In the News
ProPublica: ‘Dark Money’ Debate: Two Views on Whether the Term is Fair Game
Cynthia Gordy
As the rules around campaign finance have changed, so has our vocabulary. Yet while the term “dark money” has gone mainstream – referring to dollars flowing in from nonprofit groups that are not required to disclose their donors – there is disagreement over whether the phrase is too loaded to be used by journalists. Organizations branded with the label claim that it unfairly suggests sinister intentions. Groups advocating for more disclosure in campaign finance, however, insist it is appropriate shorthand.
This week, reporter Robert Faturechi speaks with leaders from both sides of the debate. First up: Brad Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), who remains a powerful voice in calling for less federal regulation of money in politics. He’s followed by Larry Noble, formerly the top lawyer for the FEC and now with the Campaign Legal Center, which supports strong enforcement of campaign finance laws. Both sides make a case for the merits or drawbacks of the phrase “dark money” and take their best shot at recommending alternatives they’d like to see.
Daily Caller: Why Lawrence Lessig Should Love Money In Politics
David Keating
Lessig, of course, isn’t dissuaded by logic or reason. And why should he be? He has tenure at Harvard. As far as making the Democratic National debate threshold of 1 percent viability in a national poll, “That one percent of America has watched my Ted Talks,” Lessig told the Washington Post.” Watch out New Hampshire – the man with the Ted Talk is about to put Granny D to shame!
So if Lessig isn’t a serious threat to become president, and his pet issue isn’t a serious threat to become a top concern of voters, then why talk about him? Why care about him?
The answer lies in the breathless coverage given to him by outlets like Politico and the Washington Post. The media, much of which is sympathetic to Lessig, wants so very much to see him make a go of this. They want his Ted Talk to be viewed by 1 percent, or even 5 percent or more, because if the rest of the public knew just how smart he is, there would be a national movement to stomp on the First Amendment and pass restrictions to political speech and assembly that the liberal icon McCarthy fought against.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: The 9 big things I think I know about the 2016 Republican race
Chris Cillizza
8.) Super PACs can’t save you. Not really.
Conventional wisdom — including from yours truly — going into the 2016 cycle was that with every major 2016 candidate having at least one aligned super PAC, no one would need to drop out of the race before the first votes.
Well, Rick Perry’s campaign has put lie to that assumption. Perry is essentially out of money in his campaign account but does still have several million dollars sitting in a friendly super PAC. That hasn’t stopped a series of defections from his campaigns in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire. The lesson? Super PACs can solve some problems but not all problems. Staff, donors and activists like to be with someone who looks like a winner. And a super PAC is never going to be able to fill that void if a candidate can’t do it. (Note: Are you listening, Jeb?)
Arizona Republic: Why government can’t fix ‘dark money’
Robert Robb
This is also impractical, because it would affect organizations such as Chambers of Commerce and the Sierra Club as much as Dark Money, Inc. Any multipurpose membership organization that also engages in campaign advocacy would have to report contributions. But again, in such organizations, who gave how much for campaign advocacy is murky, and Clark’s legislation provides no guidance on how to parse it…
So far, all disclosure proposals have hit one of the following shoals: the difficulty of legally distinguishing between standard-issue membership organizations and dark money groups; the nesting dodge; and the murkiness of identifying what money to a multipurpose organization is be reported as a contribution to that organization’s campaign advocacy.
Wisconsin “John Doe”
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: GAB head told former employee to tone down comments
Patrick Marley
Kennedy said the emails reflected the deliberations over how to deal with details about the investigation becoming public as Walker ran for re-election. Investigators wanted to avoid politics, but Falk’s emails showed he believed there was no way they could avoid having the matter swept into the back and forth of a political debate, Kennedy said.
“Shane was just saying, ‘Look it, it’s already out there as far as politics,'” Kennedy said. “‘Don’t pretend you’re going to remove politics from this by making a statement about who is or who is not a target. It’s already out there.’ He was pointing out the reality.”
