In the News
Washington Times: The right to speak and be left alone
By Scott BlackburnThe Center for Competitive Politics, representing the institute in court, argues that its donors shouldn’t have to choose between speaking their minds on political issues and telling the government where they work and live. Donors who might help fund the ads won’t open their checkbooks if they lose their privacy.The disclosure mandate imposed on the Independence Institute’s desire to run these issue ads stems from 2002’s McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. That law created new speech regulations on so-called “electioneeringcommunications,” defined as any TV or radio ad, regardless of content, that simply mentions a candidate for office within 60 days of an election. These communications mandate the forced disclosure of supporters’ personal information. At the same time, the Independence Institute is a charitable 501(c)(3) organization — an IRS designation that strictly prohibits a group from engaging in “political activity.” The discrepancy between these two legal constructs has created an unusual situation. On the one hand, the government insists that the Independence Institute engage in no political speech and, on the other hand, the government mandates that the institute disclose its donors in order to speak out about a government policy on the incorrect legal grounds that any speech within 60 days of an election supports or opposes candidates.
Amending the First Amendment
The Hill: First battle in the battle for the First Amendment
By Bill MaurerRestricting how much money Americans can spend on political speech limits gives the government the power to say, “You have spoken enough. You must stop speaking now.” This command will come with the threat of fines or imprisonment. Make one yard sign too many and you commit a crime.Defenders argue that the amendment did not limit speech; it limited money and money is not speech. True enough, as far as that goes. But this is a heavily populated country; people need money to produce and distribute almost all communications. Restricting how much one can spend on speech means that the government can restrict all speech that carries beyond the sound of your voice.The amendment also permitted the government to distinguish between a “natural person” and “other artificial entities created by law.” The goal here is to silence oil companies and the like, but organizations like the Sierra Club and the NAACP are also corporations. The amendment did not distinguish between for-profits and nonprofits (even though these specific organizations foolishly support this effort to silence themselves). And corporations are not the only “artificial entities created by law.” So are marriages, rock groups and neighborhood associations. Under this proposal, the government would have had the power to silence millions of Americans because they banded together to speak.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: Opinion: Lois Lerner: ‘I Didn’t Do Anything Wrong’
Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot on former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner’s first interview since she refused to testify to Congress.
Politico: Exclusive: Lois Lerner breaks silence
By Rachel Bade“You could take her out of there and just stand in a different person, and no matter who it is, we would have the same result,” said Karen Gries, a tax lawyer who worked with Lerner. “I don’t believe this is reflective of Lois the individual or Lois the professional.”Her sympathizers note that she was in a tough spot because many sunlight groups and lawmakers were alleging that big-name nonprofits, like Crossroads, were making hundreds of millions in secret campaign contributions, exceeding IRS limits for campaign activity for tax-exempt groups. Lerner’s division had to enforce the law, they say.But was the law applied equally to all political persuasions?Emails show Lerner was looking at political activities of affiliates of liberal group Emerge, which won tax exemptions that were later revoked by her division after Lerner asked “how in the world” they got approved. But the number of conservative groups that were put on hold for years and asked inappropriate questions still far outnumber liberal ones.
Wall Street Journal: Lois Lerner Downplays Role in IRS Controversy
By John D. McKinnon“Regardless of whatever else happens, I know I did the best I could under the circumstances and am not sorry for anything I did,” she said.
Heritage: IRS Abuses: Ensuring that Targeting Never Happens Again (Testimony before the House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform )
By Hans A. von SpakovskyUnfortunately, the individuals at the IRS who planned, implemented, coordinated, and engaged in this behavior were urged to do so in public statements and speeches by the President, who publicly accused conservative §501(c)(4) organizations of “posing as not-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups” and called them “a problem for democracy” and a “threat to our democracy.” [6] He severely criticized many organizations for their advocacy after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC,[7] as did members of Congress who sent letter after letter to the IRS demanding investigations of various conservative nonprofit organizations.[8]And why? Because President Obama and the members did not like the First Amendment-protected advocacy engaged in by these organizations. The voluminous information requests to applicants by the IRS, the multi-tiered review of their applications, and the long delays in granting exemptions were apparently intended to undermine the Citizens United decision and to burden the political speech and political activity of conservative organizations.That this was a partisan action by the IRS is clear. Both the report by the Inspector General and the extensive investigation by this Committee have shown that only conservative organizations were targeted.
Independent Groups
Reason: Goodman on Dark Money
By Elizabeth Nolan Brown“The courts have told us we have no jurisdiction over issue advocacy, so you cannot count it toward an organization’s major purpose to bootstrap regulatory jurisdiction,” said Goodman. “An issue advocacy organization does not have to surrender its associational freedoms, including the confidentiality of its members and donors, just because it spends $1,000 to exercise its free-speech rights.”In 2012, the FEC found 3 to 4 percent of that year’s election expenditures came from groups that weren’t required to disclose their donors—including about $7 million spent by Planned Parenthood. “I daresay that the membership and donors of Planned Parenthood would be highly sensitive to disclosure,” said Goodman, “and it happens on the right on social issues too.”“When you hear the dark money debate, I want you to understand it in context,” Goodman continued. “It is an effort by those who want to regulate speech more to alter the playing field of speech and ban speech using govenment power, and nothing more.”
