In the News
National Review: Udall’s Futile Fight against Free Speech
By Luke WachobUdall-amendment supporters might actually be banking on the fact that the amendment won’t pass. Its vague language allows them to say whatever they want about it while casting its opponents as having been “bought” by “big money,” a highly useful political tactic during a heated election season. But would senators really fabricate a crisis of “dark money” and propose to amend the First Amendment merely to attract a few headlines and scare a few campaign donations out of their constituents? Even in politics, it’s hard to believe people could act so cynically.Well, believe it. In Politico, Byron Tau explained that the amendment is, “in part, meant to support Democratic talking points on the Koch brothers and big money spending.” Kapur says it is “part of Democrats’ election-year strategy in 2014.”The amendment was never designed to succeed. Its sponsors simply want to cash in on the ever-popular rhetoric of being for “the people” and against the “special interests,” whatever that means. But this goes far beyond politics as usual. To risk tampering with the First Amendment and weakening protections for free speech just to score political points in the run-up to an election is a frightening strategy and one that could lead to other measures that could impose real damage to First Amendment speech freedoms.
USA Today: Campaign donor secrecy stops retaliation: Opposing view
By Eric WangEmotions roil many of our major public policy debates today. Not long ago, a potential contributor to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, might have thought twice had the law required donor disclosure.Today, it is donors to groups opposing gay marriage who have suffered retaliation. Given the emotional controversy over abortion, for example, imagine the outcry if the government forced Planned Parenthood to disclose its donors.Regardless of where you find yourself on such hot-button issues, we should all agree on one thing: We should not be forced to choose between exercising our First Amendment right to support and associate with groups lawfully advocating for social and political change, and fearing the consequences that could befall us if our support for such causes unsettles or provokes those who are inclined to harm us.
CCP
Whether disclosure is forced or banned, regulating politics is a dangerous path
By Brad SmithIn the Washington Post, political science professors Bertram J. Levine and Michael Johnston offer a somewhat unusual proposal for reforming campaign finance disclosure laws: make all contributions anonymous.This proposal first gained widespread attention with a book by Ian Ayres and Bruce Ackerman in 2002, “Voting With Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance.” The suggestion continues to bubble up from time to time and has some appeal. It recognizes that the biggest stated benefit of disclosure – informing the public about who contributes and reducing the possibility for corrupt dealings between politicians and contributors– is also its biggest drawback: it is an officeholder’s knowledge of the sources of contributions that potentially gives the donor leverage to influence the officeholder. And it would seem to solve one major problem with disclosure laws: the invasion of donors’ privacy and the risk of donor harassment. By mandating that contributions be made anonymously, the theory goes, politicians and contributors will be unable to coordinate corrupt deals, and donors will not have their privacy violated or be subjected to threats and intimidation from powerful government officials.It’s admirable to see a proposal that takes seriously the dangers of disclosure by understanding its routine misuse. But in practice, like so many other attempts at campaign finance regulation, this suggestion just raises yet another set of First Amendment and practical concerns.
Amending the First Amendment
Politico: The Democrats’ Assault on Free Speech
By Sen. Mitch McConnellThe proposal they want to consider would empower incumbent politicians to write the rules on who gets to speak and who doesn’t. And while no one likes to be criticized, the way for Senate Democrats to avoid it is to make better arguments, or even better, to come up with better ideas — not shut up their constituents.Not surprisingly, a proposal as bad as the one Senate Democrats are pushing won’t even come close to garnering the votes it would need to pass. But to many Democrats, that’s just the point. They want this proposal to fail because they think that somehow would help them on Election Day — they think it will help drive to the polls more left-wing voters who don’t like having to defend their ideas.If all this seems like an object lesson in why most Americans are so disgusted with Washington right now, that’s because it is. With legislative priorities like this, it’s no wonder a recent Quinnipiac poll found that just 14 percent of respondents say they think the government in Washington can be counted on to do what’s right most or all of the time.
National Review: A Shameful Spectacle at the Public Theater
By Kevin D. WilliamsonA question for our friends at the IRS: Isn’t having Senator Chuck Schumer urging a crowd of thousands to “Vote Democratic!” from the stage at an event hosted by a501(c)(3) nonprofit a pretty clear violation of that group’s tax-exempt status?Not that the IRS would do anything about it.Senator Schumer, who is one of the key figures who urged the IRS to target conservative nonprofits in the run-up to the 2012 election and after, wandered into a scene in a bizarre, illiterate adaptation of William Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale, put on by the Public Theater at Central Park’s Delacorte Theater. (You will be able to read my review of this risible mess in the upcoming edition of The New Criterion.) Unlike those conservative organizations Senator Schumer and the IRS targeted — which, being 501(c)(4) organizations, are expressly permitted to engage in political activity — the Public Theater is expressly barred from campaign activity, being a 501(c)(3).
