cream – but, on Tuesday, he will be in Philadelphia to talk about his passion to see something removed from politics: big money…

The resolution – HR 440, introduced by Dermody – calls on Congress to create a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that would clarify “the distinction between the rights of natural persons and the rights of corporations and other legal entities under the First Amendment, and giving Congress and state legislatures the power to regulate political contributions and expenditures.”…

On Tuesday morning, Cohen was traveling and unable to talk for this article. However, state Rep. O’Brien said that he supports the resolution because corporations might not always have the best interests of the public in mind…

“Get the money out of politics. I’d like to see a cap put on it and put everyone on equal footing,” said O’Brien.