In the News
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Hawley’s declarations of independence riling up his party’s right wing
By Chuck Raasch
Hawley has drawn support from some conservatives who believe Big Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter favor liberals in how they police political speech.
But other conservatives worry that the first-term senator is moving toward government intrusion in ways Hawley has not contemplated…
Hawley has raised red flags for some conservatives when he suggests he’d like to revisit Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act…
Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Ballwin, ran into opposition from Big Tech and First Amendment advocates when she led passage of legislation tweaking Section 230 that gives the government more power to go after sex traffickers who advertise on the internet. She argued her law was aimed at illegal acts, not speech or commerce, but it’s now being challenged in federal court…
[Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel for NetChoice] warned of “myriad dangers in turning anti-trust, which is an objective tool, into a subjective instrument to go after political rivals.”
Some conservatives point out that the biggest media platforms are facing more competition from companies like Redditt and SnapChat, and that Facebook and Google themselves arose in competition with earlier generation platforms MySpace and Yahoo.
David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, said that “we definitely get concerned” when conservatives push government responses over free-market competition.
“If (former President Barack) Obama was indicating he wanted to investigate certain conservative platforms, my guess is Sen. Hawley and others would be concerned about that,” Keating said.
Supreme Court
Slate: Elena Kagan Asked for Proof that Gerrymandering Harms Both Political Parties. Here It Is.
By Nicholas Stephanopoulos
What injury does partisan gerrymandering cause? Until last year’s Supreme Court decision in Gill v. Whitford, almost everybody would have given the same answer. Gerrymandering harms parties by costing them seats they would have won if the district lines hadn’t been manipulated.
In her impressive concurrence in Whitford, though, Justice Elena Kagan offered a necessary and expanded accounting of the damage it wreaks. In this view, the problem with gerrymandering isn’t just that it costs parties seats but also that it impedes their associational activities. As Kagan put it, “members of the disfavored party,” having been “deprived of their natural political strength by a partisan gerrymander,” may “face difficulties fundraising, registering voters, attracting volunteers, generating support from independents, and recruiting candidates to run for office.” All of these party functions are protected by the First Amendment because they involve the right of association…
To come closer to establishing a causal link, political scientist Chris Warshaw and I first assembled a data set of gerrymandering…
In a nutshell, we found that Kagan was right…
These results should be helpful to the plaintiffs currently pursuing associational claims around the country…
Our findings should also be of interest to the Supreme Court as it prepares to hear two more gerrymandering cases next month. The plaintiffs in Whitford didn’t allege associational burdens… The litigants in the pending Maryland and North Carolina suits have raised associational claims. The lower courts in these cases have also ruled in favor of the claims, holding that the district maps are unconstitutional because they breach the First Amendment right of association.
Congress
People United for Privacy: Statement on H.R. 1 from Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen (Video via YouTube)
“To exercise our free speech rights meaningfully and in order to advocate effectively for causes we support, we must be able to amplify our individual voices by working together with like-minded Americans in associations and organizations. Individuals must be able to join and support such groups without having their names and other private information disclosed, to avoid potential retaliation from others who disagree with some of the groups’ work. The Supreme Court unanimously recognized these crucial First Amendment rights in a landmark 1968 case protecting the right to join and support the NAACP anonymously. Just as these First Amendment rights were essential for the NAACP’s effective advocacy – indeed, even for its ongoing existence – these rights remain essential today for the ongoing advocacy of civil society groups across the ideological spectrum. However, provisions in the ‘DISCLOSE Act’ (Title IV, Subtitle B) section of H.R. 1 would force nonprofit groups to publicly identify certain donors and members. This would deter individuals from exercising their First Amendment rights, thus not only undermining their freedom and democratic participation, but also undermining the vibrancy and diversity of civic groups and public discourse.”
USA Today: Alyssa Milano: Democratic anti-corruption bill is a power grab in Congress – for the people
By Alyssa Milano
With the help of good government groups such as End Citizens United, which encourages candidates to run on a platform of fighting corruption and ending the outsize power of special interests, Democrats took back the House and introduced a transformative piece of legislation that ensures everyone has a voice in our system – no matter the size of their bank account…
I’m fortunate to be able to attend congressional hearings, appear on TV, and be a public advocate for issues I care about. My background gives me a voice that so many in this country don’t have. We’ve got to change that. We can have the government we aspire for, one that works in the best interest of the people it exists to represent. That’s why I support the For the People Act and hope it becomes law.
Norwalk Reflector: Kaptur introduces campaign finance reform bills
By Tom Jackson
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Toledo, introduced three bills to reform the U.S. campaign finance system…
House Joint Resolution 39 is a proposed constitutional amendment which would nullify the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling and give the federal government and the states the power to limit campaign contributions and expenditures, according to a summary from Kaptur’s office…
House Concurrent Resolution 11 expresses the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment in its Buckley v. Valeo ruling that equated campaign spending with free speech…
H.R. 896, the Fairness in Political Advertising Act, would require each TV station to make two free hours of advertising time available in even-numbered years to “qualified” political candidates running for national or statewide office.
USA Today: Michael Cohen’s testimony, if true, confirms Trump’s crimes: Today’s talker
By Paul Seamus Ryan
Americans have had strong reason to believe that President Donald Trump violated federal campaign finance laws on his way to winning the 2016 presidential election – by hiding from voters the fact that he directed hundreds of thousands of dollars of “hush money” payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels to influence the election.
