In the News
NewsCenter1 TV (Rapid City, SD): Judge strikes down new law banning out-of-state contributions to ballot campaigns
By Delainey LaHood
A federal judge has ruled that a new law banning out-of-state contributions to South Dakota’s ballot campaigns is unconstitutional.
South Dakotans voted the measure, IM 24, into law in November. It was going to take effect July 1, and would have prevented individuals and groups from making contributions to organizations working to get issues on the state ballot.
U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled on Thursday that the new law violates First Amendment rights, concluding that IM 24 violates “rights to engage in political speech and to associate with others to fund political speech.”
[Ed. Note: Learn more here.]
The Courts
Rewire.News: Immigrant Activists Fight Their Deportations With Free Speech Lawsuits
By Renée Feltz
When [Maru Mora-Villalpando] received her first “notice to appear” on December 20, 2017, ICE records noted her “extensive involvement in anti-ICE protests and Latino advocacy programs” and that she had “become a public figure.” …
Mora-Villalpando and other immigrant leaders nationwide are turning to the federal court system to argue ICE violated the First Amendment when it targeted them for deportation based on their activism…
[Ravi Ragbir, head of the immigrant-led New Sanctuary Coalition of New York] scored a major victory on April 25, when the U.S. Second Circuit Court ruled federal courts had jurisdiction to consider his free speech claim…
“Ragbir’s speech implicates the highest protection of the First Amendment,” the court’s majority wrote. “He adduced plausible-indeed, strong-evidence that officials responsible for the decision to deport him did so based on their disfavor of Ragbir’s speech (and its prominence).” …
In Vermont, another key case filed in 2018 by immigrant and civil liberties advocates argues ICE unlawfully surveilled, harassed, arrested, and detained leading members of the farmworker organizing group Migrant Justice.
“Migrant Justice has loudly and publicly criticized” ICE, the complaint reads. “ICE has retaliated, and continues to retaliate, by disrupting Plaintiff’s advocacy and infringing on their First Amendment rights.” …
Migrant Justice and four named members of the group allege ICE violated their right to privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, forced the group to divert resources to their defense, and made people afraid to associate with them…
“To allow this retaliatory conduct to proceed would broadly chill protected speech, among not only activists subject to final orders of deportation,” the Second Circuit wrote in Ragbir’s case last month, “but also those citizens and other residents who would fear retaliation against others.”
Congress
Politico: Dems plan slice-and-dice strategy to pressure McConnell
By Sarah Ferris
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is eyeing a new strategy that would take the caucus’ signature achievement this year – a sprawling elections and government transparency bill – and break it into bite-size pieces with fresh votes on the floor, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.
The move is intended to pressure Senate Republicans into taking up House bills and underscores a desire by Democratic leadership to spotlight all the legislation that has languished on the other side of the Capitol.
“Since Senator McConnell refuses to take up H.R. 1, I am prepared to bring to the Floor and pass individual bills to address the reforms included in the For the People Act,” Hoyer said in a statement to POLITICO.
The package, which passed on a party-line vote in March, is expected to be sliced into separate pieces in the coming weeks on election security, voting rights and campaign finance…
In reality, the approach has little chance of changing McConnell’s mind. The Kentucky Republican has already rejected a wide range of ideas in H.R. 1 – like overhauling the Federal Election Commission and tightening restrictions for political ads.
Los Angeles Times: Amy Klobuchar: How to protect U.S. elections from foreign interference
By Senator Amy Klobuchar
The bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which I introduced [last] week with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), would shine a light on the dark money being used to buy online political ads.
The goal is simple: to bring our laws into the 21st century to ensure voters know who is paying to influence our political system.
The legislation would achieve this by amending existing laws that now apply to political ads sold in print and on TV and radio, and extend their reach to online political advertising.
The Honest Ads Act would require digital platforms with at least 50 million monthly viewers – which includes major tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter – to maintain a public file of political ads sold on their platform by a person or group who spends more than $500 on political ads in a year. The file would contain a digital copy of the advertisement and key information about who paid for the ad and who the ad was designed to target.
The bill would also require online platforms to do a better job when it comes to making sure that foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political advertisements in order to influence the American electorate.
FEC
Boston Globe: Evidence of illegal campaign donations by Boston’s Thornton law firm found, case dismissed anyway
By Andrea Estes
FEC staff lawyers found extensive evidence that Thornton, a major supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, illegally reimbursed partners for more than a million dollars in donations, according to their 33-page report on the case.
