CCP
Speech These Days: It’s Just Too Damn Loud…
Alex Baiocco
What Schweber is really suggesting is that the best way to encourage “reasoned dialogue” is for the government to limit speech that it views as “inherently louder than others.” Continuing to use internet discussion as his metaphor, he claims that internet speech platforms must regulate speech in order to ensure that everyone’s voice can be heard, and that the flourishing of a healthy democracy is dependent upon the ability of the powers that be to regulate speech so that unsavory speakers do not dominate the conversation.
Now, keep in mind, he says all of this outside of the context of campaign finance regulation. So he’s literally talking about limiting the speech of speakers who start to gain too much attention. If that is not a direct contradiction of the First Amendment, then I don’t know what is. I wonder if Professor Schweber would support removing John Oliver’s clips from YouTube once they reach a pre-determined maximum number of views so that other political comedians can be heard or would defend limiting the number of Beyoncé albums that can be sold so that other artists aren’t drowned out.
Analysis of the “South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act” (2016 Initiated Measure 22)
Eric Wang
Initiated Measure 22, if approved by voters, would have a number of impacts on South Dakota political campaigns, speech on matters of public concern, and even purely commercial speech that incidentally mentions candidates for state office. These changes may be great and small, some may be unexpected, and some may not be as the measure’s proponents have described them. Some of the unexpected changes may be a function of drafting errors or omissions in the measure’s language, while others may be deliberate. As discussed in more detail below, these issues include:
Groups and even individuals that speak during certain pre- and post-election time windows about issues of public concern that incidentally mention elected state officials may be required to include disclaimers and file reports with the state if they spend as little as $100 on such speech. For organizations such as agricultural cooperatives and associations, advocacy and other nonprofit groups, trade associations, and labor unions, those disclaimers and reports would have to publicly report certain dues-paying members and donors to the government.
In the News
Talk Media News: South Dakota campaign reform spells trouble
Edward Zuckerman
A ballot initiative awaiting South Dakota voters would ostensibly reform the state’s campaign finance laws, but the Center for Competitive Politics said Initiate 22 would impose burdens on First Amendment political speech rights. One provision, CCP said, would create a Catch-22 for nonprofit organizations that publish non-partisan voter guides. The initiative requires them to declare their support or opposition to candidates mentioned in their communication, even though their federal tax-exempt status forbids them from making such endorsements.
The Courts
Cato Institute: The Government Shouldn’t Get to Do Unconstitutional Things by Only Doing Them for Short Periods of Time
Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry
When people want to join together to spend money in an election campaign, federal law requires them to form a “political action committee” or PAC. Most PACs are allowed to donate up to $5,000 to any candidate in an election. If a PAC has been registered for less than six months, however, this maximum donation is inexplicably lowered to $2,700 per candidate.
Since the 1974 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court has consistently held that limitations on campaign contributions “implicate fundamental First Amendment interests.” And only two years ago, in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Court reiterated that such limits could only be justified if they reduce quid pro quo corruption (or its appearance). By that standard, the $2,700 limit on new PACs is clearly unconstitutional: If a $5,000 donation from a seven-month-old PAC does not run the risk of corruption, it’s hard to see how a $2,701 donation from a five-month-old PAC does. Making just this argument, a new PAC – the colorfully titled Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused by Democrats (Stop REID) – sued the Federal Election Commission.
Harassment
Investor’s Business Daily: New York AG’s War Against ‘Climate’ Opponents Is Running Out Of Gas
Chris Horner
Eric Schneiderman has misled the public into believing he led an investigation widely supported among his peers. “Today we’re sending a message that at least some of us, actually a lot of us in state government, are prepared to step into this battle,” Schneiderman said back in those heady days of March.
In reality, and particularly after reflection, most of his recruits proved too wary of hitching their wagons to his star, seeing the “wild card” might prove to be a joker.
The purported support Schneiderman’s investigation began with wasn’t as it was sold and has, in very short time, cratered, such that he once again stands alone in his crusade to silence political opponents under the guise of upholding the law.
