CCP
Missouri citizen faces $1,000 fine simply for talking about government policies
Ron Calzone is a rancher and small businessman who lives in the country near Rolla, Missouri. A passionate believer in individual liberty and constitutionally limited government, Calzone regularly discusses these issues and appears as a witness before committees of the General Assembly. He and four friends founded an organization, Missouri First, to help other Missourians keep informed about various state government matters impacting their rights. No one pays Calzone for these efforts, and Calzone does not buy food or gifts for any legislator. His only tools are knowledge, reason, and eloquence, and his only reward is seeing people come to understand his perspectives on public policy.
Nevertheless, after consulting with elected legislators who had previously opposed Calzone’s exercise of his right to free speech and petition, the Missouri Society of Governmental Consultants – a professional association for the state’s paid lobbyists – filed a complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission. Its theory: that Calzone should be forced to register with the state as a lobbyist, even though no one employs or otherwise pays him to share ideas with government officials.
CCP v. Harris: Amicus Curiae Brief of the Institute for Justice in Support of CCP
Despite the experience of the 47 states that successfully regulate charitable solicitation without demanding unfettered access to the private details of charities’ associations with their donors, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Attorney General’s sweeping intrusion into CCP’s private association with its donors. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit ignored wide swaths of this Court’s precedent, creating multiple conflicts with this Court and other circuits that merit this Court’s review. First, in conflict with this Court’s repeated recognition that compelled disclosure of one’s private associations is necessarily chilling, the Ninth Circuit held that such disclosure is chilling only if one can produce evidence that the disclosure will lead to harassment or reprisal. Second, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other circuits holding that burdens on charitable solicitation are subject to strict scrutiny, the Ninth Circuit reviewed those burdens with only intermediate scrutiny.
Political Parties
New York Times: Can Anything Be Done About All the Money in Politics?
Thomas B. Edsall
Public concern over the potential for corruption in this flood of cash has resulted, over the past half century, in five separate approaches to the regulation of campaign finance.
Each of these five approaches has created winners and losers: business, labor, the super rich, reformers, consultants, corporations, incumbents, challengers, bundlers, lobbyists and the television industry have all seen their fortunes ebb and flow. The quest for cleaner politics has also had unanticipated side effects, like the intensification of political polarization and the weakening of the two major political parties.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: What a blurry image in a new pro-Jeb Bush ad tells you about campaign finance
David Weigel and Matea Gold
Why was it so important for the message to be blurred? Because, as an independent super PAC, Right to Rise cannot coordinate its paid ads with Bush’s official campaign. The appearance of his official campaign logo in a super PAC ad could suggest that the two entities were working in conjunction. In the age of the super PAC, you can tell voters that they should strongly consider voting for Jeb Bush — but you cannot, ever, tell them that he has a website or a campaign of his own. You just have to trust them to find out for themselves
Marketplace: Where super PAC money goes when a candidate drops out
Nova Safo
They are likely also hearing from donors, he says, who might want a refund. The super PACs could choose to return the money they’ve raised, direct it towards supporting another candidate or give the money to charity. And there is another possible outcome.
“Theoretically, if there was candidate out there that Gov. Perry’s supporters did not particularly think should be the Republican nominee, this group could certainly pay for independent ads opposing that candidate,” Passantino says.
Mother Jones: Democrats Are…Maybe…Possibly…Thinking About Fundraising the Way Republicans Do
Kevin Drum
So the apparent plan here isn’t so much to get permission for all these shady practices, but to prod the FEC into declaring them illegal. This would muck things up for Republicans, who currently rely on them.
Or, in the worst case, the FEC would approve them and Democrats could safely adopt them too. All of which raises the question: why are Republicans so cavalier about dodgy fundraising practices while Democrats are so hesitant to adopt them? In some case, like that of Bernie Sanders, it’s based on principle, but I imagine that he’s the exception rather than the rule. Are Democrats afraid the media will be tougher on them than on Republicans if they push the envelope of fundraising tactics? Possibly. Maybe “no controlling legal authority” still keeps them awake at night. Or are they just wimps?
Free Speech
The Chronicle of Higher Education: For Our Free Speech, We Have Censors to Thank
Amy Werbel
This year, September 21 is a fine day to reflect on the lessons of history as we consider the future of speech in higher education: It’s the 100th anniversary of the death of Anthony Comstock.
His is no longer a household name, but Comstock was an important national figure, because he held immense and unique prosecutorial authority to control and suppress speech. He was a U.S. postal inspector and secretary and a special agent of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an organization empowered by state statute to supervise the morality of the public. Comstock was a Christian evangelical convinced that if provocative texts, images, and objects were eliminated, souls would be saved and a better and more civil society would result. As our contemporary culture demonstrates, his efforts resulted in epic failure.
