In the News
Wall Street Journal Live: A Constitutional Amendment for Political Gain?
Center for Competitive Politics President David Keating on New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall’s resolution to restrict certain forms of speech.
CCP
The wit and wisdom of Bernie Sanders
By Brad SmithBernie Sanders, the Socialist Senator from Vermont, was very upset today when his proposal to amend the Constitution to remove First Amendment protections from most political speech went down.Reports a syncophantic Ed O’Keefe at the Washington Post, “Failing to pass the constitutional amendment this week ‘means that the average American has one vote and the Koch Brothers have one vote plus the ability to put tens and tens of thousands of ads on the air. That is not democracy,’ Sanders said.”Actually, one person/one vote is, pretty much, exactly the definition of democracy.O’Keefe continues: “Sanders was especially strident in his criticism of the Koch brothers.”Ah, just so we know that Senator Sanders views the amendment as neutral. It’s not like he’s got it out for anybody’s agenda or anything.
Amending the First Amendment
National Review: Democrats’ Push to Criminalize Dissent: Harry Reid wants to gut the only thing stopping federal authorities from suffocating free speech.
By Kevin D. WilliamsonFortunately, an Obama appointee whose ability to read the letter of the law had not been utterly drummed out of him ruled that the Ohio Inquisition obviously violated longstanding free-speech protections, the First Amendment notable among them. Last week, a similar case in Minnesota came to a similar conclusion.Which is why Harry Reid wants to repeal the First Amendment.Democrats pushing the measure to repeal free speech pretend that it is a campaign-finance measure, but the only criteria it establishes for Congress to ban an advertisement — or a book, or a film, or a television show, or a magazine — is that money is expended in an attempt to influence a political outcome. Under those rules, the Ohio Inquisition’s successful move to ban billboards critical of an embattled Democratic congressman would have been totally acceptable under the provisions of a gutted First Amendment.
Powerline: The Democrats Escalate Their War on Free Speech
By John HinderakerWhy have the Democrats pushed the Udall amendment, knowing that it can’t possibly pass? They are playing a long game, I think. Historically, the idea of repealing the First Amendment would have been unthinkable. The purpose of the Udall amendment, I believe, is to mainstream what has always, until now, been inconceivable. The public is being accustomed to the idea that the First Amendment might be repealed–not flag burning and nude dancing, but the innermost core of the amendment, supporting and opposing candidates in elections–and if the Democrats ever have the votes, it will be.
First Amendment News: Proposed amendment to 1st Amendment fails — A brief history of it all
By RONALD K.L. COLLINSIt’s over now, the campaign to amend the First Amendment. The Democratic-led effort died in the Senate yesterday by a vote of 54-42. Thankfully, the constitutional theatrics have ended and the 1791 text remains safe, at least from any Article V threat by lawmakers.Not surprisingly, reports Burgess Everett writingin Politico, “Senate Republicans unanimously rejected a constitutional amendment sought by Democrats that would allow Congress to regulate campaign finance reform. . . . The failure of the proposal followed a surprising result on Monday, when the measure advanced past an initial filibuster despite broad GOP opposition to the measure.”
IRS
Wall Street Journal: Covering for the IRS
EditorialThe IRS targeting of conservative groups has now become a story about the cover-up. More than a year after the scandal became public, the most transparent Administration in history has done everything in its power to spin the story, stymie Congressional investigators and run out the clock.Take the latest moment of hilarity, er, clarity from the Justice Department, in which a communications aide to Attorney General Eric Holder mistakenly called Republicans on the HouseOversight and Government Reform Committee when he meant to call Democrats. The aide, Brian Fallon, told staffers he was calling to see if they could leak information to friendly reporters and give the Justice Department a chance to comment before the majority got their hands on it.
Independent Groups
Daily Kos: Mayday PAC staffers comment on “missing” $5 million, critics, holding their noses, and more
puccinigirl: I don’t need an answer, I just need approval on the spin And no, I haven’t thought of the spin yet. I guess I have my weekend cut out for me.AaronLifshin: guys, for the 5 million dollar question: “we will announce the matching donors as soon as we are ready” or “as soon as possible”pie | home: AaronLifshin: that is…disappointing. people want to know what is taking so longit makes people think that it wasn’t a guaranteed thing as implied beforehand
RNLA: RNLA Statement on FEC agreement to revise campaign finance regulations
By Paul Jossey“These rules are like fine wine. They’ve been four years in the making,” stated FEC Chairman Republican Lee E. Goodman, who arrived at the Commission last October. Democrat Ann M. Ravel, the FEC’s other relative neophyte echoed that sentiment, “It’s important to give guidance,” she stated.The agreement would institutionalize the holdings of both Citizens United and McCutcheon throughthree rulemakings. The third will be an “advance notice,” which seeks public comment on whether current regulations on topics such as earmarking, anti- proliferation, and disclosure are adequate. Justice Roberts raised questions concerning all three topics in McCutcheon. And it is part of the Commission’s duty to seek public input on their clarity and viability as anti-corruption and anti-circumvention measures. The RNLA supports the rulemakings and applauds the Commissioners and staff who brought about this agreement. This positive development will provide clarity to the practitioners, candidates, and others whose activities are regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Heritage (Event, 9/18): Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: The New Assaults on Campaign Speech