Political Parties
Bloomberg: Millions From Maxed-Out Clinton Donors Flowed Through Loophole
Bill Allison
At least $7.3 million of the DNC’s July total originated with payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum $33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic parties, which effectively stripped the donors’ names and sent the money to the DNC as a lump sum.
Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from contributions from maxed-out donors.
Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education
Robert J. Zimmer
Free expression and the unfettered exchange of ideas do not always come naturally. Many people value the right to express their own ideas but are less committed to granting that right to others.
Over the years, universities have come under attack from a range of groups, both external and internal, that demand the silencing of speakers, faculty, students and visitors. The attack is sometimes driven by a desire of an individual or group not to have its authority questioned. Other times it derives from a group’s moral certainty that its particular values, beliefs or approaches are the only correct ones and that others should adhere to the group’s views. Some assert that universities should be refuges from intellectual discomfort and that their own discomfort with conflicting and challenging views should override the value of free and open discourse…
Universities should be clear about their core educational mission—to provide students with the most enriching education possible. We cannot shortchange our students. This means that questioning and challenge must flourish.
Wall Street Journal: The Chicago School of Free Speech
Editorial Board
For a change, we come not to bury a college president but to praise him. His name is Robert Zimmer, and nearby the University of Chicago president defends the educational and societal virtues of free speech on college campuses. Let’s hope he wears body armor to the next faculty meeting…
“Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship,” Mr. Ellison wrote for tender millennial ears. “You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”
Influence
Intercept: Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?
Glenn Greenwald
While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.
American Prospect: Controversy Versus Corruption
Eliza Newlin Carney
Clinton’s pledges to overhaul the campaign finance system, which watchdogs have urged her to spotlight as an antidote to her unpopularity, also are undercut by the email and Clinton Foundation controversies. Yes, Bill Clinton has said that if Clinton becomes president the foundation will no longer accept foreign or corporate contributions, and that he will step down from its board. But these moves come too late and do not go far enough. Politicians should simply not be in the business of raising money for nonprofits, which operate outside both campaign-finance limits and disclosure rules…
Nevertheless, recent Democratic email dumps may be as noteworthy for what’s missing from them as for what they reveal. Amid 20,000 DNC emails released by WikiLeaks, not a single one produced anything that could be called a smoking gun. Party aides debated which donor to seat next to President Obama, for example. But the emails also revealed that donors often didn’t get what they asked for.
Candidates and Campaigns
USA Today: Hillary Clinton crushes the competition on the airwaves
Fredreka Schouten
Clinton’s campaign is the top sponsor of political ads, spending $57 million since the general election began in early June, according to a tally released Wednesday by the Wesleyan Media Project. In second place on the airwaves: a pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA Action, which spent $27 million. The analysis examined ads that aired on local broadcast stations, national cable and national networks…
“We haven’t seen a modern presidential campaign that is so lopsided in terms of advertising,” Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, said in a statement.
The States
Palm Springs Desert Sun: No one is checking if California politicians are lying on financial forms
Corrinne S. Kennedy
State law designates city clerks and FPPC officials as filing agents, but gives them no power to verify these documents. Financial disclosure forms, one of the building blocks of government transparency, essentially rely on the honor system and public policing…
“If there is ever a question as to the validity or accuracy of anyone’s Form 700, anyone in the public can obviously look at anyone’s 700 and file a complaint with (the) FPPC Enforcement Division,” Wierenga said.
However, if these complaints are not filed, it leaves open the possibility that inaccurate forms go unchallenged. Some of these inaccuracies could be intentional, others could be because of misunderstandings of the form itself.
“It is a pretty complicated form,” Cathedral City Deputy City Clerk Tracey Martinez said.
WMTW Portland: Poliquin calls on TV stations to pull ad against him
Kyle Jones
The ad, by Washington, D.C.-based End Citizens United attacks Poliquin’s corporate and congressional history.
“Poliquin voted for a Medicare voucher scheme and to force seniors to pay thousands more,” the ad claims.
Poliquin’s campaign called the statements untrue in a letter to media outlets asking for the ad to be pulled.
However, FCC regulations set specific rules for TV stations when it comes to political ads.
Regulations state: “(Stations) shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee *shall have no power of censorship* over the material broadcast by any such candidate.”
