In the News
The Arizona Republic: Let’s face it: Clean Elections has failed
By Luke WachobThe independent Government Accountability Office studied these programs and found that public financing regimes in Arizona and Maine did not encourage new candidates or aid candidates challenging incumbents. On the contrary, “[t]here were no statistically significant differences observed for … contestedness (number of candidates per race) and incumbent reelection rates.”In addition, a Center for Competitive Politics analysis of both states’ programs found that tax-financed campaigns did not reduce the high numbers of legislators coming from law and business backgrounds and failed to increase the number of female legislators. In fact, as a group, politicians running on the taxpayer’s dime look very much like those using traditional fundraising (except, of course, that their campaigns are paid for by your taxes).The myth that tax-financed campaigns create new opportunities for candidates lives on as a useful piece of political rhetoric. After all, everyone loves a “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” story, so politicians exploit the program to strike the pose of citizen-legislator.
Cato Institute: The Senate’s Breathtaking Stab at Political Speech
Serious or not, the U.S. Senate leadership’s attempt at curbing political speech would have dramatically reduced the range of political debate. Allen Dickerson of the Center for Competitive Politics comments on the failed amendment to the Constitution.
CCP
CPA Set to Release 2014 Index
The Center for Political Accountability (“CPA”), in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania’s Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, is set to release its fourth annual CPA-Zicklin Index. This Index purports to analyze and rank the corporate accountability and transparency of corporate political spending – ranking companies on a scale of 0 – 100.Since its inception in 2012, activists have used the Index as a powerful tool against publicly traded companies. Activists tout the Index as evidence of corporate support for increased disclosure of so-called political spending and therefore demand that all “non-transparent” corporations fall in-line and disclose things such as lobbying expenditures and trade association dues.However, the Index’s own rating system is far from transparent. Individual scores often involve closed-door meetings with the CPA to discuss what “corrections” a company can make to improve its score. Even more frightening, the Index has changed its methodology each year to increase the weighting on certain types and methods of disclosure. As a result, several top-ranked companies in the Index have seen their scores drop despite having the same policy year over year.One might assume that by playing ball with activists (e.g., “voluntarily” disclosing lobbying expenditures), companies can become insulated from being harassed with disclosure-related shareholder proposals. However, this is not the case. A review of companies listed in the Index shows that companies with higher Index scores (companies choosing to make disclosures beyond what is required by law) are MORE likely to receive shareholder proposals related to the disclosure of public policy and lobbying expenditures than companies disclosing less.
IRS
Reason: Lois Lerner Claims the IRS Did Nothing Wrong. The Data Say Otherwise.
Washington Times: Lois Lerner breaks silence: I’m ‘not sorry for anything I did’
By Cheryl K. Chumley
“I’m proud of my career and the job I did for this country,” she told Politico.Many in the United States — as well as Capitol Hill — disagree. Ms. Lerner, who’s no longer with the IRS, is having difficulty finding another place of employment, Politico reported. Meanwhile, her legal bills have been piling up, as she’s spent thousands of dollars defending herself against charges of a coverup in the IRSscandal.
Town Hall: Issa: If IRS’ Lois Lerner Talks to The Press, She Should Talk to Congress Under Oath
By Katie Pavlich“The American people deserve the opportunity to hear Lois Lerner’s testimony under oath,” Issa said in a released statement. “If Lerner had nothing to hide and did nothing wrong in the IRS targeting scandal, she would have chosen to answer basic questions about her conduct instead of obstructing Congress’ investigation. Her decision to make unsubstantiated claims to a media outlet while claiming Fifth Amendment protections from answering Congress’ questions is telling. She appears to have great confidence that her allies in the Obama Administration will not consider legal action after she resigned and declined to discuss the IRS’ actions against private citizens.”
Breitbart: Politico: Lois Lerner is the Real Victim of the IRS Scandal
By John NolteLois Lerner wants a new job. She can’t get one. No one will hire her. So it makes perfect sense that she would go to the leftwing Politico for aid and comfort. After all…If I were a hyper-partisan leftwing federal bureaucrat who took the Fifth after overseeing a division of the IRS that — according to the Inspector General — “used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention,” Politico’s the first place I’d go for a reputation whitewash and overhaul.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Mark Cuban, Jerry Yang among investors in Potomac wunderkind’s technology
By Thomas HeathLet’s say Massachusetts is considering a bill that would change the way pharmaceutical waste is disposed, which could have dramatic effects on medical businesses. FiscalNote predicts whether the bill will pass.FiscalNote claims an accuracy rate of more than 90 percent.Hwang is replacing humans with computers and software. What else is new? He has already raised $1.3 million from the likes of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who chipped in $740,000. Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang, Chevy Chase-based venture capital firm New Enterprise Associates and others invested the balance.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
NRO: Garbage In, Garbage Out
By Ed WhelanIn May, the New York Times highlighted a study—or, rather, a summary of a study—by political scientists Lee Epstein, Christopher M. Parker, and Jeffrey A. Segal that purported to show that in First Amendment speech cases “the votes of both liberal and conservative justices tend to reflect their preferences toward the ideological groupings of the speaker.” Further, the study summary contended that for many justices—especially Scalia and Thomas but also Roberts, Kennedy, O’Connor, and Stevens—there was “a statistically significant difference … between support for the free expression claim when the speaker is liberal versus conservative.”In my post about the article, I identified two obvious flaws in the study. First, Epstein, Parker, and Segal seem blind to the possibility that there may be factors other than speaker-favoritism or speaker-hostility in a large category of the cases (e.g., the institutional interests of the government), and those factors may have a very large disparate impact one way or the other in those cases. Second, they have no basis for assessing when a vote difference is statistically significant. (I note that their full study makes no assertions of statistical significance; it seems that they may have tarted up the summary that they specially prepared for the New York Times.)
Jurist: Federal judge rules donor disclosure required for political documentary
Political donations and campaign finance [JURIST backgrounder] have been highly litigious issues in the US, especially since the 2010 US Supreme Court’s [official website] ruling [JURIST report] in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] permitting corporations to be considered individuals when contributing to election campaigns, in essence allowing for functionally unlimited donations to political campaigns. In June 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria [official website] erred in its May 2011 holding [JURIST report] that corporations can contribute directly to political campaigns asserting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United does not prevent limitations on direct contributions to candidates. Also in June 2012, the US Supreme Court struck down [JURIST report] a century-old campaign finance law in Montana that restricts the amount of money corporations can spend on campaigns, stating that Citzens United overruled such restrictions. In May 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a Minnesota campaign financing law prohibiting direct contributions to candidates and affiliated entities. The Minnesota law was being challenged by organizations that argued the law was in violation of the ruling in Citizens United. In April 2010, four months after Citizens United, a group of Senators introduced [JURIST report] legislation aimed at curbing foreign and corporate influence in elections. The bill was defeated [Center for Responsive Politics report] in September 2010.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Washington Post: Dinesh D’Souza avoids jail time, gets five years of probation for campaign finance violation
By Sean SullivanA federal judge on Tuesday sentenced Dinesh D’Souza to five years of probation, including eight months in a community confinement center, ordering no jail time for the conservative author and pundit who pleaded guilty to using straw donors to make an illegal campaign contribution.U.S. District Judge Richard Berman handed down the sentence, which also includes a $30,000 fine. D’Souza must attend weekly therapeutic counseling sessions and perform community service, the judge said.
