Independent Groups
The Week: Why flooding politics with more money may not be a bad idea
By Ryan CooperIf individual candidates could raise more money per person, and if the parties could contribute as much as they like to individual candidates, it would dramatically ease the pressure on politicians to spend all their time fundraising. If parties can centralize their fundraising with people who are really good at it, like Terry McAuliffe, individual congressmen might even be freed up to legislate and teach themselves about policy.It would also partially restore the power of the party leadership (a much worse problem for Republicans than Democrats). Boehner’s weakness is funny to watch, but it’s also alarming that a party routinely takes the nation hostage to extract policy concessions. The lack of a central leadership that can conduct negotiations on behalf of the whole party only empowers the most extreme and intransigent elements of the Republican caucus.
RNLA: Why Mayday PAC 2.0 will fail
By Paul JosseyLessig thinks he can create this constituency by buying them off (paying the ransom) with slick, hipster adverts. But as radical environmentalist Tom Steyer found, most people can’t be bought. And despite the Left’s successful demonizationof the wealthy and seemingly promising poll numbers, the citizenry won’t vote on this issue. If voters thought public financing would magically infuse virtue into public policy they would have vigorously supported the moribund presidential financing system.Moreover, Lessig’s notions of corruption through access, influence, or the ‘money primary’ are too abstract, and as the recent Moritz study noted, already ‘baked in’ to voter calculus. More importantly, the corruption they can see has nothing to do with private campaign funding; it is big government run amok. When the public sees the IRS targeting conservative groups for ideology, Cabinet members andagency heads using personal emails to evade disclosure laws, the EPA lying about its activity, the President bypassing the will of the people through executive order, and the Justice Department stonewalling investigations, their thoughts don’t include ‘if we only we had taxpayer-funded candidates.’ Lessig’s quest gives short shrift to this type of blatant public corruption because it doesn’t comport with his aim to increase the administrative state’s power over the citizenry. One of Lessig’s favorite refrains is voters must “reclaim our democracy.” What he means of course by “democracy” is government—empowering government with ever more control over the lives and decisions of the individual.
Avoiding Disclosure
Washington Post: As House panel issues subpoenas, questions mount over Clinton e-mails
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Carol D. Leonnig and Anne GearanThe subpoenas issued Wednesday seek all Clinton e-mails related to Libya during her time as secretary of state — an attempt to collect new e-mails sent from the clintonemail.com domain, the private account Clinton established when she took office in 2009.Also Wednesday, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, said the organization is considering filing legal petitions to reopen as many as nine cases in which the group unsuccessfully sought public records from the State Department. The cases were either dismissed, closed or settled after the administration claimed it found no records involving Clinton related to the group’s requests.And other lawmakers who have tried to investigate Clinton’s tenure at State said they were outraged and felt misled, and were concerned many of the public records they had requested had not been provided because of the use of private e-mail.
Washington Post: The Hillary Clinton e-mail story just keeps getting worse for her
By Chris CillizzaThe first phrase speaks to the suspicion that has long hung around the Clintons that they are always working the angles, stretching the limits of how business can be conducted for their own benefit. It seemed clear that Clinton went out of her way to avoid the federal disclosure requirements related to e-mail by never even setting up an official account. That she took it another step and created a “homebrew” e-mail system that would give her “impressive control over limiting access” is stunning — at least to me — given that she (or someone close to her) had to have a sense that this would not look good if it ever came out.Yes, her allies have maintained that she turned over more than 55,000 pages of e-mails from her time as secretary of state. But, the decisions over which e-mails to turn over were made by Clinton and/or her staff. That’s not exactly the height of transparency for someone who is the de facto Democratic presidential nominee in 2016.The second phrase makes clear that Hillary, Bill or Chelsea Clinton didn’t (a) dream up or (b) set up the e-mail system the former New York senator used as secretary of state. This wasn’t some garden variety home e-mail system; it was “sophisticated” in ways that went well beyond what candidates like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin — both of whom used private e-mail accounts to do official business — put in place. That level of sophistication speaks to the fact that this was not thrown together at the last minute; instead it was a planned maneuver to give the Clintons more control over their electronic correspondence.
Kochs
Politico: Charles Koch, Liberal Crusader?
By Michael HirshTo anyone who followed the past several national political campaigns, it might seem that Charles Koch had wandered through the looking glass. This is, after all, the same Charles Koch who considers Democrats to be “collectivists,” who believes that President Barack Obama uses “Marxist models” and whom Harry Reid blasted on the floor of the Senate as “power-drunk” and “about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine.” But when we spoke in February, Koch insisted there is nothing strange or secretive or un-American about his criminal justice campaign—it all makes perfect sense. And he explained why.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Politico: White House, Elizabeth Warren team up to roll back GOP state dominance
By Kenneth P. VogelA White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment on the briefing, but it seems intended at least in part to encourage Democratic state lawmakers, interest groups and donors around the country to rally behind SiX, which was launched late last year. It comes as the group is forging relationships with other key national liberal groups, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and also awaiting a coveted endorsement from Democracy Alliance major donor club.The DA, as the club is known in liberal finance circles, held a two-day board meeting this week in San Francisco, partly to discuss the funding recommendations it will make to its 100-plus donors.Sources familiar with the club say it’s likely to include SiX in its portfolio of recommended groups for the coming years. And, while DA president Gara LaMarche said no final decisions had been made on the portfolio, he stressed the importance of state-level advocacy in an email last month to donors.
