In the News
Cato Institute: The Right to Anonymous Speech and Association
Ilya Shapiro and Randal John Meyer
Cato, joined by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has filed a brief supporting CCP’s request that the Supreme Court review the case. The Ninth Circuit failed to give proper solicitude to CCP’s constitutional rights here by not applying what lawyers call “heightened scrutiny” at each turn of its analysis. Instead, the lower court applied a party-specific, “as-applied” exception to the general rule that’s only relevant if the compelled disclosure has already survived a broader, “facial” challenge—and it collapsed the clear distinction between the importance of the government interest in disclosure and the extent of the nexus between the disclosure and the asserted interest.
The court also missed the implications of its decision; not only is the NAACP subject to this disclosure regime—the very organization whose resistance to compelled disclosure culminated in the landmark case of NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which protects the right to anonymous association—but the largest, richest, and most politically active state now has this blanket disclosure regime, chilling First Amendment freedoms.
Standard News Wire: 58 Organizations: California AG Kamala Harris’s Illegal, Extortionate Privacy Violations Designed to Silence Critics of Politicians
American Target Advertising (ATA), the agency of conservative strategist and fundraising pioneer Richard A. Viguerie, along with 57 nonprofit and other organizations today filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case Center for Competitive Politics v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California. The brief alleges that General Harris is imposing extortionate conditions violating federal tax return confidentiality law and multiple Constitutional provisions for charities and advocacy nonprofits to reach Californians. It describes the extensive collaboration between disgraced former IRS official Lois Lerner and the National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO) whose members oversee nonprofit fundraising.
Fox News: Man Up, RNC Chairman Priebus, and let the woman speak
K.T. McFarland
CNN and the RNC say their hands are tied by the Federal Election Commission. They insist debate invitations are determined by an average of several polls that include those before the August debate.Since Fiorina’s rapid climb in the polls was post-debate, she didn’t make the cut. They implied that had Fiorina complained earlier, maybe something could have been done, but it’s too late now.
Yet former FEC Chairman Brad Smith has suggested otherwise, pointing out that Fox News was able to make some rule changes before the first debate.
ABC News: Why Carly Fiorina’s Surge Probably Won’t Earn Her a Debate Podium
Katherine Faulders and Ryan Struyk
But Brad Smith, a former FEC chair turned law professor at Capital University, says that CNN would likely not face legal penalties for changing the rules. “They have no obligation to change their criteria, but I think they can probably do so without much fear,” he told ABC News, adding that FEC action could prompt questions about press freedom.
“I think it was presumed that polling would be more or less equal over a period of time,” said Smith, who stressed that the decision is up to CNN and the legal risk they are willing to take. “I would be very surprised if they would have any problem with the regulators.”
CCP
“Reformers” are Trading their Heroes for Ghosts
Brian Walsh
But why should that be? If self-styled “reformers” have accepted that Super PACs expand choice for voters, it’s time to stop railing against them. After all, these activists champion tax-financed campaign programs because they believe they promote new candidates who may not appeal to political elites. Experience has taught us that tax-financed campaigns fail to achieve that goal, but Super PACs succeed.
Any time there is a mention that someone can or wishes to spend their money to publicize a message, it is automatically painted by advocates for greater restrictions on political speech with a broad stroke as immoral and undermining the fabric of our society. Never mind that this funding goes towards groups that spread a message – independently – of a particular candidate or issue. Never mind that this independent funding serves “reformers’” desire to better inform the public about the issues and candidates in an election.
Campaign Spending
Yahoo: Why rich political donors are wasting a lot of money
Rick Newman w/ Emma Peters
With so much concern about democracy for sale, Yahoo Finance set out to ask a basic question: Are rich donors buying election results? We scrutinized thousands of federal records on campaign donations in presidential and congressional campaigns in 2012 and 2014, and came up with this simple answer: no. Among our findings:
* Wealthy donors of both parties often back losing candidates, partly because they align themselves with strident left- or right-wingers who have a hard time winning over mainstream voters.
* In many races, there’s a huge amount of money on both sides, with big donors essentially canceling each other out.
* Contrary to conventional wisdom, liberal spending groups have backed a higher percentage of winning candidates during the last two election cycles than conservative groups, perhaps because Democratic President Barack Obama won the White House in 2012, contributing to other Democratic victories.
* Much of the money flooding into politics is spent on political ads that aren’t that effective and sometimes have no discernible effect.
FEC
Bloomberg: Deadlocks Are Only Part of Story at FEC
Kenneth Doyle
Overall, however, of the 29 FEC cases resolved since creation of the first super PACs five years ago, only eight cases resulted in a party-line deadlocked votes regarding charges that a super PAC illegally coordinated its actions with a candidate’s campaign. That figure comes from a new list of cases compiled by the FEC general counsel’s office and information about the closed cases accessed by Bloomberg BNA on the FEC’s website (see graphic below).
The list of closed enforcement cases involving super PACs was compiled by FEC staff attorneys at the request of Republican commissioners on the FEC and recently was provided to Bloomberg BNA.
That list showed that dismissal was recommended by the FEC general counsel’s office in 28 of the 29 coordination cases.
