CCP
The need to remember, and the passing of Curtis Gans
By Brad SmithI did not know Gans well but did have a few occasions to talk over the years. I first met him at a symposium at Franklin Pierce Law School in New Hampshire in 1996, when he was about the age I am now. I had just published my first major piece on campaign finance, “Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform, 105 Yale L. J. 1049 (1996). One of the themes of “Faulty Assumptions” was that incorrect understandings of how money worked in politics had created a regulatory system with broadly “undemocratic” consequences, including a decline in turnout and political engagement. But “Faulty Assumptions” was, as they might say, based largely on “book learnin’.” Gans was one of the first to bring home to me the practical, on-the-ground reality of the damage that so much campaign finance regulation was and is doing to grassroots political participation. Gans always recognized that McCarthy’s stunning showing in the New Hampshire primary on March 12, 1968 would not have been possible under the heavily regulated campaign finance regime that emerged in the 1970s. While the McCarthy campaign’s public image was one of earnest young college students trudging through the snowy New Hampshire winter in a campaign that began barely three months before the primary (and that image was true), Gans understood that what made it all possible–the logistics, the travel costs, the preparation of campaign material and more, all on short notice–was the money. It was the ability of the campaign to raise money quickly, primarily through large contributions from persons such as GM heir Stewart Mott, Dreyfuss Investments CEO Howard Stein, and Arnold Hiatt of Stride Rite Shoes, that made the campaign possible. The civic engagement of those young students was made possible by the large contributions of wealthy men; the campaign was able to be up and running in days because the funds could be raised so quickly.In my few conversations with Gans, he always came back to that theme. He was critical of monetary gifts becoming a substitute for personal involvement, not just in politics but in charitable and civic work. But he was more critical of those whose good intentions led them to deprive political movements of the funds needed to launch, and especially of the professionalized politics that necessarily resulted from a highly regulated campaign finance system. Money was needed to organize voters, to register and educate them, to provide an infrastructure for civic life. But a highly regulated system necessarily empowered central organizers and skilled consultants, lawyers, and accountants, replacing traditional volunteers.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: The IRS Gets Out the Vote
EditorialWe’re going to need more IRS agents. That’s the gist of President Obama’s latest bid to impose yet another mandate on the American people. This time he wants to require all Americans to vote, whether they want to or not.In Cleveland on Wednesday the President called for compulsory voting in response to a question from the audience. What, the questioner inquired, is the best way to limit money in elections and overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, in which the Justices declared—rightly—that limits on union and corporate spending on campaigns was a limit on free speech?
Disclosure
Reuters: Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors
By Jonathan AllenIn response to questions from Reuters, officials at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and the foundation confirmed no complete list of donors to the Clintons’ charities has been published since 2010. CHAI was spun off as a separate legal entity that year, but the officials acknowledged it still remains subject to the same disclosure agreement as the foundation.The finding could renew scrutiny of Clinton’s promises of transparency as she prepares to launch her widely expected bid for the White House in the coming weeks. Political opponents and transparency groups have criticized her in recent weeks for her decision first to use a private email address while she was secretary of state and then to delete thousands of emails she labeled private.
Wall Street Journal: Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends
By James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca BallhausMrs. Clinton has been criticized for donations to the charity that now also bears her name: the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The Journal’s report in February that the foundation had resumed accepting foreign-government donationsprompted criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, who said it represented a conflict for a potential future president. The foundation has said that if Mrs. Clinton runs for president, it would consider once again restricting donations from foreign governments. Also, under federal election law, foreign governments, individuals and corporations would be barred from giving to her campaign.Former President Bill Clinton promised the Obama administration the foundation wouldn’t accept most foreign-government donations while his wife was secretary of state. The agreement didn’t place limits on donations from foreign individuals or corporations.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Washington Examiner: Rand Paul did not file to run for president
By Robert KingA web page on the Federal Elections Commission website said that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was officially running for the White House in 2016.However, it was a false alarm as the page was actually just created by the FEC to handle expenditures from a super PAC supporting Paul for 2016, an FEC spokeswoman told the Washington Examiner. The senator’s office told the Examiner he hasn’t filed anything, and the FEC said that it did not receive any statement of candidacy for president.