But the commission itself voted 2 to 2 along party lines – a tie vote, which dismisses the complaint instead of opening a full-scale investigation. The decision was released Friday.
Now, the group that filed the complaint against Thornton, the Campaign Legal Center, is considering pursuing the matter in federal court…
The Globe and the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics revealed Thornton’s internal bonus system in October 2016, noting that top attorneys at the firm frequently received “bonus” checks that exactly matched their political donations…
FEC chairwoman Ellen L. Weintraub called the matter “sadly, one of a long list of cases where the commission has been unable to enforce the laws because of a split vote, over the objections of our office of general counsel.”
“In every case, it doesn’t matter whether Democrats or Republicans are subject of the complaint, the Democrats want to enforce the law and the Republicans don’t. It’s an ideological opposition to enforcing the law,” she told the Globe.
She said the Campaign Legal Center can sue the agency and ask a judge to find the decision contrary to law. However, she added, “I don’t think it’s a good situation when we have to rely on private citizens to sue us to enforce the law. I’m not real happy about it.”
Trump Administration
Washington Post: White House escalates war against Facebook, Google and Twitter with a campaign asking users to share stories of censorship
By Tony Romm
The effort, which the White House said on Twitter was directed at users “no matter your views,” seeks to collect names, contact information and other details from Americans. The survey asks whether they have encountered problems on Facebook, Instagram, Google-owned YouTube, Twitter or other social media sites – companies the president frequently takes aim at for alleged political censorship…
The White House also asked users for permission to send new email newsletters about “President Trump’s fight for free speech,” …
But the White House’s salvo comes the same day that it opted against supporting an international campaign to crack down on hate speech and other forms of online extremism. The Trump administration did not endorse the Christchurch call – named after a city in New Zealand where an attacker inspired by online hate killed 51 people – saying the symbolic pact conflicted with the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech…
The survey immediately triggered widespread criticism. Free-speech advocates feared the White House might try to restrict online speech, while consumer protection groups questioned if the president’s threats might deter Silicon Valley companies from policing their platforms as they sought to skirt allegations of political bias…
Trump has grown especially critical of Silicon Valley in recent weeks, after Facebook this month announced it had banned some far-right leaders, including users affiliated with the conspiracy theory website Infowars, out of concern they had become “dangerous.” The president took to Twitter to air his grievances, promising to “monitor” the industry for its “censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS.”
Fundraising
Roll Call: Grasswho? Members raised hundreds of thousands, almost none from small donors
By Chris Cioffi
[S]ome Democrats and Republicans who raised more than $100,000 during the first quarter got less than $400 of it from donors giving $200 or less.
For example, just $185 of the roughly $652,000 that House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer raised for his re-election fund from January through March came from unitemized contributions…
Not all candidates decide to focus a campaign message that reaches out to grassroots supporters and small donors because it can be challenging and expensive, according to Democratic campaign consultant Michael J. Fraioli.
“Candidates have to invest heavily on the front end to build up the digital or low-donor fundraising efforts,” he said…
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has sent a series of press releases criticizing the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “small dollar donor struggles,” and touting its candidates’ ability to raise money from the grassroots.
Having a large number of unitemized contributions can signal outreach to small donors and at least some grassroots support, said Rick Hasen, a University of California, Irvine professor and an expert in election and campaign finance law.
Hasen downplayed the importance of the small donation indicator, saying he doesn’t think “it shows all that much.”
“It is not surprising that safer incumbents might feel less of a need for this kind of outreach for their individual campaigns,” he said in an email. “Some of these might help fundraise for those small donors via DCCC or other organizations.”
DOJ
The Hill: Jim Comey’s own words justify Bill Barr’s review
By Kevin R. Brock
Barr’s tasking of U.S. Attorney John Durham to review the “origins” of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign becomes the third examination of Comey and his special team, joining efforts by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Huber.
This is an entirely appropriate response to the fearful possibility that the FBI was misused by its past leadership for political purposes.
AG Barr understands well that the FBI is dead as an agency – undeserving of the nation’s trust – if it is commonly perceived to be a weapon for political vagaries rather than an impartial, objective enforcer of the rule of law so vital to the survival of democratic governance.
These three initiatives will either validate Comey’s claim that everything he and his team did was “by the book” or they will expose grievous abuses that will invite reforms to ensure this never happens again…
Conducting any investigation – as Comey did – out of FBI headquarters, let alone the Director’s Office, is not by the book. It is so outside “the book” that current FBI Director Christopher Wray is implementing policy, according to reliable internal sources, that restores investigations exclusively to the field offices and prohibits headquarters – where the FBI most closely intersects with the flame of political D.C. – from ever conducting investigations again. Prudent, and good news for the country.
