CCP
Response to Recent Comments of The Bright Lines Project
By Eric WangAs a preliminary matter, whether or not an organization’s issue advocacy effort is treated as political intervention should not depend on where candidates stand on the issue, as this will inevitably lead to de facto content-based discrimination, a major taboo under the First Amendment.[35] For example, an organization advocating a pledge to support a higher minimum wage in a Democratic primary is likelier to have greater latitude under these rules than an organization advocating a pledge to support the Keystone Pipeline – an issue over which there is much greater intra-party disagreement.[36]Additionally, there is no discernible principled distinction for why an organization that publishes the results of a candidate pledge, in which the candidates differ with each other and agree or disagree with the organization, risks having the activity be treated as political intervention, and yet the functionally equivalent activity is not treated as political intervention when it is characterized as a questionnaire.The Bright Lines Project’s authors attempt to sell their proposal with a promise of just “four pages” of rules that provide “a succinct operational tool” to the public and to the IRS.[37] In fact, the proposal entails 16 pages of dense, single-spaced, lawyerly regulatory code with 28 defined terms, many of which need their own additional subsidiary definitions. Even with this level of complexity (or perhaps because of it), the proposal falls into the significant pitfalls noted above and fails to provide a sufficient level of clarity for organizations engaged in activities falling outside of the proposal’s excessively narrow safe harbors and its unreasonably broad definitions of per se political intervention. For these reasons, CCP maintains that, if the IRS is to have any regulatory role at all in this area, it should be as limited as possible and along the lines of what CCP originally suggested in its first set of comments to the IRS regarding this rulemaking filed on December 5, 2013.[38]
Tax-Financed Campaigns: Who Exactly are They Helping?
By Luke WachobNow, as the evidence mounts that tax-financed campaigns are not a panacea for ending corruption or improving government, tax-financing advocates are seemingly trying to change the game. Public Campaign’s enthusiasm for citing participation rates in tax-financing programs shifts the conversation to an entirely different question: are politicians benefiting?You can see this mindset throughout the report. After bemoaning current trends in campaign finance, the report states, “[t]here’s some good news. State-level, broad “clean elections” models are still drawing in hundreds of candidates, with Connecticut leading the way.” Good news for whom? Without evidence that tax-financed candidates behave differently in office, why should citizens be happier that they are funding their campaigns with tax dollars?Later, the report touts that “politicians from both major parties maintained confidence in [Connecticut’s] citizen-owned elections.” Again, who cares? There’s no reason to think the best campaign system for voters will be the same as the one that makes politicians happiest. If anything, we should expect the opposite.The great irony here is that after years of trying to refute the criticism that tax-financed campaign programs function as a thinly-veiled “welfare program for politicians,” tax-financing advocates are now judging success on precisely those terms: the more public money put into the hands of politicians, the better the program.
IRS
Wall Street Journal (LTE): Two Cheers for Recovered IRS Tapes
By John McElhineyJust as I was beginning to feel the exoneration of the skill of the Treasury Department, and the fact that some justice might be done, I was greatly dismayed to read that the IG had turned the emails over to the IRS so that sensitive tax information might be redacted from them before sending them on to Congress. Isn’t this like starting all over again? We are about to send the whole mess back to the agency that did so much to bury the subject deep in hard drives gone awry, claims of lost, never to be found, etc.? Aren’t there ethical people in Congress who can be trusted?
