In the News
Center for Responsive Politics: Democrats are rejecting corporate PACs: Does it mean anything?
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
A large number of those pledging to reject corporate PAC money followed through on their promise. But with Democrats bringing in unprecedented sums from individual donors – and outraising Republicans by a projected $300 million – did they even need PAC money? …
“There are a number of people around the campaign finance world that come to the conclusion that you’re not giving up that much by giving up PACs,” said Dr. Steven Billet, director of the legislative affairs program at George Washington University…
Scott Blackburn, research director at the right-leaning Institute for Free Speech, which advocates deregulating campaign finance rules, called the pledge “nothing more than virtue signaling.”
“Rank-and-file members of Congress do not raise significant sums from corporate PACs, making them very easy to ‘refuse,'” Blackburn said. “This is particularly true since these same members still take donations from other groups, which, in turn, accept corporate PAC donations.”
Among those groups are Leadership PACs, from which the winning no-corporate PAC Democrats took a total of nearly $2.95 million this cycle. The PACs, run by members looking to raise money for their fellow party candidates in order to gain leadership positions, are funded almost entirely by corporate and trade association PACs…
Small sums of less than $10,000 from business PACs could be attributed to an error with CRP or FEC data or could have been refunded but not yet reported by the FEC. Larger sums, such as the $421,142 accepted by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) – who pledged to reject corporate PAC funds midway in July midway through the cycle – are difficult to credit to an error.
Overlawyered: Free speech roundup
By Walter Olson
Eighth Circuit, interpreting Missouri law’s obligation to register as “lobbyist,” leaves open possibility that requirement extends to unpaid lobbyists, also known as concerned citizens [Jason Hancock, Kansas City Star; Institute for Free Speech on Calzone v. Missouri Ethics Commission]
Supreme Court
Election Law Blog: Breaking: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Austin, Texas Low Campaign Contributions Case, Takes No Action on North Carolina Gerrymandering Petition
By Rick Hasen
With no noted dissent, the Supreme Court has turned down a cert. petition in the Zimmerman campaign finance case from Austin Texas. I flagged this case (along with a Montana case that the Court will consider taking up in January) as significant challenges to the existing constitutional structure governing campaign contributions. This is good news for those who support reasonable limits on money in elections.
The Courts
Wall Street Journal: Cohen Gave Significant Help on Russia Probe, Mueller Team Says
By Nicole Hong, Rebecca Davis O’Brien and Rebecca Ballhaus
Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer, has provided significant assistance on Russia-related matters in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, including information about attempts by Russian nationals to reach the Trump campaign, according to a court filing by Mr. Mueller’s office Friday.
In a separate filing, Manhattan federal prosecutors said Mr. Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of” Mr. Trump in arranging two illegal hush-money payments to women who alleged they had sexual encounters with Mr. Trump, the most direct implication yet by the government that the president was involved in committing federal crimes…
Mr. Cohen is set to be sentenced on Wednesday by a federal judge in Manhattan. He pleaded guilty in August to eight counts including campaign-finance violations and tax fraud. Last month, he pleaded guilty to an additional charge brought by Mr. Mueller’s office, admitting that he lied to Congress about Mr. Trump’s involvement in efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow…
The filings provided striking new details showing that Trump associates and the Russian government were in contact far earlier in the 2016 campaign than previously known…
While he has been “forthright and credible,” Manhattan prosecutors said Mr. Cohen has only spoken to them about “the participation of others in the campaign finance crimes to which Mr. Cohen had already pleaded guilty.” …
“The sentence imposed should reflect the seriousness of Cohen’s brazen violations of the election laws and attempt to counter the public cynicism that may arise when individuals like Cohen act as if the political process belongs to the rich and powerful,” prosecutors said.
Washington Post: The government implicates Trump and the Trump campaign in federal campaign finance violations
By Philip Bump
“With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election,” the filing reads. “Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.” …
Lawrence Noble, former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, told The Post, “there is little question Cohen, the campaign and the candidate are liable for the campaign finance violations.”
Noble outlined a slew of violations implied by the new filing: contributions in the name of another, failure to report the contributions, soliciting the illegal contributions, excessive contributions, illegal corporate contributions and acceptance of illegal contributions…
“In this case, you’re dealing with a situation where his lawyer who actually admits to doing the transactions says that they broke the law and that Trump knew about it,” Noble said. “This is something that very clearly would have to be considered for criminal prosecution” …
Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at University of California at Irvine, warned that criminal charges would be similarly tricky to prove without a doubt, regardless of Cohen’s involvement.
“Cohen’s pleading guilty to campaign finance crimes does not make Trump automatically guilty as well,” Hasen said. “If it ever came to a trial, Trump could claim he intended to keep the payments to mistresses secret for personal, not campaign, reasons, and it would be up to a jury to determine the credibility of such an argument.”