Comey said that running confidential human sources and undercover operatives is normal activity. It is, but under tight restrictions. Targeting U.S. citizens working for a presidential campaign with confidential sources, non-FBI undercover investigators, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) electronic surveillance, is not normal. It’s never been done before. There is no “book” for it.
The States
Portland Tribune: Campaign finance advocates want top court to hear Portland case
By Nick Budnick
In 2018, Portland City Council candidate Chloe Eudaly beat incumbent Steve Novick handily, even though he outspent her by a factor of 6-1 – proving that limiting contributions won’t hurt candidates’ free-speech rights to educate voters about issues of concern.
That, at least, is the moral of the story as told by advocates hoping to rewrite the rules of how campaigns are financed.
In January the Oregon Supreme Court elbowed aside the Oregon Court of Appeals to hear arguments over Multnomah County’s campaign finance reform ordinance approved by voters in 2016 – sending a ripple of hope through advocates seeking to limit the influence of money in politics.
Now, in addition to arguing the county case, advocates for limits plan to ask the court to simultaneously consider another case involving a similar, but more detailed, measure approved by city of Portland voters in 2018. Justices would then receive input in the form of sworn affidavits submitted in support of that measure from past Portland city candidates like Eudaly, Jo Ann Hardesty and Jefferson Smith.
The city measure was heard last week in Multnomah Circuit Court, and Judge Eric Bloch vowed to issue a ruling – one that could be considered by the Supreme Court – in 30 days. Campaign finance advocates hope that the somewhat improved city measure will overcome concerns that the county version lacked specificity in some areas.
Boston Globe: Regulators slash the dollar amount unions can donate to candidates in Mass.
By Matt Stout
Currently, labor unions can give up to $15,000 annually to a single candidate. The new regulations, effective May 31, cut that limit to $1,000 while capping donations to political action committees at $500 and to a political party’s own committee at $5,000…
Unions are still bound by a $15,000 aggregate limit – meaning they could theoretically give 15 candidates $1,000 each. But if a union goes above that $15,000 limit, it must register as a political action committee. Once organized as a PAC, it would be capped at giving $500 a year to each candidate.
Under the current rules, unions that exceed the threshold are subject to the same limitations, but are not required to register as PACs.
The new regulations also ease some restrictions.
Currently, any independent expenditures or donations a union makes to a super PAC count toward the $15,000 threshold…
But the campaign finance office says it is lifting that rule, meaning unions will be free to give as much as they want to super PACs, as well as to ballot-question committees, without running up against the aggregate limit and the new requirement that they register as PACs.
Derided by critics as a loophole for unions, the $15,000 cap survived a challenge before the Supreme Judicial Court in September, when the justices upheld the longstanding ban on direct corporate gifts. But even then, the court implied – in a footnote – that the campaign finance office should review the regulation about the cap.
Austin Monitor: Ethics commission finds Prop J PAC violated campaign finance laws
By Jessi Devenyns
The case, which came before the commission in March, was filed by Fred Lewis, who alleged that the PAC made the late filing intentionally and thereby deprived thousands of voters of knowledge about the campaign’s funding sources…
While the PAC freely admitted at the preliminary meeting that a violation had occurred, members maintained it was unintentional. “I misread the instructions … I don’t want it to be characterized that we didn’t care about the law,” said mayoral aide John-Michael Cortez…
Lewis asked the commission to prosecute as a class C misdemeanor…
Cary Ferchill, an attorney and chair of the Electric Utility Commission, explained that the PAC was a volunteer campaign and that none of the three witnesses – Cortez, campaign treasurer Angela De Hoyos Hart and political consultant Mark Yznaga – were campaign finance lawyers. He said the misfiling of the donation was a simple mistake. “Just because the other side is not happy and feels aggrieved doesn’t mean that these people are criminals,” he said…
According to city campaign finance laws adopted in 2016, disclosure of contributions must be made within two business days of a campaign expenditure of $500. The $10,000 donation was first disclosed on a Texas state campaign finance filing eight days after it was received on Oct. 22.
Cortez maintained that the misfiling boiled down to an error in the interpretation of the city’s instructions. “Although it was confusing, I thought I was reporting correctly,” he said…
[T]he commission voted 7-1 not to prosecute the case criminally but to issue a letter of reprimand to the PAC…
Ferchill called the case “simply political payback.”