Washington Post: Clinton’s Nixonian path to office
By Michael GersonThose looking for a historical parallel turned, inevitably, to one figure. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that Clinton is “a modern, Democratic Richard Nixon.” “Nixon didn’t burn the tapes,” tweeted Joe Scarborough, “but Hillary deleted the emails.” Politico’s Todd Purdum did a careful historical comparison to Nixon, finding Clinton similarly “suspicious, defensive, contemptuous of the press and scornful of political adversaries.”Clinton’s e-mail housecleaning — barring new revelations — may work. She seems to have navigated the gray areas of federal rules to avoid transparency. But Republicans clearly hope the Nixonian label — which some in the media find credible — will stick. They believe the controversy, though not politically fatal in isolation, will add to the composite of a candidate driven by secrecy and resentment, surrounded by a ruthless palace guard and convinced rules apply only to others.
Reuters: Jeb Bush lawyer tries to stop radio ads touting Bush campaign
By Emily FlitterSchorr responded to Spies’s letter by recasting “War” as a “message we’d like Jeb Bush to make to the Republican party.” The deep voice now says: “The following is a message from a Jeb Bush supporter. He is not, I repeat not, associated in any way with Jeb Bush, who is not currently a candidate for president. Got it? Good. That should make non-candidate Bush’s lawyers very happy.”
Washington Post: A mighty fundraising operation awaits Clinton, as well as financial hurdles
By Matea GoldThe team of fundraisers tasked with raising more than $1 billion for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s expected presidential bid will start with two major assets: a national grass-roots operation two years in the making and a network of wealthy Democratic donors much broader than the one that backed her first White House run.But for all those advantages, Clinton and her allies will also be scrambling to catch up with the tens of millions that Republican contender Jeb Bush has been stockpiling in a super PAC set up to back his campaign. A similar vehicle poised to help Clinton has so far struggled to secure commitments.The dynamic underscores how drastically the fundraising environment has changed since Clinton ran in 2008 — two years before the birth of super PACs. Now, Republican White House hopefuls are working hand in glove with big-money groups, helping them scoop up as much money as possible before they officially announce their candidacies.
Lobbying and Ethics
Bloomberg: The Many Hats of Jim Messina
By Brad StoneIn December 2012, Uber had an urgent problem: Its drivers in Milan were being menaced by angry cabbies wielding tire irons. Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick consulted with investor Shervin Pishevar, the politically connected venture capitalist. Pishevar happened to know that Jim Messina, the campaign manager for Barack Obama’s reelection, was celebrating the president’s victory in Italy. As Messina recalls: “I was getting engaged and drinking my ass off.”Still, he took Pishevar’s call at 2 a.m. in Italy, then called U.S. Ambassador David Thorne, who called Milan Mayor Giuliano Pisapia. City police began looking into the disputes. (Things aren’t exactly friendly, though. In February a threatening sign was hung near the home of Uber’s top executive in Italy.)Since he took Pishevar’s call, Messina, an in-demand Washington operative and head of Priorities USA Action, a super PAC aligned with likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, has become Silicon Valley’s go-to government fixer. He’s still working with Uber—he helped recruit fellow Obama campaign alum David Plouffe as its senior vice president for policy and strategy—and advises Airbnb, used-car market Beepi, and Pishevar’s Sherpa Ventures while serving on the board of cybersecurity company Vectra Networks.
FEC
FEC: FEC Approves Advisory Opinion and Two Notices of Availability of Rulemaking Petitions
Advisory Opinion 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC). The Commission concluded that the requestor, a nonconnected political committee, may accept the assignment of intellectual property rights created by foreign nationals as a result of uncompensated volunteer services the foreign nationals provide to the requestor to develop the requestor’s website code, logos, trademarks and trade dress, as proposed in its advisory opinion request. During the discussion, the Commission heard from the requestor.
