In the News
NY Times: Who Wants to Buy a Politician?
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUMSuch extravagance, however, is proving to be the exception. Even the 2012 presidential election, which recorded $2.6 billion in campaign spending, underperformed many forecasts. And spending has declined in each of the last two congressional elections. Candidates and other interested parties spent $3.7 billion on this year’s midterms, down from an inflation-adjusted total of $3.8 billion in 2012, which was less than the $4 billion spent in2010, according to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. (These figures do not include a few hundred million dollars in unreported spending on issue ads.) In fact, spending has dropped as the economy has grown and despite a series of contests in which at least one house of Congress was plausibly at stake. “Dire warnings rang out that the decision would herald a new era in politics,” wrote Adam Bonica, a Stanford University political scientist, in a 2013 paper about the effects of Citizens United. “Three years on, there is little evidence that these predictions have come to pass.” Over the past year, Americans spent more on almonds than on selecting their representatives in Congress.Stephen Ansolabehere, a professor of government at Harvard University, says that the facts are surprising only if we subscribe to an incorrect view. In a 2003 paper, “Why Is There So Little Money in U.S.Politics?” he argued that people and corporations actually view giving money as an ineffective way to influence politicians. Donations, Ansolabehere says, are best understood as a form of consumption, akin to making a charitable contribution. Donors are supporting a cause they believe in, and they take pleasure in doing so. “We basically think that giving money makes you feel good,” Ansolabehere told me.
OC Register: Koch brothers group sues California AG to block disclosure of its donors
By Steve GreenAnother nonprofit organization, the Center for Competitive Politics, filed suit in March but a federal judge in Sacramento denied its motion for a preliminary injunction against Harris.That case is on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys for the Center for Competitive Politics say it’s a nonprofit working to promote the First Amendment rights of political speech, assembly, association and petition. They say that in order to solicit funds from California residents, the state requires it to register as a charity. They say Harrris’s demand for its donor list violates the First Amendment because that amendment protects individuals’ rights to anonymously associate with one another.They also say, “This general constitutional protection is furthered by laws specifically protecting the privacy of donors to most tax-exempt organizations.”
Legal Newsline: Koch brothers group files suit against Calif. AG, refuses to disclose donors
By John O’BrienThe complaint says the AFP’s views are not “universally popular” and that it must protect its donors from retaliation.“It has learned from experience that it must zealously guard the confidentiality of its donors to ensure their safety,” it says. “Grotesque threats have been leveled against known associates of the Foundation, ranging from threats to kill or maim, to threats to firebomb buildings.”CCP’s case against Harris is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is determining if the lower court was wrong to deny a preliminary injunction.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Tea Party Angered by Fundraising Change in Spending Bill
By Rebecca BallhausDavid Bossie, president of Citizens United—a tea-party group behind the lawsuit that resulted in the Supreme Court striking down decades-old limits on corporate political expenditures—said in a statement, “What congressional leaders are doing is what they do best: protecting incumbents and the two-party system. The Omnibus rider will only strengthen the Washington Establishment in both parties and not create a level playing field for candidates who are outside the beltway.” He called for the limits on contributions to PACs to be raised.Mr. Bossie also criticized House and Senate Republicans’ campaign arms for making “clear their mission is reelecting their own.” Those groups, particularly the National Republican Senatorial Committee, were heavily involved in GOP primary battles in the 2014 cycle, backing incumbents against conservative challengers.
UT San Diego: Is AG ignoring lessons from IRS scandal?
By Steven Greenhut“(C)urrent and potential donors are understandably afraid that having their identities disclosed will put them and their families at risk,” according to the complaint, which details some of the protests its supporters have faced. I once worked for a nonprofit group that did not list donors and found that people often want to support a cause, but are worried that doing so will open them up to harassment.After a court in 2009 released the names of donors to Proposition 8, the statewide initiative that banned gay marriage, supporters say they faced protests at their homes. Mozilla’s chief executive officer was forced to resign this year after his $1,000 donation to that campaign was publicized. Donors have understandable fears about retribution for backing unpopular causes.
Harvard Law Review: How the landmark decision legalized political coercion in the workplace
Imagine that you are a construction worker for a large, nonunion corporation. One day, your boss tells you that for two months leading up to the next national election, you and several other employees will work full time for the Koch brothers’ Super PAC, helping to get out the vote for its preferred candidates. Furthermore, until that time, you are required to spend several hours each weekend participating in that group’s phone banking and door-to-door canvassing efforts. And next week, you will attend a rally the group is hosting to demonstrate working-class support for its candidates. Aghast, you tell your boss that you do not support the Koch brothers or their preferred candidates, and do not wish to participate in any of this. He replies that he understands your view, but that these activities are now requirements of your job, and any employee who refuses to participate will be fired.Note: I would argue that our absurdly low disclosure threshold should be far more worrying to employees than the hypotheticals in this article.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Governing: Should Judges Be Allowed to Court Campaign Donors?
By Daniel C. VockAt issue is whether judicial candidates should be allowed to directly ask for campaign contributions. That’s prohibited by ethics rules in 30 of the 39 states that elect judges. Instead, judicial candidates in those states must leave the task of asking for money to supporters and friends. The idea is to prevent lawyers or potential litigants from currying favor with judges who may handle their cases. Putting distance between judges and donors, the thinking goes, makes the connection less personal.But federal appeals courts in four states — Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky and Minnesota — have said such restrictions violate candidates’ First Amendment free speech rights, because asking for financial support in an election is a key component of free speech. Meanwhile, other federal courts have upheld solicitation bans for judicial candidates in Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. State supreme courts in Arkansas, Florida and Oregon also agreed with the rules.
Lobbying and Ethics
Washington Post: How often do former members of Congress lobby? Not as often as you might think.By Philip BumpFor readers, probably to a person, the response to the headline is: of course. Of course a former member of Congress is going to become a lobbyist. That’s what always happens. Which is where your friends at The Fix come in. We decided to try to figure out just how true that is.In a perfect world, “lobbying” and “lobbyist” are terms with clear, agreed-upon definitions. So-and-so is a lobbyist, we could say, and lobbies for such-and-such. Earlier this year, however, we were reminded that this is not the case.
