IRS
Politico: GOP negotiators reach deal to postpone IRS impeachment vote
Rachael Bade
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte have reached a tentative compromise to postpone a vote to impeach the IRS commissioner, sources familiar with the talks told POLITICO.
Under the terms of the emerging deal, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen would testify before the Judiciary panel next Wednesday, and any impeachment vote would likely be postponed until after the November election rather than take place on Thursday, the sources said…
While many Republicans outside the Freedom Caucus noted that conservatives have no proof of a cover-up and say Koskinen is guilty of incompetence, they say his conduct does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Earlier this week, President Barack Obama called the impeachment push “crazy” during a Democratic fundraiser in New York.
Independent Groups
Washington Free Beacon: Emails: Dem Senator Urged Justice Department to Prosecute Conservative Groups
Ali Meyer
At the hearing, Whitehouse urged the Justice Department to rethink its deference to the IRS in these cases.
“I would urge that the Department and the Service get together and rethink whether in these two specific areas, which I think bear little resemblance to traditional tax violations and are in fact very plain-vanilla criminal cases, whether or not that deference to the IRS is actually serving the public interest at this point,” Whitehouse said.
The emails reveal that Whitehouse had specific conservative groups in mind for prosecution, including the American Future Fund, Crossroads GPS, Americans for Responsible Leadership, Freedom Path, American is Not Stupid, Inc., RightChange.com II, and A Better America Now.
NBC News: Democratic Super PAC to Pay for Dirt on Donald Trump
Alex Setiz-Wald
Hillary Clinton ally David Brock wants your Donald Trump dirt, and he’s willing to pay top dollar for it.
Correct the Record, one of the well-funded super PACs Brock founded, is creating a WikiLeaks-style project to pay anonymous tipsters for scoops, which they’re calling Trump Leaks.
While the effort is focused on uncovering previously unreleased audio and video recordings, Brock is interested in just about anything on Trump — as long as it’s new, unflattering and procured legally.
Wisconsin John Doe
The Guardian: Because Scott Walker asked
Ed Pilkington
Because Scott Walker asked. That could stand as an elegant catchphrase for the state of democracy in the US today, where elections are lost or won as much according to candidates’ ability to attract corporate cash as by the strength of their leadership or ideas.
The phrase is to be found within a batch of 1,500 pages of leaked documents obtained by the Guardian that are being published in their entirety for the first time. The cache consists of a stack of evidence gathered by official prosecutors in Wisconsin who were conducting what was called a “John Doe investigation” into suspected campaign finance violations by Walker’s campaign and its network…
…the Guardian’s documents – consisting of email exchanges between Walker, his advisers, Republican leaders and major donors who included none other than Trump himself, together with court filings held under seal – amount to a rich chronicle of the electoral health of the United States in the wake of Citizens United.
They also form the substance of a case currently before the US supreme court, which has been petitioned by the Wisconsin prosecutors in an appeal against the decision to shut down their investigation. The nation’s highest judicial panel is expected to announce within days whether or not it will take the case.
Wisconsin Watchdog: Document suggests prosecutors leaked sealed John Doe records to Guardian
M.D. Kittle
One of the documents the Guardian obtained shows a copy of a Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce motion moving to quash a subpoena. WMC was one of the 29 conservative organizations targeted by Chisholm and his prosecutor partners.
The document clearly shows handwriting on it with key points underlined. Such note scribbling is not something one would find in a court filing. It is something that a prosecutor would have in his personal files, however.
John Doe prosecutors repeatedly warned the people they harassed and intimidated that they could go to jail and be subject to hefty fines if they went public with any information related to the probe. The law holds the same for prosecutors who “leak” information to the press.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: GOP eases lead paint laws after $750,000 in donations
Daniel Bice, Jason Stein and Patrick Marley
“The public release of this John Doe evidence without court authorization is not merely a violation of the John Doe secrecy order; it is a crime under Wisconsin law,” Chisholm said. “As Special Prosecutor Fran Schmitz has done in the past when other secret materials have been publicly disclosed, we support any effort that may be undertaken to determine the source of these newest leaks.”
Such an investigation appears possible.
GOP Attorney General Brad Schimel “is currently reviewing the available options to address the serious legal questions raised by the leak and publication of these sealed documents,” Schimel spokesman Johnny Koremenos said in a statement.
FEC
Washington Examiner: Feds to make a ruling over politicking on the Web
Rudy Takala
A political action committee is looking to figure out whether it can safely use the Internet to support national political candidates, or whether the Federal Election Commission might seize the opportunity to impose the kind of regulations Democrats have been striving to attain.
