In the News
DecodeDC: The FEC is a watchdog that doesn’t bite
Jimmy Williams
Brad Smith, Trevor Potter and Larry Noble discuss the FEC – its history, its structure, and the current perceptions of the agency.
CCP
Too Much Disclosure Misinforms Voters
Luke Wachob
Taken together, these three stories all show how our labyrinthine campaign finance regulations can mislead voters when there is too much disclosure. If individuals weren’t forced to list their employer when giving money to candidates and political committees, some Republican voters would not have been fooled into thinking George Soros was backing John Kasich. If spending by independent groups, campaigns, and lobbying efforts were not muddled together by “transparency” advocates, politicians, and the media, Maryland voters could have had a more meaningful discussion about the issues facing their state instead of an asinine debate over whose supporters are less sympathetic. If campaign laws were not so strict and misconstrued by the media, a few confused donors sending $6,000 instead of $5,400 would not be fodder for damaging stories about candidates.
The frustrating thing is that we could fix these problems while preserving the core of campaign finance disclosure: public reporting of the names and contribution amounts of donors who give significant amounts to candidates, parties, and PACs. It may sound like a paradox, but to make disclosure more effective, we should disclose less.
FEC
Pillars of Law: Selective Fear of Foreign Influence: Applying FEC Commissioner Weintraub’s Latest Citizens United Proposal to Unions
Stephen Klein
Unions don’t necessarily get a pass from the speech czars, but have a strange tendency to be absent from reformist rhetoric, despite exercising what one can easily call “outsize influence” in elections. Weintraub’s piece is, unfortunately, no exception to this omission, though unions pose the same danger of foreign influence that Weintraub aims to cure…
Weintraub’s argument applies just as forcefully, if not more so, to unions. Unions’ political speech is at least as representative of their members—I would argue much more—than corporations’ of their stockholders. There is plenty of evidence to show illegal immigrants are members of American unions and that their dues are used to pay for political speech. Just months after Citizens United, in the the Washington Post, Marc Thiessen went several rounds with the Service Employees International Union, concluding that they have little interest in providing a full account of foreign money within their political spending. (The SEIU still cleverly dodges this on its own website.) As Think Progress reported last year, “with a receding membership in recent times, unions are aggressively targeting the 22 million immigrant workers in the country, regardless of legal status, to join their ranks”
More Soft Money Hard Law: One FEC Commissioner’s Answer to Citizens United
Bob Bauer
There is first the question of the broader constitutional theory that Commissioner Weintraub is staking out, which is, effectively, that the FEC can act in this fashion because a corporation has no free-speech rights separate from the rights enjoyed by its “association’ members. Allen Dickerson has already responded to this point. He argues that the Supreme Court rejected this position some time ago, and it is indeed notable that Justice Byron White, who led the way in voicing these concerns in Bellotti v. First National Bank of Boston, wrote the dissent.
Another set of issues raised by the Weintraub proposal is more technical, and these emerge from a close reading of the Motion to launch the rulemaking that she intends to put before the Commission.
The Commissioner wishes to jump to the certification requirement without addressing the first order issue: is there a supportable legal theory underlying the requirement? …FEC rules have long provided that just the availability of money not permissibly used in federal elections is not disqualifying: the spender may simply show that it used other money, not the prohibited funds.
Washington Examiner: Dems on FEC target conservatives, vote to punish maker of anti-Obama movie
Paul Bedard
The three Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, in their latest and boldest move to regulate conservative media, voted in unison to punish a movie maker critical of President Obama after he distributed for free his latest work, Dreams of My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception.
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, owner of Highway 61 films, has produced several independent politically-themed movies and sent Dreams out to millions of voters in key swing states prior to the 2012 election.
While he acted on his own, and with no ties to political groups or parties, an FEC complaint was filed claiming he violated reporting rules, prompting him to seek the standard media “exemption.”
But despite giving the same exemption to liberal movie makers like Michael Moore and Daily Kos, the Democrats recently voted against Gilbert in a February action, reviving their bid to punish conservative media, a campaign initially targeting online news outlets like the Drudge Report.
Independent Groups
Politico: Cruz fundraiser heard toeing donations rule
Isaac Arnsdorf
A fundraiser for Ted Cruz may have broken election law by suggesting that supporters at an official event give unlimited donations to an allied super PAC, a recording obtained by POLITICO shows.
“If you hit your max then we have a table for you that is the unlimited table,” Keet Lewis, a bundler for the campaign and co-host of a Dec. 30 fundraiser in Dallas, says on the recording provided to POLITICO. “It can take corporate dollars, it can take partnership dollars, and that’s the super PAC, Stand for Truth, so pick up some of that information.”
