In the News
National Law Journal: Brief of the Week: Making the Case for Anonymous Donors
Jamie Schuman
For all of the donors who like to publicize their charitable gifts, there are many who prefer to give anonymously. But California is making nonprofits that want to solicit funds there turn over their donors’ names to the state. A cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court in Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris challenges this policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the requirement imposes no First Amendment injury. [Subscription Required]
Private Giving
Wall Street Journal: The Latest Progressive Attack on Speech
Dan Epstein
On Tuesday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing arguments in Van Hollen v. FEC. Though little-known, this case is a critical part of the left’s campaign to silence political debate after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that upheld campaign spending as protected speech. At stake again are no less than the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free association.
The central figure is Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who argues that he has a right to participate “in elections untainted by expenditures from undisclosed sources.” He sued the Federal Election Commission in 2011, claiming that the agency infringed upon this right. In his lawsuit, he says that federal law requires nonprofits that fund “electioneering communications”—ads that advocate for a candidate’s election or defeat—to release a full list of supporters. Mr. Van Hollen asked the court to strike down an FEC regulation that prevents such disclosure.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Super PACs Target Local Races
Heather Haddon
More than $637 million was spent by independent-expenditure groups for elections across 24 states last year, up from $214 million in 28 states in 2012, according to an analysis of data from the nonprofit Follow the Money campaign-finance group.
In Connecticut, contributions from independent groups rose to $7.5 million last year, compared with $751,000 in 2012, records show. Connecticut Forward, a group backed by unions and the Democratic Governors Association, spent the bulk of the money to help re-elect incumbent Gov. Dannel Malloy last year.
New York City elections saw nearly $16 million in outside spending pumped into the 2013 local races, and $6 million from independent groups went into Newark’s municipal elections last year, records show.
National Journal: Group Aiming to Change GOP’s Anti-Gay-Marriage Platform Plank Expands
Alex Roarty
Since April 2014, the group Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry has tried to persuade influential Republicans and potential convention delegates that they should remove anti-gay marriage language from the Republican Party platform at next year’s GOP convention. For the past year-and-a-half, that effort—ranging from public rallies to media interviews to private conversations—has been confined to early primary and caucus states, like Iowa and South Carolina.
Now, the effort will target all 50 states, deploying at least a dozen staffers to lead the charge that, boosters say, will help the GOP win the 2016 presidential election.
Media
Politico: Free Beacon: Trump donation was to buy hats
Hadas Gold
The Washington Free Beacon says that a filing with the Federal Election Commission showing that their digital managing editor gave more than $500 to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was actually from purchasing Trump merchandise for staff.
CNN reported on Thursday that Andrew Stiles has given $544.25 to Trump’s presidential campaign, later noting in the story that it appears to be for hats. Stiles’ occupation, which all campaign donors are asked to provide, is listed as “#1 TRUMP FAN.”
Washington Free Beacon editor Matthew Continetti said in a statement Stiles purchased the hats for the staff at the publication.
“As Andrew has said, he made what he thought was a charitable donation to the cause of making America great again, a cause that he cares about deeply.
Candidates and Campaigns
National Public Radio: Campaigns Taking In 35 Percent Less Cash Than 2008, But There’s More We Can’t See
Peter Overby
The latest presidential fundraising reports, due last Thursday, might have wrecked the weekend for the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, but today the institute released its analysis of how the candidates fared.
The big conclusion: Campaigns are not shaking the money loose as effectively as in 2008, the last time the race for the White House was open on both sides. The six Democrats and 16 Republicans who were running in the third quarter collectively raised $273 million; the institute finds that’s a 35 percent drop from ’08.
Huffington Post: Where Are The 2016 Candidates Getting All Those Millions?
Paul Blumenthal
Some candidates relied heavily on large contributions — including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on the Republican side, and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Others financed their campaigns with vast pools of small donors — including retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with the GOP, and Democratic candidate and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders…
The Huffington Post ran the numbers for the 17 (likely more viable) presidential candidates who reported raising more than half a million dollars from July through September.
National Public Radio: ‘Fanciful’? Meet Lawrence Lessig, The Candidate With A Single Issue
Laura Sydell
But the issue of campaign finance reform isn’t on the top of everyone’s agenda — and it shouldn’t be, says Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively about the issue. “I think trying to make the argument it is the No. 1 issue, which if solved would do away with most of our governing problems, is fanciful,” said Mann.
Lessig says he just wants a chance to debate this in front of the American people and be included in the rest of the Democratic debates. Even though he has raised more money than some of his rivals, his poll numbers still don’t qualify him. Which may mean that means that money can’t buy everything.
New Republic: Why Did Ted Cruz Spend $122,000 on His Own Books?
Jason Pinter
For the eye-opening price of $85, you can buy a signed copy of A Time For Truth, Ted Cruz’s bestselling book, which came out in July to controversy when, despite strong sales, the New York Times left it off its bestseller list. Unlike most of the Cruz knickknacks, A Time For Truth seems more aggressively overpriced; at $85, it’s 303% higher than the full retail price for the book and 506% over its discounted price on Amazon.
Any piece of memorabilia signed by a celebrity is subject to price gouging. But in the case of the books sold by Cruz’s campaign, the donors are the ones paying for the goods, which are then resold to donors at high markups.
The States
More Soft Money Hard Law: California: Presumptions about Super PACs
Bob Bauer
California has approved rules to better keep Super PACs in line. The Fair Political Practices Commission has its eyes on the federal and other states’ election law controversies, noting in a press release that it is acting “on the heels of a national trend toward increased coordination between candidates and Independent Expenditure (IR) committees—a trend the FPPC seeks to stop.” It wishes to enforce the “highest degree of separation that is constitutionally permissible “ to counter “new strategies being used by outside groups.
The FPPC regulations already use “rebuttable presumptions” to identify the factual circumstances in which coordination is present or where there is good reason to suspect it. It has also provided for some exceptions—“safe harbors”– for certain contacts between candidates and the IE committee. In the revised rules approved last week, the FPPC adds to the presumptions and to the safe harbors.