Politico: The legal battle that could undermine law at center of Mueller probe
By Josh Gerstein
[Ravi] Singh is appealing a 2016 federal conviction on charges a Mexican real estate developer secretly footed the bill for a quarter million dollars-worth of digital campaign consulting that Singh provided two San Diego mayoral candidates.
The source of the funds for Singh’s campaign work, businessman Jose Azano, has homes in San Diego and Miami and spent much of his time in the U.S., but is not an American citizen or green card holder…
“Congress’s effort to trample on the states’ ability to structure their political processes as they see fit violates the Tenth Amendment,” Singh attorneys Harold Krent and Todd Burns wrote in a recent brief.
Singh’s defense team notes that enforcing a ban on foreigners donating to virtually any U.S. electoral campaign has had some bizarre results. For instance, various localities including Takoma Park, Maryland, San Francisco and Chicago allow non-citizens to vote in local elections of some sort. However, under the broad federal ban, it is illegal for at least some of those foreigners to donate to candidates in those same races…
“We’ve forgotten the last 100 or more years of our history – how foreign nationals participated so actively in the life of our country. … That’s a very important tradition,” Krent, dean of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, told POLITICO. “Most states, some even in their constitutions, permitted foreign nationals to vote. It’s a lot richer history than I was aware.” …
One reason not to dismiss Singh’s appeal out of hand: The judge who oversaw the trial turned down Singh’s request to put off his 15-month prison sentence while his appeal went forward, but a pair of 9th Circuit appeals judges took the unusual step of reversing that decision and letting the consultant stay out on bail. They said Singh’s defense was raising a “substantial question,” but they didn’t elaborate on whether that was the argument about the foreign national ban or one of several other issues in the case.
Washington Post: Alleged Russian agent Maria Butina poised to plead guilty in case involving suspected Kremlin attempts to influence NRA
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Spencer S. Hsu
Maria Butina, a Russian gun rights activist, is poised to plead guilty in a case involving accusations that she was working as an agent for the Kremlin in the United States, according to a new court filing.
Attorneys for Butina and federal prosecutors jointly requested in court documents Monday that U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan set a time for Butina to withdraw her previous plea of not guilty. They said they could be available for her to enter her plea as early as Tuesday.
“The parties have resolved this matter,” Butina’s lawyers and D.C.-based prosecutors wrote in their joint filing.
A plea is not final until it is entered in court and accepted by a judge. Monday’s filing did not indicate to what charge she will plead.
Butina was accused of working to push the Kremlin’s agenda by forming bonds with National Rifle Association officials and other conservative leaders and making outreach to 2016 presidential candidates…
Her lawyers had said her interactions with the NRA and others were typical of an ambitious student anxious to network and eager to build better relations between the United States and her country. They had at one point argued her outreach should be covered by constitutional protections for free speech and noted that she was not accused of attempting to steal U.S. secrets or working with Russian intelligence.
But prosecutors said her goal was to advance the foreign policy aims of the Kremlin and that she was acting at the direction of a Russian government official, Alexander Torshin, a former senator who now serves as deputy director of the Russian central bank.
Congress
By Fred Wertheimer
The coming legislation, already known as H.R. 1, involves a holistic approach – covering campaign finance, voting rights and government ethics reforms. One essential feature is a new way to finance campaigns that would combat big money’s corrupting influence in American politics.
Wealthy donors and special interests now drown elections in an ocean of influence-seeking and dark money. We can greatly diminish their corrupting influence on government decisions by flooding elections with small contributions, bolstered by robust public matching funds.
The Democrats’ bill would do this by creating a system in which small contributions to candidates, up to $200 per donor, are matched with public funds at a 6 to 1 ratio. In return, candidates who participate would agree to a substantially lower contribution limit than the current one.
Without setting up an alternative means for candidates to finance their campaigns, there is no way to end Washington corruption. No way to un-rig the system…
The effort to revitalize our political system and overcome our corrupt campaign finance system is expected to take place over the next three to five years. Remember that the last major campaign reform legislation, enacted in 2002 and known as McCain-Feingold, took five years to become law…
This is a fight that must be won to end the corrupt, rigged system in Washington – and protect the integrity and health of our democracy.
In January, Pelosi and House Democrats will begin the first chapter of this historic battle.
