In the News
Weekly Standard: The Disclosure Police Target Walmart
By Michael Warren
Shareholder proposals like the one before Walmart aren’t intended simply to create transparency. The goal is to snuff out corporate political spending completely—to candidates, campaigns, and especially civic and trade organizations that engage in political activity. That’s the argument in a new paper from the Center for Competitive Politics, a think tank founded by a former commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission that says it works to “promote and defend First Amendment rights to free political speech, assembly and petition.”
The CCP’s paper highlights a focused campaign by an alliance of activists, progressive lawyers, labor unions, socially- and environmentally-conscious investment funds, and left-wing media to push corporations to disclose their political spending and, ultimately, abandon all or most of that spending entirely. Take it from one of the activists himself. During an online seminar with like-minded activists earlier this year, Tim Smith of Walden Asset Management pointed out how efforts to get more disclosure from companies has encouraged those companies to drop their support for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which advocates for pro-business and conservative causes. Here’s Smith:
Of the companies receiving lobbying proposals, 22 of those companies have a reference in their resolution to the companies’ involvement with ALEC. ALEC has most notably, recently teamed up with the Heartland Institute, a climate denying group, to call for a cessation of work done at the state level to support renewable energy. And as a result, there has been a strong pushback by investors for companies that are supporters of ALEC. It is my pleasure to report that over 80 companies have withdrawn, cut their ties, no more funding to ALEC—very prominent companies all the way from WalMart to GlaxoSmithKline. So that pressure will continue on companies that are supporters of ALEC. So the lobbying and political spending resolutions go from general disclosure all the way to some very specific asks for companies to dig deep and look at what their trade association, or relations to groups like ALEC mean.
NY Post: Schumer’s IRS
Editorial
Up to now, the press has not regarded the clear and deliberate IRS targeting of conservative organizations as a scandal, because it’s found no evidence it was ordered by the White House.
If the Center for Competitive Politics is right, maybe the media should start looking at the Senate.
Kansas City InfoZine: Change to Constitution Would Allow Campaign Finance Laws
By Sekia Mangum
“The Constitution is a sacred document that has guided this country well for centuries.” Sen. Richard J. Durban, D-Ill., said in support of the amendment. “I think this change is a great exception.”
In a statement handed out at the hearing, the Center for Competitive Politics opposed making any changes. It said the proposed amendment would grant “unlimited and frightening” powers to Congress. The group supported the Citizens United case and opposed the McCain-Feingold act that had regulated campaign finance laws.
“Once again, we see that politicians’ fidelity to the First Amendment appears to come second to getting re-elected,” the statement says.
Politico Influence: 6/5: CCP: ACTIVISTS USING TRANSPARENCY TO HURT CORPORATIONS
The Center for Competitive Politics has a new white paper on the threats that corporations face from transparency activists: “A cadre of unions, public pension funds and activist investors are pursuing actions that would selectively burden American public companies from exercising their First Amendment rights to participate in public dialogue.” Read the report here: http://bit.ly/1j2xDrU
CCP
New report unveils effort to censor corporate speech
Alexandria, VA – The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) today released a white paper entitled, “Silencing Business: How Activists Are Trying to Hijack the Public Policy Debate.” The paper explains the ulterior motives of shareholder activists, unions pensions funds, and liberal leaning policy groups who are using the guise of disclosure to remove corporations from the public policy conversation.
“A cadre of unions, public pension funds, and activist investors are pursuing actions to selectively burden American public companies from exercising their First Amendment rights to participate in public dialogue.” This white paper discusses the groups and strategy behind efforts to impose new, extensive disclosure burdens solely on public companies and to silence the business community in public discussion.
Bradley Smith, Former Federal Election Commission Chair and Chairman of the CCP says, “It is really eye-opening to see the level of coordination of these groups, their ability to dupe corporate boards, and their relentless attack on the exercise of First Amendment rights through whatever means necessary.”
Quarterbacked by Bruce Feed, Executive Director of the Center for Political Accountability (CPA), activists search for the path of least resistance to achieve their end goal. “Having failed through legislative, judicial, and regulatory means, they now seek executive orders and work through the corporate governance process to demand disclosure and then brow beat companies into silence with that very information,” Mr. Smith said.
Silencing Business: How Activists Are Trying to Hijack the Public Policy Debate
Independent Groups
National Journal: Did a Tea-Party Group Just Illegally Coordinate With Chris McDaniel?
By Shane Goldmacher
The message from Sal Russo, the chief strategist for the Tea Party Express, was breathless. “We just got off the phone with the McDaniel campaign,” Russo wrote in an email to the group’s supporters, “and they need our help!”
The problem: The Tea Party Express is an independent group that is promising to intervene in the Mississippi Republican runoff election between Senate candidate Chris McDaniel and Sen. Thad Cochran. As such, the group is not legally allowed to coordinate strategy with McDaniel, or his campaign.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
CPI: Republicans to target Van Hollen in FEC complaint
By Dave Levinthal
Republican officials will soon file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., that accuses him of illegally accepting pro bono legal services, a senior party officer tells theCenter for Public Integrity.
The pending complaint, which a Van Hollen spokeswoman blasted as a “frivolous action,” will argue that the congressman failed to disclose as campaign contributions free legal help he’s received from several campaign reform groups as part of a federal lawsuit he’s brought against the FEC. The complaint will also call into question the very legality of the pro bono assistance.
Republicans’ rationale for the complaint: Van Hollen has stated in court documents that his political campaign would be directly affected by the outcome of ongoing case Van Hollen v. FEC, which aimed toreveal donors behind certain kinds of political attack ads that secretive nonprofit organizations sponsored. Thus, the free legal aid to affect the outcome of the case should be reported as in-kind campaign contributions.
NY Times: The Anatomy of a Political Direct-Mail Solicitation
By Derek Willis
The envelope is emblazoned with “Dick Morris” and “Stop Hillary Now” and features a picture of Hillary Clinton with the title “Yes, she’s running.” There is little to suggest that it, or the fund-raising solicitation inside, comes from the Republican Party, let alone the Republican Party in the Virgin Islands.
State and Local
Maine –– Bangor Daily News: Maine lifts $25,000 cap on donations that individuals can make to political candidates each year
By Christopher Cousins
AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Ethics Commission has lifted the $25,000 aggregate cap for individuals donating to political campaigns, based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The decision was lauded by Mainers who believe political contributions are a form of free speech and part of the democratic process. It angered those who argue that private money has no place in politics.
New York –– NY Times: A Proud Career That Seemed to Curdle
By Michael Powell
Regulations governing forfeiture funds state that district attorneys should use the money in pursuit of “penal law offenses.” They should not pay salaries. Toss such legal niceties to the side, however. Consider this: The Manhattan district attorney used forfeited assets to start an innovative youth basketball league for teenagers in danger of joining gangs. The Bronx district attorney used the money to pay for confidential informers and interpreters.
Mr. Hynes hired an expensive publicist. Mr. Matz, in one of more than 1,000 emails, noted last year that much of his role was “limited to campaigning.”
It is illegal for an official to use public funds to pay for campaign expenses. (Mr. Hynes’s campaign, which spent lavishly on consultants, did not pay a cent to Mr. Matz, according to records.)
