In the News
Constitution Daily: Constitution Check: How much secrecy does the First Amendment give to political donors?
By Lyle DennistonThis year, however, the attorney general of California has been moving energetically to force politically active groups that have tax-exempt status under that state’s laws to disclose to the state government the list of donors that they have filed with the IRS. State officials promise not to publicly disclose those lists, but they would use them to determine if an organization is violating the rules for tax exemption under California law.A Virginia-based group, the Center for Competitive Politics, was the first such group to start fighting back against the California effort. The Center, an advocacy group that primarily works to protect the First Amendment rights of other advocacy groups in politics, sued the state attorney general in federal court. However, it has failed so far to get disclosure orders blocked by the federal judge handling the case, and that dispute has gone on up to the federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit area.Earlier this month, the Koch brothers’ foundation followed the Center’s lead, and filed its own lawsuit, citing the First Amendment and federal tax law as protective shields for the identity of the foundation’s donors.
CCP
Recommendations to Massachusetts Campaign Finance Task Force on Internet Ad Disclaimers and Election Cycle Contribution Limits
Massachusetts law has long recognized that disclaimer and disclosure requirements for certain types of political speech are impractical and inconvenient, and, therefore, infringe on individuals’ ability to exercise their First Amendment rights in elections. Yard signs, flyers, and buttons, for instance, are exempt from standard advertising disclaimers.[2] Note that, while it is indeed possible to have a yard sign that provides the significant amount of space necessary to display disclosure information required for other paid media, Massachusetts wisely recognizes that such requirements would be so impractical as to significantly restrict the speech rights of those looking to promote their political message. This lesson should hold true for disclosure requirements on Internet advertisements. While it maybe technically feasible to create a web banner ad that includes the required disclosure information, doing so particularly in ads intended for display on smaller devices used to access the Internet, like smartphones, may be impractical to the point of restricting political speech.Technology is constantly in flux, and, at some point, common-sense regulation should be the norm. If an ad is undeniably of “limited size,” and the reproduction of the (unnecessarily wordy) disclaimer is undeniably inconvenient (in both the technical and ordinary senses of the word), the better approach is to allow the speech while permitting the disclaimer’s omission.We urge the Task Force, therefore, to make recommendations to the General Court that permit an exemption from disclaimer provisions for certain types of Internet advertising where it is readily apparent that a disclaimer is a significant burden on speech, such as, but not limited to, banner ads under certain sizes, Google or other search engine-based ads, Facebook ads, Twitter ads, and all ads on mobile devices. A safe harbor under any disclaimer requirement should also be provided for any Internet ad that either contains the name of the advertiser in the ad itself or links to a website with a disclaimer.
Independence Institute v. FEC: Motion for Summary Reversal and Response to Motion for Summary Affirmation
Independent Groups
Democracy More or Less: America’s Political Reform Quandary (Excerpt)
By Bruce CainThe American system, with its many veto points, has always been vulnerable to gridlock. Indeed, its implicit premise is that major policy change requires a broad consensus. But can the United States achieve enough consensus under its current structure to make important policy decisions, given the stresses of party polarization, rising inequality, racial diversity, and geographic sorting? Features like the separation of powers, federalism, and judicial review have always made it easier to stop new policy directions than to move them forward. And the US system has always provided ample opportunities for interest group influence and private wealth enhancement though government action. But in the immediate postwar period, crosscutting electoral cleavages in both political parties acted as a socioeconomic brake on any potentially accelerating partisan divide. Socially conservative Southerners coalesced with northern liberals in the Democratic Party, and social moderates with economic conservatives in the Republican ranks. Political professionalization was not as advanced as it is today, and therefore the pressure to raise money for campaigning was less. Immigration rates did not pick up until the 1960s.
NY Times: Every Election Is the Most Expensive Election. Or Not.
By Derek WillisWas this election the most expensive midterm in history? It’s possible, but nobody really knows for certain.That’s because we don’t know the total cost of the 2014 elections, or pretty much any federal election.Here’s why: Despite the efforts of the Federal Election Commission, which has been faithfully disseminating campaign finance data since 1975, there are limitations in the ways that data is collected and summarized that make generating totals and comparisons very difficult. And there are other problems, too.In describing federal elections, users of the F.E.C.’s data — The New York Times among them — have regularly cited statistics that are aren’t strictly accurate or have made comparisons without regard to the impact of inflation or population. In a paper presented at the American Political Science Association conference this year, Robin Kolodny, a political-science professor at Temple University, challenged the idea that we know each election is more expensive than previous ones, or that we even know how much campaigns really cost. This lack of knowledge fuels our perceptions of money in politics as an issue, she concludes.
Demos: Walmart PAC Funded by Charity for Employees
By Chelsea McKevittWalmart is under scrutiny after claims that their political action committee is using illegal methods to persuade employees to donate to its PAC. The complaint, filed with the FEC, alleges that Walmart is breaking federal election law by matching employee donations to Walmart’s PAC with a donation to a charity owned by Walmart.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Roll Call: CRS Report Details Perks for Outgoing Members of Congress
By Bridget BowmanThese privileges include access to the floor of the chamber where they served, though senators who have not served in the House are traditionally granted House access as well. However, that access is revoked if the former member becomes a lobbyist or an “agent of foreign principal,” meaning someone who advocates on behalf of foreign governments, political parties or organizations.If those lawmakers are visiting the floor, they can also park in House and Senate parking lots. They can still access House and Senate gyms after they leave as well, though for a fee. Congressional Research Service reports are also available to former members, though they can no longer request that the CRS conduct original research on their behalf.
NY Times: Ecuador Family Wins Favors After Donations to Democrats
By Frances RoblesThe family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.
State and Local
Pennsylvania –– ELB: Pa. Supreme Court Sides with Cozen O’Connor in Campaign Finance Dispute
The Commonwealth Court held that the post-election forgiveness of debt would constitute a “contribution” to the candidate’s political campaign under Section 1001(6) of the Code, and, thus, was subject to the $10,000 per year contribution limitation set forth in Section 1001(2). For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that the law firm’s forgiveness of debt would not constitute a contribution to the candidate’s political campaign as the debt at issue was [J-40-2014] – 2 not incurred “for use in . . . influencing the election of the candidate.” Id. § 1001(6). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court.