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal: Facebook Censors at Random
By Daniel Gallant
In response to public scrutiny stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal this year, Facebook has implemented enforcement measures aimed at improving election security and discouraging anonymous political messages. These measures have been poorly executed and inconsistently applied. They unfairly burden charitable organizations and small businesses, yet are easy for organized or well-funded actors to circumvent…
Representatives of charities are often reluctant to register as political advertisers on Facebook because of privacy concerns. Facebook requires users to disclose significant personal information before promoting posts about politics or national issues. To be authorized to run such advertisements on behalf of my nonprofit organization, I would have to send Facebook my residential address, my Social Security number, and a photo of myself holding my passport or driver’s license. I’m loath to entrust any entity with all of that sensitive information…
But suppose I did submit those items and was therefore allowed to promote political content. If I subsequently broke the rules, Facebook wouldn’t necessarily hold the nonprofit I represent responsible. Under Facebook’s policies, the person who operates an ad account is accountable for any ads placed by that account…
A well-resourced advertiser with nefarious intent could simply hire a patsy (or use fake credentials) to pass Facebook’s screening process and establish a nominal presence at an American address…
In the name of election security, Facebook has implemented an opaque and shape-shifting definition of “issues of national importance” and an intrusive vetting process that is poorly enforced. These don’t protect users or the American public.
Political Parties
Politico: LinkedIn co-founder backs $35 million voter data project in ‘existential threat’ to Democratic Party
By Alex Thompson
Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman has teamed up with several former Obama administration officials to create an independent – and likely for-profit – database that would store all of the progressive community’s voter data, according to three sources familiar with the initiative.
The project’s backers intend to spend $35 million in the first year alone, with Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn, as the primary investor…
Hoffman’s venture complicates plans for a separate data trust project being pushed by the Democratic National Committee, plans for which POLITICO first revealed last week. That effort is facing resistance from the Democratic state parties, which have prime ownership rights to the party’s voter file and are hesitant about licensing it to an outside entity.
The DNC’s top leaders have been telling people that Hoffman’s project represents an “existential threat” to the party, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions.
With tens of millions of dollars at their disposal, the people behind Hoffman-backed project could eventually create their own voter file, making the Democratic Party’s file less valuable. That process, however, would likely take several years and would be nearly impossible to complete by the 2020 election.
As a result, DNC officials say the committee is open to collaborating with Hoffman, or perhaps joining forces with him…
The data trust structure allows for raising money from the private sector free from campaign finance limits. It would also facilitate pooling together data from outside groups and campaigns in real time, which is normally not allowed. The Republican Party currently has that structure and many top Democrats believe it offers a huge advantage.
Disclosure
Washington Post: Super PACs that spent millions in final weeks of midterms did not disclose donors until after election
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Anu Narayanswamy
A mysterious Texas-based super PAC that received $2.3 million from undisclosed donors to run last-minute ads in support of Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke was funded by the Senate Democrat-aligned Senate Majority PAC, according to new federal election filings made public Thursday evening.
SMP donated the money to the super PAC, Texas Forever, in a way that circumvented federal election deadlines that trigger donor disclosure – an increasingly common tactic employed by both Democrats and Republicans that, while legal, critics say violate the spirit of disclosure requirements…
Texas Forever is one of more than a dozen super PACs that emerged last-minute or ran ads for or against campaigns without disclosing their donors until a month after the election, new filings show. Some of these super PACs were tied to well-known national groups, but others were funded by just a handful of wealthy donors.
Michael Toner, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said super PACs from both parties are taking advantage of a “critical hole in the disclosure regime” for super PACs.
“The general rule is that contributions received by super PACs and expenditures made by super PACs are publicly disclosed, and I think there’s broad consensus on the appropriateness of that,” Toner said. “The value of disclosure after Election Day is not nearly as pertinent as it is before Election Day.”
Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for stricter regulation of money in politics, estimated in a new report that such super PACs spent upward of $29 million in the final weeks of the 2018 election without disclosing their donors or reporting the full extent of their spending before Election Day.
The States
New York Times: The Corporate Donors Behind a Republican Power Grab
By David Leonhardt
The sums here may not be enormous. But neither are the budgets for local campaigns. Even more important is the message that Walgreens is sending to politicians: We don’t care if you undermine democracy, so long as we get to keep our tax break.
“It would be healthier for companies to spend a little more time thinking about the meaning of these donations,” as Judd Legum, author of the political newsletter Popular Information, told me. “Right now, it’s all transactional.” In recent months, Legum’s reporting has caused Facebook, Google, Walmart, Major League Baseball and others to ask for the return of donations to politicians whose values the companies were not comfortable defending.
So far, Walgreens has not been willing to do the same in Wisconsin. I asked the company last week what it thought about the recent events in Wisconsin, and it ducked the question. But Phil Caruso, a Walgreens spokesman, told me the company was “in the process of evaluating” the situation.
The silence of major companies is disappointing because they could actually make a difference. Republican politicians care about the opinions of their corporate backers.
If corporate America refuses to speak up, these attacks on democracy will become more common.