Campaigns and their agents are not allowed to solicit donations exceeding federal limits. The Federal Election Commission has said officials can direct donors to super PACs but only personally solicit for up to $5,000. Lewis, however, is heard asking for unlimited and corporate dollars.
“The fellow should revise and extend his remarks to make it clear he was not asking for more than $5,000,” said Jan Baran, an election lawyer at Wiley Rein.
Citizens United
Washington Post: Yes, ‘Citizens United’ gives Republicans an electoral edge. Here’s proof.
Tilman Klumpp, Hugo M. Mialon and Michael A. Williams
Unlike the federal government, some states never restricted independent political expenditures and were, therefore, unaffected by the Citizens United decision. Other states had restricted such expenditures and were forced to remove the restrictions after the ruling. In a study that will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, we analyzed data from more than 38,000 state legislative races between 2000 and 2012, in both groups of states. Our objective was to figure out what impact, if any, Citizens United had on who gets elected to state legislative office. In states that previously banned corporate and union expenditures, we found that Citizens United shifted the odds of electoral success detectably and in a clear direction: from Democratic to Republican candidates.
SEC
Wall Street Journal: SEC Picks in Jeopardy as Some Democrats Revolt
Andrew Ackerman
A revolt by Democratic lawmakers is jeopardizing the nominations of two White House picks for the Securities and Exchange Commission, threatening to further hamper the short-handed agency struggling to complete key rules.
During what was expected to be a routine vote Thursday, a group of Democratic senators drew a line in the sand, demanding that the markets regulator adopt new rules forcing companies to disclose spending on political activities—an issue on which the commission’s current chairman, along with the nominees, have been noncommittal.
Four Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, including Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, said they would oppose the SEC picks, after which the panel postponed the vote.
Activism
Trevor Potter: Happy Campaign Finance Warrior
Kathy Kiely
Do you think these tactics make any sense, the idea of a big march, civil disobedience, getting arrested?
As a Republican I think there’s a problem with that plan in this circumstance. And let’s start with the fact that the famous Civil Rights marches were effective, I believe, because their numbers were so huge. People were shocked at the number of people who came. I don’t know how big the numbers will be for these marches, but it seems to me unhelpful to have just another march. If you’re going to have one, it does need to have numbers that really surprise people.
But beyond that, this is an issue that needs bipartisan support. Civil rights had bipartisan support… The march is largely organized by Democratic and Progressive groups, and it doesn’t look to me like a good venue for bringing out all the Republicans, who the polls say are equally unhappy.
Influence
Politico: Shuster on defense in reelection over lobbyist girlfriend
Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer
Shuster has long brushed off those charges, saying his romantic relationship with Shelley Rubino, one of the top lobbyists for Airlines for America, is completely above board. Despite his girlfriend representing an industry with billions of dollars on the line in front of his committee, Shuster has refused to recuse himself from legislation dealing with the airline industry. In fact, at times Shuster has led the charge on legislation favorable to the commercial airline industry.
But as Shuster fights to fend off Halvorson and win a ninth term in Congress, his relationship with Rubino has become an issue ahead of the April 26 primary. Earlier this week, Shuster appeared to take a step away from Rubino and recast her work before the powerful panel, saying she doesn’t lobby his committee, which has purview over the airlines.
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: Office of Congressional Ethics Cites Possible Violations by Alan Grayson
Eric Lipton
Representative Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, may have improperly used his House office and staff to handle personal financial matters involving a family-run hedge fund as well as political activities related to his bid for the United States Senate, the Office of Congressional Ethics concluded in a 986-page investigation released Tuesday.
The report, which found as many as a half dozen violations of House rules, provoked an angry response from Mr. Grayson, who accused the quasi-independent agency of conspiring with his Democratic opponent for the Senate seat.
New York Post: Hillary’s campaign behemoth built on a mountain of secret cash
Marisa Schultz
Sanders says Clinton’s ties to super PACs make her unqualified to be president, and he continued to mock her big-money ties at an AFL-CIO convention Thursday morning.
“I will not leave here this morning and go to a Wall Street fundraiser,” Sanders told the audience in Philadelphia. “I will not be hustling money from the wealthy and the powerful. I grew up, in a sense, in this movement. You are my family. And we will win or lose this campaign on the backs of working families.”
Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, went a step further by accusing Clinton of selling her soul to the super PACs.
The States
Bozeman Daily Chronicle: Politicians, voters take note of Wittich case
Editorial Board
Bozeman state Rep. Art Wittich told a Helena jury earlier this month that he did not knowingly take illegal campaign contributions or coordinate campaign activities with a special interest group — also a violation of state law.
But the jury ultimately determined that Wittich did indeed do both of those things.
Wittich has steadfastly maintained that he was targeted because of his conservative politics. He was also less than contrite after the jury’s decision was announced, blaming the state’s political watchdog for his own downfall.
