CCP
Solutions that Don’t Solve the Problem
Luke Wachob
Eliminating these self-serving acts of corruption is beyond the limits of what a tax-financing program can ever hope to achieve. It’s utopian – or silly – for the Times to expect “a complete change of [New York’s] toxic culture” to come from any campaign finance regulatory scheme, given the decades of evidence demonstrating that these laws do not reduce corruption. Such a policy proposal is even more galling when one considers that it would dole out tax dollars to an already-corrupt individual. Whatever happened to “power corrupts”? When reasonable reformers warn their more ambitious allies not to overpromise, this is exactly what they mean.
I’ve written about the exploitation of Albany’s corruption issues to push for tax-financed campaign schemes before. It seems that to some, every scandal is an opportunity to junk the free speech protections of the First Amendment and ratchet up government control of political speech.
Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: The First Amendment Needs Your Prayers
Peggy Noonan
Why doesn’t some thoughtful candidate on the Republican side address the issue of shaming and silencing? Why doesn’t someone give a deep and complete speech on what the First Amendment means, how it must be protected, how we pay a daily price for it in terms of anger, hurt, misunderstandings and crudity, but it’s worth it. Why doesn’t someone note that you fight bad speech with better speech, you don’t try to tape up the mouths of an entire country.
The censorship movement is radical. It is starting to make everyone in the country feel harassed and anxious. It is odd to see candidates miss a rising issue that is giving pause to so many Americans.
I pray someone will address it. Literally, I just did.
Campaign Spending Effectiveness
Washington Post: The other, bigger problem with that viral anti-NRA tweetstorm
Philip Bump
The core construct Volsky used — prayer means nothing compared to policy changes — met with harsh criticism from those who thought it disparaged the value of prayer, particularly in emotional moments. But there’s another problem with Volsky’s tweets: They reinforce the naive idea that campaign spending creates members of Congress beholden to outside interests.
That’s an admittedly controversial point. There’s a subset of American politics that is heavily invested in the idea that the road to bad legislation is paved with checks from wealthy donors. But that’s not generally the case — as Volsky’s tweets inadvertently make clear.
Vox: Really rich people aren’t actually that good at buying their way into political office
Andrew Prokop
Indeed, Steen wrote that her evidence suggests the marginal impact of “a dollar self-financed does not equal a dollar raised.” That may seem weird, since these dollars tend to be spent on the same sorts of things.
But traditional political fundraising necessarily involves building a network of some sort. Whether it’s big-dollar black-tie events or small online donations, the candidate has convinced actual people to fork over some of their hard-earned cash.
And, Steen argued, the effects from that network-building can ripple outward in several ways. The most obvious is that the donors themselves will presumably vote for the candidate they’re giving to. Donations from groups, which usually come with endorsements, could bring in even more votes.
Political Parties
Huffington Post: Democrats Oppose New Effort To Loosen Campaign Finance Rules
Paul Blumenthal
Reps. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) are circulating a letter among Democrats calling on congressional leaders to oppose the inclusion of a provision that would allow political parties to spend unlimited money on coordinated expenditures with candidates. The letter, which will be sent to McConnell, along with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has 113 signatures so far.
Daily Signal: Conservative Leaders Rally Against Mitch McConnell’s Campaign Finance Measure
Melissa Quinn
In a letter circulated among conservative groups, 40 conservative leaders Thursday rallied in opposition to a campaign finance policy rider McConnell, R-Ky., will reportedly insert into the omnibus spending bill.
McConnell’s measure would lift the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate.
“There is no doubt that campaign finance restrictions need reform,” the signatories said. “However, the McConnell rider provides preferential treatment to the Washington establishment and subordinates the voices of those who contribute to other multi-candidate organizations. Therefore, the Congress should not include this rider.”
Vox: Mitch McConnell once again is using the omnibus spending bill to give himself more power over campaign money
Lee Drutman
HFC members see themselves as outsiders from the establishment apparatus, and want to keep things that way. They worry that they could be either forced into line or forced out by the party establishment. And possibly they would.
But those who want more moderation and compromise in Congress should actually side with the House Freedom Caucus on this.