Town Hall: Democrats offer First Amendment up as sacrifice if it gets their base excited
By Noah RothmanYes, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights has been driving Democrats nuts ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, which would have prohibited the airing of a corporately-financed documentary critical of Hillary Clinton within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, were unconstitutional. The decision paved the way to allow corporations, unions, and other groups to spend unlimited sums on political speech and advocacy. To prohibit such activities would constitute a violation of the First Amendment.Ever since this decision, Democrats have misled their voters into believing that it could be reversed. Liberal lawmakers promise their constituents the world in the form of a constitutional amendment which would limit the political spending of corporations, unions, and other associations. This pipe dream is favored by Democrats, even those who know quite well that the president’s party will not be able to marshal the support of two-thirds of the House or the Senate to pass such an amendment, much less get 38 state legislatures to ratify it.
Independent Groups
Lessig Blog: Wow: Nastygram fromt he Brown campaign
By Laurence LessigSo yes, according to the Senate, Scott Brown isn’t a “lobbyist.” But I submit to anyone else in the world, a former Senator joining a “law and lobbying firm” to help with Wall St’s “business and governmental affairs” is to make him a lobbyist. Because to anyone else in the world, when you sell your influence to affect “business and governmental affairs,” you are a lobbyist.
Lobbying and Ethics
Politico: Why John Edwards won and Bob McDonnell lost
By Josh GersteinWhy is Bob McDonnell looking at years in a federal prison while John Edwards is walking free?The federal government dragged both men into court on charges stemming from their role in public life: Edwards for alleged campaign finance violations relating to his mistress and McDonnell for receiving gifts from a Virginia businessman. Both cases involved large sums of money and uncomfortable discussion of the politicians’ private lives. And they contributed to the notion that politicians operate in a sphere far removed from that of working Americans.
Washington Post: How the federal corruption case against the McDonnells came together
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Matt ZapotoskyOver hours of late-night wine, Maureen McDonnell poured out her heart to her manicurist. She had misjudged Jonnie Williams, she said, a man she had once thought a friend who had now betrayed her and her husband, according to people familiar with the manicurist’s visit.Six months before the McDonnells were charged, the first lady made a stark prediction: Her husband would go to jail, she said, and it would all be her fault.
FEC
CPI: FEC not ‘Ready for Warren’
By Dave LevinthalDitch you name — or else, federal election regulators are telling an upstart super PAC that’s urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to seek the presidency.In a letter Sunday, the Federal Election Commission explained to Chicago-based “Ready for Warren PAC” that only committees authorized by a federal political candidate may use the candidate’s name.If not — and Ready for Warren PAC isn’t — “you must amend your statement of organization to change the name of your political committee so that it does not include the candidate’s name and/or provide further clarification regarding the nature of your committee,” FEC campaign finance analyst Romy Adame-Wilson told the super PAC.
State and Local
Montana –– AP: Nonprofit wants Montana campaign finance laws ruled unconstitutional
By Matt VolzHELENA – A Helena-based nonprofit organization has asked a federal judge to rule that a broad swath of Montana’s campaign finance laws is unconstitutional, and it wants to prevent the state from enforcing those laws before this year’s elections.If Montanans for Community Development’s lawsuit is successful, it could mean a collapse of the regulations that keep outside groups from coordinating with candidates and spending money to boost or oppose those candidates’ campaigns, Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl said Friday.“I think that’s what this group is seeking,” Motl said. “They’re seeking a disruption to the point where that sort of fluidity between the candidate and the independent money can exist, and that’s not what Montana law says and that’s not what the people of Montana want, either.”
Wisconsin –– AP: Judge orders state not to enforce PAC limits law (UPDATE)
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge just two months before Election Day has ordered that Wisconsin election officials not enforce the law limiting how much money candidates can collect from political action committees.U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa on Friday issued the ruling in a lawsuit brought by the CRG Network, a political action committee that works to elect conservative candidates. The group argued that the limits were a violation of its free speech rights. Randa, in granting a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, said the group was likely to succeed on that claim.