We filed complaints with the Department of Justice last year in January and February alleging these violations. Despite Michael Cohen’s own comment in January 2018 that the “Common Cause complaint is baseless,” the Department of Justice investigated and in August Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign finance crimes (among other crimes)…
On Wednesday, in his testimony before the House Oversight Committee, Cohen for the first time provided details to the American people of precisely how Trump directed and coordinated these hush payments in violation of federal law. Cohen also identified a witness to Trump’s seemingly illegal actions…
In short, Cohen’s testimony on Wednesday, if true, confirmed what we have long suspected: The president orchestrated hush payments in violation of campaign finance laws. Cohen also revealed that Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg witnessed Trump’s illegal activities and could back up Cohen’s claims.
Independent Groups
Washington Free Beacon: Former Clinton Campaign Manager to Head Democratic Super PAC
By Cameron Cawthorne
Robby Mook, who served as the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign in 2016, will be the new president of the House Majority PAC, which works to maintain Democratic control in the House of Representatives.
Mook will run the Democratic super PAC during the 2020 election cycle, the Hill reported Tuesday. During the 2018 cycle, the group spent more than $95 million to elect a new Democratic majority.
Mook, a veteran Democratic operative, is taking over for Alixandria Lapp, who founded the super PAC in 2011 and will stay on as a senior adviser, the Hill reported…
In December, the New York Times published a story in which the newspaper quoted Mook about the role of super PACs during the Democratic primary for president.
“Every Democrat should approach the idea of a super PAC in the primary with caution,” Mook said. “They are a liability as much as a strength.”
Super PACs have become a liability for Democrats, many of whom oppose the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which loosened campaign finance restrictions on unions and corporations. House Democrats like first-term Rep. Gil Cisneros (D., Calif.) have called on Congress to support campaign finance reform.
However, Cisneros’s campaign benefitted from Democratic super PACs, special interest groups, and tens of thousands of dollars from the financial services industry. The House Majority PAC, which is tied to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), spent $2,808,221 against Cisneros’ Republican opponent, Young Kim.
Fundraising
American Prospect: Campaign Reforms May Never Pass, But the Low-Dollar Revolution Has Already Begun
By Eliza Newlin Carney
A sweeping anti-corruption bill marching toward approval in the House is not expected to make it past the Senate, but Democrats may not need legislation to get at least part of their wish: a small donor revolution that dilutes the power of big money…
In the House, more than three dozen freshman Democrats who swore of corporate PAC contributions on the campaign trail are also test-driving a new “subscription” model of fundraising built around small, recurring, monthly donations.
New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has likened the monthly, low-dollar gifts that make up the bulk of her campaign receipts to “Netflix, but for unbought members of Congress.”…
Democrats’ quest for the high road also invite accusations of hypocrisy, given that big money has a way of finding its way into campaigns. Warren’s no-fundraiser pledge appears to extend only to the primary-not the general election. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has said he doesn’t want a big-money super PAC to support his candidacy, but wealthy Democratic operative Steve Phillips is starting a pro-Booker super PAC anyway. No-corporate PAC pledges are largely symbolic, given that candidates tend to collect relatively little from corporate PACs in any case…
Now Republicans have set out to create their own low-dollar fundraising platform to compete with ActBlue, dubbed Patriot Pass-even as they decry public matching funds to boost small contributions as “welfare for politicians.” …
[T]he growing number of average Americans joining the donor pool raises the intriguing possibility that culture shifts could change the face of fundraising-even if HR 1 never becomes law.
The States
Billings Gazette: Montana bill requiring media to identify owners is tabled
By Associated Press
A Montana legislative committee has tabled a bill that sought to require media outlets owned by out-of-state corporations to prominently identify their owners and headquarters on the front of their publications and on online content.
The House State Administration committee voted 18-2 Wednesday to table the bill. That means it is likely dead for the session, unless a vote is held to bring it back for consideration.
The Montana Newspaper Association and the Montana Broadcasters Association spoke against the bill Monday, citing First Amendment concerns.
Republican Rep. Joe Read said he introduced the bill, in part, after reading stories that a broadcast ownership group required local television stations to read statements or air certain content. He questioned whether newspaper ownership groups would someday require the same of local newspapers.
Oregon Public Broadcasting: Brown Enjoys Post-Election Donation Boom – While Pushing Campaign Finance Limits
By Jeff Mapes
When Gov. Kate Brown appeared before a legislative committee last month to push for new limits on big money in politics, large checks from donors were continuing to flow into her own campaign fund.
Although Brown was just re-elected to a four-year term and can’t run for governor again, she continues to add to her campaign war chest..
Brown has urged legislators to adopt strict limits on political donations in Oregon this session, and she approvingly cited the Washington law that puts a $2,000 limit on donations to gubernatorial candidates. However, more than four-fifths of her post-election donations have exceeded that.
Oregon is currently one of a handful of states with no limits, and Thomas Wheatley, a Brown political adviser, defended the governor’s fundraising.
“She always says she plays by the rules as they are,” Wheatley said, “and works to change them in the long run.”
Wheatley said Brown wants to have the resources to “communicate directly with the public” on her legislative agenda. And she could potentially weigh in on ballot measure campaigns if some of her priority issues end up on the ballot…
Patrick Starnes was the Independent Party of Oregon candidate for governor last year before dropping out of the race in the last few days to endorse Brown. He cited her call for campaign finance reform, and he is now regularly visiting the Capitol to lobby legislators on the issue…
Starnes said he hopes Brown uses some of the money on a proposed ballot measure to change the Oregon Constitution to make it clear the state can limit campaign donations.
It would be “ironic justice,” he said, if the governor ends up “raising big money to get rid of big money.”
