In the News
CRP: Larry Lessig takes his plan to Congress
By Ashley Balcerzak
Lessig continues to push his “plan to save democracy.” He proposed a voucher system, where taxpayers would get a $50 tax refund and use it to donate to congressional candidates who agreed to opt in to the program: If they accepted the vouchers, the only other funds they could take would be individual contributions of $100 or less. Lessig also pushes for matching public funds for campaigns that forgo PAC money…
Others worry about how far the government control would extend.
“When the government is handing out a lot of money to campaigns, it will have an interest that the money isn’t misused and that comes with a lot of risk over the long run,” said David Keating, president of the conservative Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit that advocates for less donor disclosure and higher – or no – limits. “They might want to start controlling what the candidates are allowed to say, like maybe they’ll say there are too many negative ads.”
Conservative Review: Without Citizens United, Joss Whedon could be violating the law
By Robert Eno
Once again the liberal elites in Hollywood just don’t get it. They rail for more campaign finance regulations, and against Citizens United without really knowing what that means. Content creators should be the ones most thrilled with the ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC … not arguing for its reinstatement. In fact, that viral video with Avengers stars in it from Joss Whedon may have been considered illegal in a pre-Citizens United world…
Here’s a brief discussion of the case from the Cornell University School of Law:
…amici argue, the “onerous burdens” that BCRA places on such broadcasts causes many non-profit corporations, and in turn, their private donors, to simply remain silent rather than search out alternative means of expressing their free speech. – In addition, amici Center for Competitive Politics points to studies that have found that mandatory disclosure requirements, similar to those imposed by BCRA, dissuades many private individuals from participating in political activities.
Free Speech
Fox 25 Boston: Haverhill man hosts free speech rally over Trump signs
By Jessica Reyes
A local man’s front yard plastered with Donald Trump signs of every size has the city of Haverhill upset.
The town ordered Richard Early to remove the signs, but he refuses and is hosting a rally for freedom of speech Saturday…
In his words, the ordinance “impedes on his first amendment rights.”
A Facebook page was created for Saturday’s rally and a number of people showed up to support Early.
“I didn’t expect this, I was just doing this out of what I think is right,” he said.
Early said he welcomed supporters of any candidate, and it’s less about supporting Trump and more about free speech.
FEC
Washington Post: Time to fix public financing of presidential candidates, FEC member says
By Marilyn W. Thompson
Ann Ravel, one of the commission’s most outspoken members, wants the commission to recommend legislation to Congress that would dramatically change the system financed by a voluntary check-off on individual tax returns.
In a memo released Friday, Ravel asked the commission to take up the subject at its Sept. 29 public meeting.
She recommends removing the spending limits that have kept mainstream candidates from applying for federal money. She also recommends that the law make it harder for candidates to qualify.
Ravel wants to raise the federal match for qualifying candidates.
New York Times: The Feckless F.E.C., Rebuked
By The Editorial Board
In an era of unbridled campaign spending, the Federal Election Commission has consistently and shamefully ducked its responsibilities. It has made it possible for tax-exempt “social welfare” organizations to operate as partisan attack machines. And it has dismissed complaints and failed to police this rise of “dark money” from hidden donors that is pouring into elections.
While most campaign professionals treat the F.E.C. as an impotent joke, a Federal District Court judge shed light this week on the commission’s dereliction. Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the commission to reconsider its dismissal of complaints against two conservative groups that claimed to meet the nonpartisan requirement for tax-exempt “social welfare” agencies, even while they financed television ads in 2010 targeting Democratic candidates.
Independent Groups
The Hill: Show us the money – or at least show us the source
By John Pudner
Under current rules, significant anonymous support is possible. Candidates for every office should demand that any supporters of their campaign disclose the source of any independent expenditure they make. If supporters refuse, the candidate should disavow the support – no matter how flattering or beneficial the message…
While not everyone who opposes transparency has something to hide, public officials should be held to a higher standard and allow those they represent to know why they have the opinions they do – are the positions real or rented? The voters have a right to decide.
There is nothing wrong with campaign contributions as long as they are disclosed. A quest for disclosure of donations fully supports arguments of free speech advocates and discourages what some political observers have described as transactional giving.
North Andover Eagle-Tribune: Unknown sponsors behind one-third of Senate campaign ads
By Kery Murakami
A study by the campaign finance watchdog Center for Responsive Politics and Wesleyan University’s Media Project finds that a type of political group that does not have to disclose its donors is responsible for $80 million in ads nationally.
That’s 35.8 percent of all advertising in Senate races, according to the study out this week.
Without knowing who is paying for the ads, voters are robbed of “an important clue” that allows them “to take a claim made in an ad with a grain of salt,” said Travis Ridout, a Washington State University political science professor who works with the Wesleyan University project that analyzes campaign donations.