Politico: Democrats relying on big donors to win
By KENNETH P. VOGEL and TARINI PARTIDemocrats love to cast Republicans as the party of big money, beholden to the out-of-touch billionaires bankrolling their campaigns.But new numbers tell a very different story — one in which Democrats are actually raising more big money than their adversaries.Among the groups reporting the biggest political ad spending, the 15 top Democrat-aligned committees have outraised the 15 top Republican ones $453 million to $289 million in the 2014 cycle, according to a POLITICO analysis of the most recent Federal Election Commission reports, including those filed over the weekend — which cover through the end of last month.
Wall Street Journal: Labor Groups Seek Probe of Wal-Mart’s PAC
By SHELLY BANJOLabor and advocacy groups are seeking an investigation into whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT -0.62%violated federal election laws by soliciting employees for donations to its political-action committee in exchange for charitable contributions to a fund that helps Wal-Mart employees in need. U.S. companies are banned under federal election law from giving money directly to political-action committees. Corporations can use their own funds to administer PACs but are prohibited from compensating contributors for their donations.In a complaint to be filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday, the groups are asking the FEC to determine whether the company flouted campaign-finance laws with a program that began more than a decade ago and matches every dollar employees donate to the retailer’s PAC with an additional $2 donation to the Wal-Mart Associates in Critical Need Trust. Hourly employees aren’t eligible to participate in the program. Wal-Mart’s PAC received $2.8 million in contributions in the last 20 months, according to FEC filings.
Wall Street Journal: Super PAC Funding Keeps Democrats Competitive in Senate Races
By REBECCA BALLHAUS and BRODY MULLINSWASHINGTON—Strong fundraising by Democrats and their allies—including a formidable super PAC run by people close to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid —is helping the party remain competitive in Senate races where many other factors favor Republican candidates.The Democratic fundraising has allowed the party and its allies to run more TV advertisements than Republicans in the first two weeks of September in nine of the 10 top Senate races this fall, according to an analysis of political spending by the nonpartisan Wesleyan Media Project.The Democrats’ edge in TV ads of late is due partly to a string of super PACs that have ramped up their efforts in the past two months. Since July 3, the largest super PACs aligned with Democrats have raised four times the money of pro-GOP super PACs, and have now spent $60 million to Republicans’ $38 million, data compiled by The Wall Street Journal shows.
Roll Call: The Best TV Shows for Political Advertisements
By Abby LivingstonIn interviews, operatives repeatedly said they look for three kinds of programs for political ads: Live events, and shows that attract women and seniors. Both parties fight fiercely for the female demographic, and seniors serve as one of the most reliable voting blocs in a midterm.In an ever-increasing effort to target voters, media buyers are attracted to cable’s niche audiences. But they also rely on a few broadcast gems for their desirable voters, er, viewers.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Crains New York: Public advocate eyes campaign finance lawsuit
By Chris BraggMs. James recently sent a letter to the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission stating that her office is considering becoming an “intervenor” in the case on the side of the defendant, the SEC.The case against the SEC was brought by the New York Republican State Committee and Tennessee GOP. It seeks to overturn a 2010 SEC rule that prohibits investment advisers from receiving compensation for asset management services for two years after making a campaign contribution to an official or candidate for a post that can award such contracts.
ELB: Federal Court Denies Citizens United Attempt to Block Colorado Disclosure Laws
The federal court was decidedly unimpressed with CU’s argument related to the media exemption.
Disclosure
CPI: Oops: Republican super PAC misidentifies source of massive donation
By Michael BeckelRepublican super PAC American Crossroads misidentified its second-largest donor last month in paperwork filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission.The group, co-founded by GOP strategist Karl Rove, listed the Glenmede Trust Company as giving it $300,000 on Aug. 29, part of the $1.7 million American Crossroads raised in August.But Glenmede spokeswoman Melissa Stonberg says the wealth management firm — which manages more than $25 billion for wealthy individuals, families and foundations — didn’t give American Crossroads a penny.
The Hill: Google pulls support of ALEC over climate change
By Laura Barron-LopezGoogle said on Monday it doesn’t plan on funding the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council in the future due to the organization’s climate change skepticism.During an interview on NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said the company regretted funding a political campaign for ALEC, even though it was on a different topic.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Washington Post: Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?
By Will BaudeJosh Blackman links to an interesting new speech by (retired) Justice Stevens about the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. Among other things, Justice Stevens argues that there ought to be little protection (or no protection?) for campaign contributions made across state lines. He begins . . .
Times-Picayune: Attorney for David Vitter Super PAC wants state Ethics Board to throw out Democratic group’s complaint
By Bruce Alpert
WASHINGTON — An attorney for Sen. David Vitter’s Super PAC is asking the Louisiana Board of Ethics to quickly reject a complaint from a Democratic group challenging a $100,000 transfer from Vitter’s Senate campaign account.
The complaint by the American Democracy Legal Fund says Louisiana election law bars transfers of money from accounts regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act to or for a person who seeks election to a state office. Vitter, a Republican, has announced that he’s running for governor in 2015, That campaign would benefit from advocacy ads from the Vitter Super PAC, The Fund for Louisiana’s Future, the Legal Fund said.
