CCP
Freedom is winning the battle over money in politics: Should anyone celebrate?
Brad Smith
Virtually all of the parade of horribles Waldman complains of go away the day contributions to candidates and parties can be made freely. Waldman is therefore like the prohibitionist who can no longer even remember why prohibition was supposed to be a good thing – the mere fact that mom and dad have a bottle of bootleg whiskey in the back of the cabinet now leaves him outraged, complaining that prohibition is a joke and a scandal, and demanding as the only answer more vigorous enforcement and a corresponding reduction in civil liberties.
Thus, Waldman is upset that the Federal Election Commission won’t roll over, ignore the constitution and the law, and do whatever he and the “reform” lobby want done to get the bootleggers. He is agitated not by the IRS targeting of political groups, but by the fact that they are not, in his view, doing enough targeting. He is upset that non-profits speak out on political issues, although none of the liberal “reform” groups or the huge foundations that have bankrolled “reform” draw his ire. It never occurs to him that it may not be a bad thing if organizations other than candidate campaigns are politically engaged, and to the extent, for argument’s sake, we take seriously his charge, that some such organizations are frauds, it never occurs to him that it would pretty much all go away if people were simply free to contribute directly to candidates and parties. And that is because of his underlying assumption – it’s bad for money to spent on political campaigning and discourse – and its necessary corollary – it’s good for government to regulate such speech – blinds him to all other possibilities.
Wagner, Super PAC Contributions, and the SEC
Allen Dickerson
The FEC administers a statute that specifically addresses political contributions, and it unquestionably has the authority under that statute to regulate super PACs. The SEC administers a completely different set of statutes that say nothing about political activity.
As a result, concepts and policy preferences cannot simply be taken from the campaign finance context and imported willy-nilly into another. To take one example, federal contractors may not contribute to political parties, because a federal statute says so. The Investment Advisers Act contains no similar prohibition, and so advisers may generally contribute to political parties, a point recognized by the SEC. P. 46, n. 154 (“Contributions to political parties are not specifically covered by the definition and thus would not trigger the rule’s two-year time out unless they are a means to do indirectly what the rule prohibits if done directly (for example, the contributions are earmarked or known to be provided for the benefit of a particular political official)”).
The SEC is an agency with no expertise in managing political speech or association. Public Citizen’s approach, which seems to care little about who is regulating political speech so long as it is being regulated, ignores the substantial differences in mission, authority, and expertise between different federal agencies. This is but the most recent example of that flawed thinking.
On Campaign Pledges and “Money in Politics”
Scott Blackburn
Candidates can reject donations from a certain company’s employees, or corporate PACs (which themselves are comprised of donations from company employees), but who benefits from such an outcome? If Bernie Sanders (another pledge signer) receives a $5,000 contribution from ABC Coal PAC (the per election limit on contributions from a PAC to a candidate), does anyone believe that he will change his mind about “the growing dangers of climate change?” And given Sanders outspoken views on this issue, isn’t such a contribution an expression that ABC Coal PAC and its employees agree with Sanders and want to support his environmental efforts? Isn’t that a good thing in the effort to combat climate change?
The Nation pledge, in this instance, limits employees and corporate PACs from expressing their opinion, only if those companies actually agree with candidates who take the pledge. And they limit Bernie Sanders from spreading his message about environmental policy, by limiting his financial resources. The pledge effectively limits advocacy for the exact message it is trying to promote.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin’s Friend at the IRS
Editorial
Wisconsin’s campaign to investigate conservative tax-exempt groups has always seemed like an echo of the IRS’s scrutiny of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. It turns out that may be more than a coincidence.
Former IRS tax-exempt director Lois Lerner ran the agency’s policy on conservative groups. Kevin Kennedy runs the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) that helped prosecutors with their secret John Doe investigation of conservative groups after the 2011 and 2012 recall elections of Governor Scott Walker and state senators.
Emails we’ve seen show that between 2011 and 2013 the two were in contact on multiple occasions, sharing articles on topics including greater donor disclosure and Wisconsin’s recall elections. The emails indicate the two were also personal friends who met for dinner and kept in professional touch.
Campaign Finance
More Soft Money Hard Law: The D.C. Circuit in Wagner: Aspects of Appearances in the Defense of The Embattled Law
Bob Bauer
But considering the overall state of campaign finance, this application of doctrine may only aggravate the damaged standing of the current legal system. The law and rules are already seen to be a patchwork affair, easy pickings for lawyers and political operatives. Those who have been worried about this won’t take much comfort from the description of the law in Wagner.