Huffington Post: Scrawling ‘F**k Your S**tty Town Bitches’ On Speeding Ticket Is Free Speech, Judge Finds
Christopher Mathias
“Instead of protecting freedom of speech, government officers in Liberty handcuffed me, arrested me for a crime and almost sent me to jail because I harmlessly expressed my frustration with a speeding ticket,” Barboza said Tuesday, responding to the decision. “The people I trusted to uphold the law violated my most basic rights. I hope that by standing up for myself, other Americans will not be treated like criminals for complaining about their government with a few harmless words.”
“We are delighted that the Court has ruled in Barboza’s favor,” Bergstein said in a statement. “Freedom of speech protects everyone, even if they say something offensive.”
Shareholder Activism
Wall Street Journal: Some Companies Balk at Disclosing Details of Political Giving
Vipal Monga and Maxwell Murphy
“The cost and effort to compile and report this data would outweigh its limited value to our stockholders,” Schwab said this year in response to a disclosure proposal.
Shareholders this year have voted on 63 nonbinding proposals seeking more details about corporate political activities, according to proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services. That compares to 87 for all of last year. Proposals for this year so far were backed by an average 29% of shares voted, up from 28% in 2014.
“It’s about the use of capital that could perhaps be invested better,” added Sister Valerie Heinonen, a director of shareholder advocacy at Mercy Investment Services, the investment arm of the Sisters of Mercy, a religious order.
Wisconsin John Doe
Wisconsin Watchdog: Did the GAB ‘illegally coordinate’ with left-leaning groups?
M.D. Kittle
Turning the tables on the Government Accountability Board, victims of the rogue ethics agency’s multi-year John Doe investigation want to know if the board illegally coordinated with liberal political groups.
On Tuesday, attorneys for Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, targets of the unconstitutional probe, filed a motion to compel the GAB to turn over communications it had with the Brennan Center for Justice and the Campaign Legal Center.
Attorney Lucinda Luetkemeyer argued the communications could clarify whether the GAB assisted the outside groups in writing amicus, or friend-of-the court, briefs in John Doe-related litigation, or whether the groups helped the accountability board.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Hill: Clinton’s campaign finance proposal weak on details
Heather Brown
The particulars of the plan are largely drawn from previous recommendations from a host of good government groups. Unfortunately, many important details — such as the level of matching of small donations, what vigorous enforcement of campaign finance laws actually means, and how timely disclosure of political spending would be defined — are absent from the plan.
More importantly, the proposal seems to miss an opportunity to clarify for voters what would seem to matter most: how a Clinton presidency would govern. Rather than focus on many policy changes that would be essentially out of the hands of the next president, especially the passage of a constitutional amendment to overturn aspects of Citizens United, it would have been better to hear more about which decisions a Clinton White House would actually make.
Ars Technica: Presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig goes one on one with Ars
David Kravets
Ars: Campaign finance reform clearly is not a bipartisan issue. How are you going to get the GOP interested in this issue? And is this why you are running as a Democrat? In fact, given your platform, why have you chosen a party?
Lessig: Two words: Donald Trump. Until Donald Trump, it’s true that among GOP insiders in DC, corruption wasn’t an issue. After Donald Trump, it is as much a question for Republicans as Democrats: How can we have a Congress free to lead?
I wish there were a way to run as an independent. But the two parties have made that essentially impossible—at least to win. No doubt I could split the vote of the Democratic Party, but I have no desire to Nader this election.
Politico: Rick Perry megadonor wants his $5 million back
Kyle Cheney
Though the former Texas governor folded amid fundraising turmoil, supporters running a well-funded super PAC supporting his candidacy are considering whether there’s an outlet for as much as $13 million they had in the bank when Perry dropped out.
The son of one top donor to the PAC, Doug Deason, said his father – tech magnate Darwin Deason — anticipates that contributions will be returned and the committee, dubbed the Opportunity and Freedom PAC, will shutter. But Austin Barbour, a senior member of the PAC’s leadership, said he’s still discussing options with the group’s lawyers.
Just for Fun
Daily Beast: Kanye’s Super PAC Drops Yeezus 2020 Vids
James Joiner
When Kanye West announced his intentions to run for president of the United States in 2020 at this summer’s MTV Video Music Awards, the rapper/egoist/wannabe fashion mogul/well-married man got his requisite bump in headlines and social media. Everyone thought it would just go away. Yet one month later, he now has his own super PAC, Ready for Kanye, all officially registered and everything. Not to mention Taylor Swift has graciously offered to be his running mate—and if the pair of the could get even half their Facebook followers to vote for them, they’d win the popular vote by an unprecedented landslide.