The request for an advisory opinion, filed on behalf of Citizen Super PAC, asks the FEC whether it would be permissible to email supporters of a candidate’s campaign…
The organization allows users to set up pages on its website to raise funds for candidates that users support, in what it calls an effort to “democratize” political spending and “increase participation in the political marketplace.”
Gober is seeking to take that initiative to the next level by asking candidates for their email lists…
Tax Financed Campaigns
Huffington Post: Restoring Our Republic
Rep. John Sarbanes
It looks — finally — like the idea of small-donor empowerment is arriving on the national stage. In Washington, House Democrats recently unveiled a “By the People” reform package that includes key proposals to finance Congressional and Presidential campaigns with small-donor matching systems. These policy prescriptions are mirrored in the Democratic National Platform, which contains arguably the strongest commitment to fundamental campaign reform in our history. And the Democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton, has embraced small-donor matching as a game changer in the way we finance federal elections. She knows that this kind of reform will spur everyday Americans to re-engage in their democracy. But just as importantly, it will allow a whole new generation of candidates to run, compete and win without having to depend on the wealthy and the well-connected.
Swarthmore Gazette: US Politics is a Lottery: A Profile of Rick Hasen
Anna Garner
Hasen has always had a love of politics. For an essay contest in the third grade, Hasen wrote about the qualities we should seek in a president. He ended the essay by concluding, “That man is George McGovern. He should win.” The school asked Hasen to change this last line because it was too overtly political…
Big money also alters policy decisions. There are silent, unspoken threats, as Hasen elucidates. He used the example of major Republican backer, Sheldon Adelson, who gave between 98 and 150 millions dollars in the 2012 elections. Adelson makes a good portion of his money from casinos.
“Anyone who supports internet gaming in Congress knows that if they come out in favor of that, they run the potential risk of Adelson running a candidate against them […] and so that serves as a deterrent effect, even if he doesn’t spend a penny.”
Candidates and Campaigns
CPI: Shadow candidates: Who’s more transparent, Clinton or Trump?
Dave Levinthal
Politically speaking, there are no winners here. Both foundations are different in size and service, but neither Clinton nor Trump have done themselves election season favors this year through their charitable operations.
Regardless of what good the Clinton Foundation is doing and has done, it has grown into a massive albatross for Clinton. USA Today, the Boston Globe, Huffington Post — hardly Trump train passengers — have either called on the Clinton Foundation to curtain its fundraising or shut down altogether.
Trump, meanwhile, faces continued fallout from his charity’s illegal political contribution: A Democratic organization has filed a complaint against the foundation with the U.S. Department of Justice, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is opening an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
The States
Stanwood Camano News: Pro-con statements posted for campaign finance Initiative 1464
Jason Mercier
The Secretary of State’s Office has posted the Voters’ Guide summary for Initiative 1464 (Campaign Finance). Along with the official ballot title and Office of Financial Management Fiscal Impact Statement, an explanatory and pro/con statements are provided…
Spanning 23 pages and 37 sections, I-1464 is a very complex proposal covering many aspects of campaign finance. Since the majority of the proposed taxpayer spending is used for the campaign contribution vouchers, this post will focus primarily on the arguments made on that aspect of the ballot measure…
KUOW Seattle: Wealthy Donors Behind Anti-Corruption Ballot Measure
Austin Jenkins
Sponsors of Initiative 1464 on Washington’s fall ballot say they’re trying to limit big money influence on Washington politics…
But it’s who’s behind the initiative that might come as a surprise.
Represent.Us, a Massachusetts-based non-profit that calls itself the “nation’s largest grassroots anti-corruption campaign.” It’s put $300,000 into I-1464.
Another $375,000 came from Washington, D.C.-based Every Voice. So who’s funding these groups?
Donors include wealthy individuals and foundations.
Portland Mercury: Amanda Fritz Wants to Push Big Money Out of Portland Elections
Dirk VanderHart
This new proposal has the same goal, with key differences. Based on a system New York City has used for decades, the policy would force interested participants to show they’re viable by collecting at least $2,500 total from 250 people for city commissioner races, or $5,000 from 500 people for mayoral races.
If they can meet that threshold, candidates would get a 6-to-1 match for contributions up to $50. In other words, each $50 donation would generate an additional $300 from the city’s general fund (but multiple $50 donations from the same person wouldn’t count). Fritz’s office has proposed earmarking 0.2 percent of the city’s general fund budget for the program, which would translate to a little more than $1.2 million of this year’s $602 million fund.