NY Times: Clinton Hires Campaign Lawyer Ahead of Likely Run
By Maggie HabermanMarc Elias, a veteran campaign finance lawyer who was general counsel for John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004, is scheduled to be Mrs. Clinton’s lead campaign lawyer in her all-but-assured second bid for the presidency, three Democrats with knowledge of the hire said. Mr. Elias, who was brought on long before questions emerged about Mrs. Clinton’s personal email use at the State Department, is a partner at the firm Perkins Coie, which represents a number of Democratic senators.The lead lawyer for a presidential campaign is traditionally involved in an array of decisions, including negotiating the ground rules for the presidential debates, signing off on television ads and monitoring voting rights issues. In the modern political landscape, part of Mr. Elias’s role will be ensuring that coordination rules are followed to maintain the firewall between the campaign and the outside groups supporting it.
Wall Street Journal: The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics
By Richard S. LindzenMr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress. After the Times article, Sens. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) also sent letters to numerous energy companies, industrial organizations and, strangely, many right-of-center think tanks (including the Cato Institute, with which I have an association) to unearth their alleged influence peddling.The American Meteorological Society responded with appropriate indignation at the singling out of scientists for their scientific positions, as did many individual scientists. On Monday, apparently reacting to criticism, Mr. Grijalva conceded to the National Journal that his requests for communications between the seven of us and our outside funders was “overreach.”Where all this will lead is still hard to tell. At least Mr. Grijalva’s letters should help clarify for many the essentially political nature of the alarms over the climate, and the damage it is doing to science, the environment and the well-being of the world’s poorest.
FEC
State and Local
Hawaii –– Civil Beat: With Clayton Hee Gone, Campaign Finance Reform Is Moving Forward
Senate Bill 508 would add an additional reporting requirement in early October to break up the long period between filings.It’s one of several measures moving forward that would reform campaign finance laws by boosting transparency, improving accountability and reducing conflicts of interest. Lawmakers and political observers say this has been the most progressive legislative session they’ve seen in at least a decade when it comes to these issues.While many were reluctant to name names, the primary reason that more of these bills are being heard is the new person steering the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee, a critical legislative hurdle for almost all legislation of this type.
Kentucky –– The Courier Journal: Surprise amendment would let big givers give more
By Tom LoftusBig campaign contributors would be able to give twice as much to a candidate in Kentucky elections under a surprise amendment approved by a Senate committee Wednesday.The amendment was offered by Senate Republican Leader Damon Thayer during the State and Local Government Committee.Among several changes, Thayer’s committee substitute to House Bill 203 would increase from $1,000 to $2,000 the amount a contributor could give to a candidate during an election cycle.And the new $2,000 limit would increase with the rate of inflation for future years – just as federal contribution limits increase.
Rhode Island –– Associated Press: Lawmakers say they’ll reform the campaign finance system because ex-speaker exploited it
By Jennifer McDermottPROVIDENCE, Rhode Island — When candidates file campaign finance reports with the state, elections officials essentially take them at their word that the records are accurate.Now that ex-House Speaker Gordon Fox has pleaded guilty to exploiting weaknesses in that honor system, some lawmakers say a candidate’s word is no longer enough.House leaders plan to introduce a bill to require candidates to file bank statements for their campaign accounts with their campaign finance reports, said Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, Fox’s successor.
West Virginia –– MetroNews: Senate passes campaign finance reform
CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The state Senate has passed and sent to the House a bill that raises the amount individuals can give to political candidates in West Virginia, but also increases the disclosure requirements for political donations.The Senate Wednesday passed SB 541 that raises the limit on campaign contributions in state races from the current $1,000 to $2,700 per election cycle, the same as the limit for federal races.The bill prohibits corporations and unions from contributing to state candidates and it requires independent expenditure organizations to reveal information about their donors.
Wisconsin –– Wisconsin Reporter: $775,000 and rising — Wisconsin taxpayers’ bill to defend John Doe prosecutors
By M.D. KittleMADISON, Wis. — Taxpayers conservatively have spent north of $775,000 defending the prosecutors of a politically charged John Doe investigation driven on a legal theory that even the prosecutors have rejected.The state, as of Monday, had paid $368,654.60 for the legal defense of Francis Schmitz, the special prosecutor for the multi-county John Doe probe into dozens of conservative organizations and Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign, according to information obtained by Wisconsin Reporter through an open records request.Taxpayers are on the hook for another $407,643.58 in attorney fees to defend Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, the Democrat who launched the probe in late summer 2012, two of his assistant DAs and a special investigator contracted by the state Government Accountability Board.