Moreover, as the fight over campaign finance has continued, it has been a major concern that the strongest fare best. Wagner upholds restrictions on individuals who are sole proprietor – federal contractors, while the bigger actors, among them major corporations and their leadership, can, if so disposed, commit significant resources to accomplish their political aims. And the advantage in any system with various exceptions and complexities goes to those with the resources, including money for lawyers.
There is here the intersection of two charges commonly made against the campaign finance laws in this time – – that they are largely ineffective and that the system is most easily navigated by the major players and most vexing to the average citizen.
Independent Groups
Huffington Post: How Presidential Candidates Are Pushing Past Campaign Finance Boundaries This Time
Paul Blumenthal
The 2016 presidential campaign is in full swing, and as the second national campaign since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, it’s bringing a whole new dynamic favoring wealthy donors and big-monied interests. Its main difference from the 2012 campaign — which featured the first single-candidate presidential super PACs — is that candidates now have tossed aside the illusion of super PAC independence.
Whereas Mitt Romney once mused that he would “go to the big house” if he attempted to tell the super PAC supporting his campaign to stop running ads attacking his opponent Newt Gingrich, candidates today are not so shy. They have openly launched, picked their staff, raised unlimited funds and even announced an intention to coordinate with both super PACs and nonprofits supporting them.
Candidates and Campaigns
Wall Street Journal: Donald Trump’s Appeal—and Its Limits
Peggy Noonan
He’ll make things uncomfortable for Republican candidates, who will devise ways of dealing with it. He enjoys disparaging them—they’re “dopes”—and highlighting their weaknesses. Just by walking into the room he lowers the tone. His special brand of irresponsibility may prove infectious. Reporters love him because he’s colorful, dramatic, walking-talking clickbait. At the moment he controls the daily agenda because reporters insist other candidates respond to whatever he says. That will lessen as the novelty diminishes.
Bloomberg: Presidential Candidates Must Submit FEC Paperwork to Get Into Fox Debate
Ben Brody
The requirement that campaigns file “all necessary paperwork with the FEC” to get on the debate stage includes filing “a financial disclosure statement as part of that paperwork,” according to a statement from Fox News Executive Vice President of News Michael Clemente.
The Nation: Why the Presidential Candidates Should Reject Donations From Fossil-Fuel Companies
The Editors
To break the carbon barons’ grip over America’s response to this crisis, The Nation calls upon all 2016 presidential and congressional candidates to make and honor the following pledge: In the name of protecting our country and the world from the growing dangers of climate change, I will neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions from any oil, gas, or coal company.
Washington Post: Will you please donate money to my dad? He’s a real swell guy.
Al Kamen
Fundraising has now become a family affair. Campaign contributors are noticing an increase in political fundraising appeals — not from candidates but from their spouses, children, siblings and even parents. And the trend is fully bipartisan.
So when Jeb! announced his candidacy last month, a fundraising appeal went out from Jeb Bush Jr. who writes that “Dad put me in charge of the first day donor drive” and asking folks to chip in $100, $50 “or even $5.”
The States
Deseret News: Root of Evil (LTE)
Lynn Johnson
Reading the My View by Lauren Howells (“Campaign finance system is broken,” July 7) fills me with despair. I hoped to find information and insight; I got innuendo, guilt by association and wild accusations entirely free of any proof. She asserts, “The current structure of campaign finance is systematically corrupt,” but provides not a shred of evidence. She also misquotes “money is the root of all evil.” She doesn’t even get the quote right and fails to attribute it. The actual quote from Paul is that the “love of money is the root of all evil.” But lust, anger and fear also drive evil. For many, power corrupts and money is merely a vehicle.
Arizona Republic: Dark-money group behind Christine Jones ads may have violated law
Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
Veterans for a Strong America, a South Dakota-based non-profit corporation that is not required to disclose its donors, ran ads titled “What Difference?” that contrasted Jones’ remarks about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and remarks Clinton made to a congressional committee about the 2012 attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
According to the Secretary of State’s Office decision, obtained Thursday by The Arizona Republic, the group registered as a corporation that makes independent expenditures on May 28, 2014 and released the ad that same day.
However, the group did not file any independent expenditure notifications with election officials. State law requires corporations to report expenditures over $5,000 in statewide races within 24 hours of the charges.