It may not be immediately obvious, but think about it for a second. Consider the politics of recent budget deals. If former House Speaker John Boehner could have held his party together, he would have been in a stronger negotiating position and would have been able to push for bigger cuts. But because he ultimately needed Democrats to pass something and not preside over a total breakdown of government, he was more limited in what he could ask for. Because he had to deal with the HFC, he had to negotiate with Dems.
Independent Groups
Washington Free Beacon: Democracy Alliance’s Dark Money Network Works to Retake States
Lachlan Markay
Each of the funds has a 501(c)(4) and a 501(c)(3) component. Both tax structures permit the groups to keep donors confidential. However, their donors do not actually give money to the funds themselves; they give to “fiscal sponsor” organizations that then pass the money along to those funds.
That can make it difficult to trace the sources of money behind the Alliance’s state efforts, which, despite the nonprofit tax statuses of the groups involved, appear to conduct significant political and electoral advocacy.
New York Times: Bush ‘Super PAC’ to ‘Tell Jeb’s Story’ in 15-Minute Documentary
Ashley Parker
Right to Rise, the “super PAC” supporting Mr. Bush, has produced a 15-minute documentary featuring him and will release it online on Saturday and will later show it on television…
The documentary, which includes interviews with Mr. Bush and his wife, Columba, will talk about Mr. Bush’s record as the governor of Florida, as well as describe his vision for the future, including his plans to defeat the Islamic State and overhaul the federal government.
The plan is to air the spot in 30-minute blocks on the New England Sports Network, which would reach voters in New Hampshire
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: State democracy another victim of Citizens United
Editorial Board
No worries, though. Mr. Rauner and his friends just plan on letting their money speak louder. After his election victory, they poured another $20 million into the governor’s campaign committee to help influence state lawmakers. Former aides to the governor set up Turnaround Illinois, a super PAC designed to shift the Legislature into more friendly hands. Millions more are being funneled into that.
A democracy cannot long survive as a democracy if it’s for sale to the highest bidder, ignoring the interests of ordinary members of society in favor of those wealthy enough to influence the election outcomes.
Wisconsin ‘John Doe’
Wall Street Journal: Mr. Schmitz Is Terminated
Editorial Board
For Wisconsin prosecutors who won’t take a hint, subtlety doesn’t work. So on Wednesday the state Supreme Court rejected their motion to reconsider the John Doe probe of conservative groups, ordered seized documents handed over to the court, and terminated Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz…
Mr. Schmitz previously said he might appeal the summer ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the High Court is unlikely to consider a ruling rooted in the Badger State constitution. Meanwhile, he has 30 days to notify anyone who had data or communications seized via Internet service providers under the John Doe. Many unsuspecting people may soon learn they were targets of the secret and abusive process.
Candidates and Campaigns
Time: Why Billionaires Aren’t Lining Up to Torpedo Trump
Zeke J. Miller
“You can’t outspend the guy, and even if you could, you could never out-scream him,” said one major donor to a Trump rival. “Your 30-second spot can’t trump his irresponsible rhetoric, which is catnip for cable news.”
So for all of the talk about billionaires rigging elections, some of these political oligarchs are content watching the field shake out without their checks.
Take, for instance, billionaires Charles and David Koch. They guide one of the most sophisticated political and policy operations in the country and are favorites of their wealthy friends who want to shape the United States. Charles and David are no fans of Trump—they won’t allow him to see their database on voters, for instance—but they’re also not marshaling money to oppose him. Their flagship operation, Americans for Prosperity, instead is keeping its eyes on local questions such as film tax credits, gas taxes and economic development dollars.
The States
New Orleans Times Picayune: ‘This is politics, your honor’: Walter Reed’s lawyer argues campaign spending wasn’t criminal
Emily Lane
Prosecutors argued Thursday that Reed defrauded contributors by using campaign donations for personal gain. But Simmons said much of the spending — such as pricy meals at nine area restaurants, or flowers for a funeral — fell under the realm of what he called “political life.” He requested the judge dismiss some of the charges.
“A lot of this (spending) is going to be shown as related to holding public office,” Simmons said.
Moreover, Simmons argued, when contributors make a donation to campaigns, they have no legal right to “hold onto the purse strings.” He said, for example, that state campaign finance laws even allow candidates to funnel contributions to the campaigns of opposing candidates.