Independent Groups
Politico: The secret GOP tech summit to plot 2016
By Kenneth P. Vogel and Darren SamuelsohnThe Republican Party’s top operatives — including strategists representing the Koch brothers’ political operation and several leading prospective 2016 presidential candidates – on Monday huddled behind closed doors to discuss how to synchronize their sometimes competing tech efforts, multiple attendees confirmed to POLITICO.The all-day meeting attracted about 40 of the right’s biggest names in tech and strategy – including Koch operatives Michael Palmer and Marc Short, leading strategists from many of the major super PACs and all of the party committees, as well as close allies of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker.The session was at least partly intended to quash a rivalry simmering in the right’s tech ranks. Some party operatives worry that the competition between would be data-wizards could emerge as a problem for Republicans, since Democrats under President Barack Obama have coordinated their technology efforts relatively closely.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Institute for Justice: Arizonan Wins Huge Victory for Political Speech After Federal Judge Strikes Down State’s Definition of Political Committee
“I was stunned to learn that I needed to register with the government just to talk to people in my community about the bond,” said Dina. “All I could think was, ‘How can this be allowed under our First Amendment?’ I am glad the judge ruled that these laws are unconstitutional and that this decision protects other citizens from these abusive and vague laws that were created to chill their speech.”“In this country all you should need to speak about politics is an opinion, but thanks to campaign finance laws, even the smallest groups of friends and neighbors need lawyers and accountants too,” said IJ Attorney Paul Avelar. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not allow laws that chill speech through vague requirements and heavy administrative burdens. Until now, however, Arizona persisted in enforcing such laws.”
Reform
Washington Post: Spending deal would allow wealthy donors to dramatically increase giving to national parties
By Matea GoldThe end-of-year spending bill deal crafted by congressional leaders Tuesday would dramatically expand the amount of money that wealthy political donors could inject into the national parties, drastically undercutting the 2002 landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul.The language – inserted on page 1,599 of the 1,603-page bill – would allow individuals to give three times the annual cap on national party donations to three additional party committees set up for the purposes of the presidential conventions, building expenses and election recounts.That means that a donor who gave the maximum $32,400 this year to the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee would be able to donate another $291,600 on top of that to the party’s additional arms — a total of $324,000, ten times the current limit.In a two-year election cycle, a couple could give $1,296,000 to a party’s various accounts.
More Soft Money Hard Law: A “Third Approach” to Reform?
By Bob BauerThis is an old fight, and it is not clear that it is getting us anywhere. Parties do draw contributions from contributors motivated to help particular candidates, and candidates do press the parties for any advantage they can get from helping to raise this money. The question is whether the parties should be left to negotiate the tensions between institutional interests and candidate demand or require regulatory intervention to police contribution limits. There is a sound case for adjusting the regulatory approach to allow for more reliance on the operation of ordinary politics, for letting the parties and candidates work things out. It is far from clear how the large the consequences would be for the contribution limits, and there remains regulation, specifically the earmarking rules, to address the most direct challenges to enforcement.
Wall Street Journal: U.S. Spending Deal Raises Donors’ Limits for Party Committees
By Rebecca BallhausThe provision, if the bill is passed, would severely reduce the impact of the McCain-Feingold Act passed in 2002, which banned party committees from accepting soft money—funds raised outside of federal limits that parties could use for purposes other than advocating for or against a candidate.The new rules wouldn’t only dramatically increase the amount individuals could donate to parties, but would again allow parties to raise money for purposes separate from candidate advocacy.Both the House and Senate are expected to pass the bill.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Washington Post: A crowded GOP field for 2016 encounters donors reluctant to commit early
By Matea Gold and Tom HamburgerEfforts by potential Republican presidential candidates to win over wealthy donors have set off a series of contests for their support that could stall the GOP race for months.In Florida, allies of former governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio are tussling over many of the same donors. In Texas, bundlers are feeling pulled by Bush, Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Ted Cruz. Perry and Cruz are also competing for the backing of wealthy evangelical Christians, as are Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.Despite the appeals, which have stepped up in recent weeks, many top donors have committed to being noncommittal, wary of fueling the kind of costly and politically damaging battle that dominated the 2012 primaries. Senior party fundraisers believe that most campaigns will not be able to fully set up their fundraising operations until at least the spring.
State and Local
Missouri –– St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Missouri’s big money man gives $1 million to 2016 lieutenant governor candidate
By Kevin McDermottIn what is apparently a first in Missouri politics, conservative kingmaker Rex Sinquefield has given $1 million in a single donation to a single candidate.The exploratory committee of Bev Randles, which was launched Monday in a first step for a 2016 run for lieutenant governor, confirmed that Sinquefield gave a $1 million check to the committee.“That’s the only donation that we’ve received to this point,” said Todd Abrajano, an adviser to Randles. “Clearly, we’re going to be accepting donations from other people as we go on.”
