In the News
Sacramento Bee: Another View: Expand free speech by expanding free speech
By Luke WachobAs a result, attempts to “get money out of politics” quickly descend to regulation of every form of speech and ever more complex rules to prevent “evasion.” Even if you reversed the Supreme Court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision and limited candidate and Super PAC spending, other levers of influence exist.Wealth influences academe, media corporations, celebrities, filmmakers and authors who shape public opinion. Experts – think-tank analysts, pollsters and lobbyists – can be hired. Everyone wants politics to be driven by public opinion and professional expertise, but money is a major ingredient in both.Money in politics would not go away in Levinson’s world; it would just come from different and likely more hidden sources, and might even increase as lawyers and campaign managers became a prerequisite for political participation. Ordinary citizens would avoid forming small groups, boxed out by the maze of rules.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Preaching Politics, Pastors Defy Ban
By Tamara Audi
For the past seven years, hundreds of churches have intentionally delivered political sermons to address the issue on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” an annual event organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based conservative group that fights for religious accommodation claims.Nearly 1,500 pastors nationwide agreed to preach politics Sunday, the Alliance said. So far, the Internal Revenue Service hasn’t revoked tax-exempt status for participating churches, said an Alliance spokeswoman. This year’s event comes during an election season when issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, continue to draw attention.
NY Times: Democrats Lean Heavily on PACs in Coordinated Push to Counter G.O.P.
By Ashley Parker and Nicholas ConfessoreWASHINGTON — With the battle for the Senate tilting toward Republicans and President Obama’s approval ratings hovering near his all-time low, Democrats are more reliant than they have ever been on the very kind of big-money groups they have spent years trying to outlaw.They are countering the Republican Party’s expansive and formidable outside spending network this fall with a smaller but more tightly knit alliance of groups that share donors, closely coordinate their advertising and hit harder than their conservative counterparts.
American Thinker: Obama Unwittingly Makes Best Case Against Political Speech Laws
By Mark J. FitzgibbonsFor years campaign finance, election and tax-exemption laws have operated and been enforced under the logic-defying notion that it is possible to comply with the First Amendment while suppressing communications about candidates, especially incumbents who have a record of policy votes.Thursday Obama spoke the truth. Elections are about policy. For federal or state laws to limit or deny the right to communicate about incumbents however those laws are parsed is, ipso facto, to violate the First Amendment.
CPI: Controversial Republican telemarketer forms super PAC
By Dave LevinthalA conservative telemarketer accused of flouting federal election laws — and spamming legions of people with unsolicited anti-Barack Obama text messages — has created a new super PAC.Gabriel S. Joseph III registered an Alexandria, Virginia-based super PAC known as The Survey Group PAC, on Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission, new documents show.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Wall Street Journal: The Nine Years of DeLay
EditorialWhile Mr. DeLay has been vindicated, he had to spend nearly a decade in legal limbo. In that sense prosecutors succeeded in their political goal, and the shame is that they will suffer no negative consequences for the abuse of the law. We had our own run-ins with Mr. DeLay, whose corrupt aides helped the GOP lose Congress in 2006, but he deserved better than this Texas prosecutorial abuse.
Wisconsin
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Do gag orders in John Doe violate First Amendment rights?
By Robert E. DrechselJudge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals raised the “gag order” issue last month during oral arguments in a case in which the court ultimately stopped federal Judge Rudolph Randa’s intervention in the John Doe but upheld his decision to keep certain documents sealed.“It does seem to me that an order saying you can’t talk about your own involvement is a classic gag order and probably unconstitutional per se,” Easterbrook observed while questioning Joseph Russell, the attorney representing special prosecutor Francis Schmitz. In fact, he added, such an order would seem to be “screamingly unconstitutional” and the “kind of thing the Supreme Court has reversed in one-paragraph summary opinions.”The appeals court’s decision did not address the gag order, since it was not being challenged. But what if it had been challenged? Would it violate the First Amendment rights of those subject to it? There is good reason to believe the answer would be yes.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Roll Call: Grimes Campaign Used Vehicles Owned By Family Business
By Niels LesniewskiA tour bus that roiled Kentucky’s Senate race in August may have been parked after suggestions of impropriety, but smaller vehicles owned by companies associated with Alison Lundergan Grimes’ father have remained on the road for campaign purposes.Vehicles registered to entities owned by Jerry Lundergan, the former Kentucky Democratic Party chairman, have been spotted at campaign events. The vans sport familiar Grimes logos and signage, like this Black Chevrolet Suburban spotted in a recent parade in Greensburg, Ky.At issue is whether the campaign is renting the vehicles. This isn’t the first time questions about the Democrat’s use of vehicles have surfaced, and state Republicans have seized on the earlier case, alleging an illegal in-kind corporate contribution.
State and Local
Pennsylvania –– Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Pittsburgh’s campaign finance law called flawed
By Chris PotterBill Peduto campaigned as a reformer during last year’s mayoral contest, touting legislative achievements that included a 2009 campaign finance ordinance. But even as he raced to victory, it became clear the ordinance needed some reform itself.One of its key enforcement mechanisms is defunct. Other provisions are contradictory: In an apparent oversight, the ordinance omits mayoral and city controller races from the definition of races it covers. During a campaign-season court battle, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James urged that it be amended “between now and the next election.”