Candidates and Campaigns
Huffington Post: Hillary Clinton Endorsed By Campaign Finance Reformers
By Paul Blumenthal
The campaign finance reform organization Every Voice made its first endorsement in a presidential election on Friday, backing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Every Voice, which used to be known as Public Campaign Action Fund, has endorsed candidates from both parties in congressional and state elections in the past, but never before has it inserted itself into a presidential race.
David Donnelly, CEO of Every Voice, told The Huffington Post the group is endorsing Clinton because of her platform to reform campaign finance…
Every Voice has in the past spent money directly to help elect candidates for the House and Senate. The reform group will work to get Clinton elected, Donnelly said, but he wouldn’t elaborate.
CPI: Elite bundlers raise more than $113 million for Hillary Clinton
By Michael Beckel
More than 1,100 elite moneymen and women have collectively raised more than $113 million for Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity of information released this week by her campaign.
The list, updated monthly, includes more than 260 new bundlers who had not previously been disclosed by the campaign. These newly revealed fundraisers and donors include lawmakers, entertainment icons and titans of industry…
By law, only registered lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions must be revealed – along with the exact amount they raise.
Individuals, or couples, who raise or donate at least $100,000 toward Clinton’s presidential bid have been dubbed “Hillblazers” by her campaign, which is voluntarily releasing their names but not the exact amounts they have raised.
Wall Street Journal: No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump
By Rebecca Ballhaus and Brody Mullins
No chief executive at the nation’s 100 largest companies had donated to Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign through August, a sharp reversal from 2012, when nearly a third of the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies supported GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
During this year’s presidential primaries, 19 of the nation’s top CEOs gave to other Republican candidates, including former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign donations.
Since then, most have stayed on the sidelines, with 89 of the 100 top CEOs not supporting either presidential nominee, and 11 backing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
The Atlantic: Where Did All the Campaign Spending Go?
By Andrew McGill
Trump stomped on the accelerator in August, debuting hisfirst campaign commercial andbeefing up online advertising.Even so, Clinton won out by $36.73, or an extra $19 million over the entire month. That’s not surprising: The Clinton campaign fields a staff of hundreds, while some of Trump’s employees work inoffices of nailed-together drywall.But as the primaries showed, Trump doesn’t need to outspend his opponents to be successful…
Clinton will likely continue to spend a record amount of money, and raise even more. Trump, however, isn’t expected to follow. While his take may still seem formidable, his success through relative frugality is a dash of cold water. America is perhaps in no danger of losing its long, expensive presidential campaigns. But at the very least, this year shows the cost of running for president doesn’t always have to go up.
Newsweek: Donald Trump Either Lied to the Republicans or Broke the Law (Exclusive)
By Kurt Eichenwald
Assume the story he told at the debate is the lie. Even though Bush’s story reinforced what Trump was saying at rallies-he had played the “cash for outcomes” political game for years-he could not admit he had tried to do the same in Florida because he could not bring himself to say that he had lost. Instead, he looked America in the eye and lied. And then he felt compelled to stack on another boast: His people are so wonderful that they would have gotten casino gambling in Florida, regardless of Bush’s opposition-if Trump had wanted it.
Now consider the other option, that Trump committed perjury in the 2007 testimony. There, he admitted pushing for casino gambling in Florida, but said he would have gotten what he wanted if he hadn’t been tricked by Fields. The rationale for the perjurious testimony is simple-Trump wants money from a man who stopped working for him and, once again, the story lets him deny he is anything less than perfect.
Donors
Quartz: Women’s political donations are rising fast, but men are still way out-donating them
By Elizabeth Winkler
For most of American history, political money-that is, the heavy-hitting capital that funds candidates, shapes policy, and generally directs political life-has come from men’s pockets…
But there are some signs that the pace of change is picking up-with wide-reaching implications for US politics. In the 2016 election, theWashington Post reports that the top 150 donors to super PACS include 37 women, up from 31 in 2012. And it’s not just the wealthy, one-percenter women who are joining the donor class. Women from across the socio-economic spectrum are forking over money to make themselves heard. A majority of Hillary Clinton’s donors for her 2016 presidential campaign were women, she has said.
The States
Argus Leader: IM 22 backers challenge foes to release finance reports
By Dana Ferguson
The group pushing for an overhaul of the state’s campaign finance system challenged its opponent Friday to release information about who is bankrolling its efforts.
South Dakotans for Integrity and South Dakotans for Ethics Reform, two groups backing Initiated Measure 22, called on the leaders of Defeat 22 to unveil information about its finances. The challenge comes in response to a request from Argus Leader Media to have both campaigns share their donors ahead of the October 28 deadline.
State law doesn’t require campaigns to report fundraising sources until two weeks before the election and a month after the start of early absentee voting, but both campaigns have berated one another over a lack of transparency.