Wisconsin Watchdog: Updated complaint shines more light on dark day in John Doe
M.D. Kittle
Chisholm’s office, the complaint alleges, took possession of, among other things, every email Archer wrote or received on her personal email account beginning at least in 2006—years before any of the actions that were alleged to involve criminal wrongdoing.
“Subsequently, these emails were released to the public and now can be obtained at will by anyone. Many are available on the internet,” the filing states. “Less than one percent—if that—of the emails are related even to the pretextual inquiries in the warrant. Defendants had no legitimate reason to seize Archer’s private correspondence.”
The invasiveness of the John Doe investigators seems to have slipped into the absurd. While questioning her, investigators asked Archer why she went to a payphone in the days before the raid, according to the filing. It was an indication that the agents had been following her. Archer told them that she had not been to a payphone; she had gone to an air pump to fill her wheelbarrow tire.
FEC
Washington Times: Watchdog group wants FEC probe of illegal immigrant fellow hired by DNC
David Sherfinski
The group said federal law bars foreign nationals from participating “directly or indirectly in the decision-making process” of federal, state, or local election-related activities.
“On its face, the DNC’s decision to hire Ms. Nava is in direct violation of this provision,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in the complaint. “The FEC should investigate this matter further to determine the full extent of Ms. Nava’s responsibilities, her relationship to the policy making team, and her effect on the 2016 DNC election strategy.”
The States
Montana Public Radio: Montana’s Campaign Spending Rules Are Getting A Major Re-Write
Steve Jess
Jess: So let’s talk about the rules rewrite — the subject of this hearing. For someone who is thinking that sometime in their life they might want run for office in Montana, are these rules easy to comprehend. Are they easy to follow or do they, as some some critics have said, complicate things to the point where you just give up and say it’s not worth the trouble?
Motl: If you’re running for office in Montana these rules are a godsend to you because they make the elections fair. They promote understanding of who’s funding elections and when they’re funding elections. They make the rules clear. The rules that we have now, a candidate running for office doesn’t really know what your opposing candidate is doing or what all of these newly empowered entities that can speak in your campaign are doing until it’s too late.
Associated Press: Few attend public hearing on proposed campaign rules
Allison Noon
Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl and his general counsel, Jaime MacNaughton, took turns sitting in an empty room in front of a live camera after people testified Wednesday morning.
Motl was hoping the lengthy hearing would allow Montanans from across the state to submit their opinions electronically and respond to each other throughout the two-day meeting that’s being streamed online. But by the end of the first day, just one person had participated remotely…
Most people who spoke in person were concerned the rules would give the commissioner too much latitude to interpret which companies and organizations must disclose their political endeavors.
“We believe the commissioner’s attempt to disclose dark money bad actors will have the unintended consequence of threatening the ability of our members to engage issues that impact their lives,” Beth Kaeding of the Northern Plains Resource Council said.
Los Angeles Times: A new way to track political money in California
Patrick McGreevy
“The public and press should have quick and easy access to campaign finance information,” Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Wednesday in announcing the improvements. The new search mechanism provides “a clearer view of the flow of campaign dollars,” he said.
The new tool, developed by the nonprofit group Maplight, which tracks political money, allows searches by geography, dollar amounts and time periods going back to 2001. It also allows quick determination of totals in specific elections.
In a demonstration Wednesday, Maplight President and co-founder Daniel G. Newman retrieved the records of all contributions from Realtors in one case, and those for all contributions from employees of Microsoft in another.
New York Post: Election probe could mean ‘labor’ pain for de Blasio
Yoav Gonen
Board officials asked the de Blasio campaign to account for a host of “coordinated” activities described in an Oct. 10, 2013, City & State magazine interview of Local 1199 political director Kevin Finnegan, documents obtained by The Post show.
The interview raised red flags at the board because the campaign had paid the union only about $19,000 at that point. Unpaid coordinated campaigning violates regulations because it circumvents spending limits.
A de Blasio lawyer wrote to the board 15 days later, claiming the article contained “significant” errors.