Earned Media
Red State: Donald Trump Shows Why Money In Politics Is A Good Thing
Dan McLaughlin
Now, notice what you didn’t see in the writeups and charts of spending so far: ad spending by Donald Trump. He’s scarcely spent a dime. He doesn’t have to. He’s very, very famous – was famous for years and years before he became a candidate. He had his own TV shows. And now the media is covering his every move. He posts video clips to Instagram and depends on reporters to circulate them. And not one of these advantages would be affected by campaign finance regulation or public financing of campaigns.
But for candidates who don’t have a ton of wealth or fame going into the election and aren’t favored with lots of press coverage, there’s no substitute for raising money from donors – donors with many motives, of course, but among them the desire to choose a more responsible standard-bearer than Trump – and spending that money informing the electorate. That’s how our system works. And a system without that check would put many more of our elections at the mercy of rich celebrity dilettantes who don’t need to run ads or even say anything particularly specific. For Republicans in particular, a system without privately-funded political speech would put us at the mercy of having our candidate handpicked by the media, which would dearly love to saddle us with Trump.
Wall Street Journal: How Citizens United helps Trump and Sanders, and other 2016 twists
Robert Litan
Mr. Trump criticizes his rivals–Jeb Bush in particular–for taking contributions from big donors and says that his wealth immunizes him to pleas from special interests. As Mr. Trump continues saying things that in past campaigns might have ruled him out as a viable candidate, his rhetoric keeps drawing free media coverage. If he keeps this up, and eventually wins the Republican nomination–an outcome that looks less and less implausible–he might not need to use public funds, for which he would qualify as a major-party nominee, for advertising. It has been standard campaign practices to run continuous ads, at least to thwart attacks by opponents and to remind voters of what’s at stake. But as long as he gets free media coverage Mr. Trump won’t be dependent on advertising, and coverage of Mr. Trump’s campaign is likely to increase if his poll numbers stay up and if he wins some early primaries.
Huffington Post: Why Donald Trump’s Instagram Ads Don’t Have That Disclaimer
Paul Blumenthal
The FEC explains on its website that it generally requires public communications paid for by the campaigns of candidates for federal office to include a disclaimer noting just that. The definition of such political advertising, however, “does not include Internet ads, except for communications placed for a fee on another person’s web site.”
In other words, candidates are freed from the disclaimer rule on social media sites like Instagram.
There are also exemptions for small items, like bumper stickers and buttons, and impractical items, like skywriting and water towers. But Trump’s ads garner much more attention, since almost anything he does, says or posts these days receives extended free play on TV and online news sites.
Government Accountability
Wall Street Journal: The Off-Grid Administration
Editorial Board
Last Monday the IRS was forced to acknowledge to a federal court that it recently discovered that Lois Lerner (of political targeting fame) used a second, private email to conduct government work. The account was set up under the name “ Toby Miles,” and the IRS still can’t account for its contents.
It has been two years since Congress first subpoenaed Ms. Lerner’s emails. In 2013 when Mrs. Lerner was still directing the IRS’s Exempt Organizations unit, she cautioned colleagues to be careful what they said on email; then she inquired whether the agency’s instant-messaging system was archived. Told it wasn’t, she responded by email: “Perfect.”
Independent Groups
The Hill: PACs’ creative rule-bending
Jonathan Swan
Rick Perry’s super-PACs register voters in Iowa and take on the lion’s share of campaign activities since Perry’s official campaign began running out of cash a few weeks ago.
A pro-Hillary Clinton super-PAC uses an obscure loophole to make strategic information public, allowing it to be used by anyone — including the Clinton campaign.
And Chris Christie’s super-PAC is run by a man “who knows what the governor is thinking before he says it,” according to one adviser.
Presidential candidates and their “independent” super-PACS are finding increasingly creative ways to ensure they are coordinated in their strategies and messages, while not falling foul of the laws against coordination.
The States
Seattle Weekly: The Campaign to Get Money Out of Seattle Politics Is Raising a Lot of Money
Casey Jaywork
The effort to expunge money from campaigns, though, comes with irony. I-122 has itself amassed a campaign war chest that dwarfs not only the opposition’s, but that of every other campaign in Seattle. Not even whales like Tim Burgess, Pamela Banks, or Kshama Sawant—who’ve each raised about a quarter-million dollars—come close to the roughly $370,000 that Honest Elections has raked in.
More than half of that $370,000 comes from four out-of-state contributors: two national anti-graft activist groups; a union-owned bank on the East Coast; and a rich liberal in New York—Sean Eldridge, failed congressional candidate and husband of The New Republic publisher and Facebook billionaire Chris Hughes. Eldridge is the biggest single donor, contributing $100,000 to the effort. (Another irony: Many saw Eldridge’s run for office, in which he outspent his opponent by $3.3 million, as an attempt to buy a seat in Congress.)
The Missoulian: Court rejects appeal for full hearing on contribution limits
Associated Press
A federal court has rejected Montana’s request to rehear their defense of state campaign contribution limits.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that none of its 44 judges moved to reconsider the case that the court already decided was tried on out-of-date standards.
A panel of three federal judges decided in May that a state District Court must decide whether Montana’s contribution limits are constitutional based on legal tests outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.