Money had long been an issue in American politics, going back at least to the time of President Andrew Jackson when Congress considered a bill relating to campaign funding. Congress passed the first campaign finance law in 1867 and then another in 1883. Then, the Tillman Act in 1907 prohibited corporations and national banks from making monetary contributions to federal candidates, and it was followed by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act in 1910. More recently, the trend continued with the Taft Hartley Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. On the judicial front, litigation in this area has attracted Supreme Court attention from 1921 until today. Starting in the mid-1970s, conservatives often defended and enforced such laws, while the ACLU led the charge to contest them and often prevailed as it did in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976). By 2014, when the Court decided McCutcheon v. FEC, the liberal mindset changed as more and more liberal groups not only railed against rulings such as McCutcheon and Citizens United, but also launched a campaign to amend the First Amendment. How much speech are we as a people willing to tolerate during elections? Should some speech be prohibited during elections? Who can speak and how much can they speak when it comes to elections? Join us as a distinguished panel of First Amendment law experts discuss these questions and more.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Washington Post: Ohio ban on knowingly false statements in political campaigns is unconstitutional
By Eugene VolokhI’m also surprised that the district court simply followed the Alvarez plurality in concluding that the law should be judged under strict scrutiny, a standard that was expressly rejected by five of the nine Justices. (The four-Justice plurality said the standard for restrictions on knowing falsehoods should be strict scrutiny, unless some existing exception applied; the two-Justice concurrence said it should be intermediate scrutiny; and under the three-Justice dissent, the standard would basically be the R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul test.) The 8th Circuit at least explained that it was applying strict scrutiny because the restriction here, unlike the Stolen Valor Act, was specifically focused on political speech. But the 6th Circuit Pestrak decision held that strict scrutiny doesn’t apply to restrictions on knowingly false political speech, and while Alvarez might have replaced that with intermediate scrutiny (as the test adopted by Justice Breyer’s controlling opinion), I don’t see what replaced it with strict scrutiny.
UT San Diego: What cases matter most to Justice Scalia?
By Dana Littlefield“Every tinhorn dictator in the world today has a Bill of Rights, every banana republic,” Scalia said. “The first thing you do when you seize power is to promulgate a bill of rights, and the so-called world community applauds… As long as the real constitution does not prevent centralization of power in one person or in one party you can ignore the bill of rights.
Koch Obsession
Daily Caller: Harry Reid’s New Enemy
By Christopher BedfordIt was the latest in Mr. Reid’s shrill campaign to change the elections from a conversation about a slumping economy, corporate flight, a disintegrating world order and a disinterested president. It’s a curious gambit, attacking American businessmen most people have never heard of, but when the national conversation is as dire for Mr. Reid as it appears to be, it may be that the only shot is changing the topic completely.Which fit right into his actions on Tuesday, when Mr. Reid took to the floor of the Senate to accuse top Koch captain Rich Fink of calling Americans “lazy” and saying that “minimum wage leads to fascism.” He concluded, asking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell if he views “unemployed Kentuckians … as fascist stooges or lazy.”
Breitbart: Latest NYT Koch Brothers Screed Places Progressives in Perilous Position
By Wynton HallYet nowhere in Edsall’s 2,300-word diatribe does he mention any of the myriad progressive 501 (c)(4) groups, such as Center for American Progress, or the “labyrinthine secrecy” that shrouded Big Labor’s $4.4 billion in political spending between 2005 and 2011.Moreover, as Edsall himself noted in March, the 1958 N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama and the 1995McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission rulings upheld anonymity as a legitimate means of political activism.The 1958 case was profoundly important, because in the era of lynch mobs and church-bombings, to give money to the Alabama chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was to put one’s life at risk. In a unanimous decision, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote, “This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations…”
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NRO: Democrats in Desperation
By John FundIndeed, Democrats can’t seem to stop running cookie-cutter anti-Koch ads in state after state. “There’s no downside to any elected official in this country attacking the Koch brothers. None, zero, zip,” Jim Manley, a former Reid aide, told the BuzzFeed website earlier this year.But others aren’t so sure. The late Alan Baron, an astute observer of politics from a liberal perspective, once told me: “When you’re reduced to attacking your opponent’s supporters, you show the lack of a positive agenda and an obsession with the process of campaigns that voters don’t have. You’re wasting your air time.”
FEC
The Hill: FEC strikes deal to revise campaign finance regs
By Benjamin GoadA final rule developed under the FEC’s agreement would further clarify the parameters of the ruling, and codify them into law. The rules would clear up uncertainty that has existed in the aftermath of the ruling, Goodman said.“Some corporations and labor unions are not always clear on where the changes will ripple through,” he said.For instance, the regulation will impose clear rules governing the involvement of corporations and organized labor in voter registration drives, he said.
State and Local
South Carolina –– LA Times: S.C. House speaker suspends himself from office after being indicted
By CHRISTINE MAI-DUCThe speaker of South Carolina’s House of Representatives found himself in the awkward position of having to suspend himself from office Thursday, a day after he was indicted by a grand jury on campaign finance and misconduct charges.Speaker Bobby Harrell, a Republican, informed the clerk of the House of his decision in a letter.“I have great respect for this institution and the people of South Carolina,” Harrell wrote. “I have always sought to act in their best interest and continue to do so now by taking this action and suspending myself from office.”
Texas –– KVUE: Abbott campaign manager files ethics complaint regarding Sen. Davis’ book
“Sen. Davis’ book promotion has gone from ethically questionable to outright unlawful. From her history of profiteering at the expense of Texas taxpayers while in the legislature to using campaign funds to promote a book that enriches her personally, Sen. Davis has demonstrated blatant disregard for the ethical standards Texans expect from their candidates.”
