CCP
Senator Mad Federal Agency Won’t Help him Silence Opponents
Scott Blackburn
Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, Schumer seems to reveal what this hullaballoo is really about – political speech. It is not the money that, in Schumer’s mind, is causing Americans to be unhappy and “discontent” – it’s the “cascade of ads.” That is, Sen. Schumer doesn’t like people hearing political messages so frequently, and by god, for the good of the country, he is determined to put a stop to it! If only we could ban all of these political ads, then we can have the criticism-free government that Schumer desires. And new SEC disclosure rules are a step down that speech-limiting path.
“Reformers” regularly argue that disclosure has nothing to do with free speech, and that more disclosure does not limit anyone from speaking out. But Sen. Schumer understands quite well that the deterrent effect of disclosure regulations should not be underestimated. If you force more groups to report the private information of their supporters to the government, particularly in areas only loosely connected to actual campaigns, you can dissuade Americans from contributing to such groups, limit ads on topical political issues, and thereby silence political speech.
Dangers of Disclosure
New York Post: How Democrats are destroying American’s right to free speech
Kyle Smith
Sounding a similar note in the case of the Ohio mom in 1995, Justice John Paul Stevens ruled, “The interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure.”
Today, the intimidation game has evolved. President Obama pushes for more and more donor-disclosure laws, knowing that his minions will bombard those who donate to right-leaning groups.
In 2012, Obama himself, through his campaign website, harassed businessman Frank VanderSloot, who had made a legal donation to a Mitt Romney-supporting PAC. Obama’s site denounced eight men including VanderSloot, who had been accused of no wrongdoing, for having “less-than-reputable records” and said “quite a few” of the targets had been “on the wrong side of the law.”
Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: Exxon’s Inquisitors Feel the Heat
Kimberley A. Strassel
The goal of the Exxon probe isn’t to protect consumers or help the environment. It’s a message: Oppose us, and we will marshal our terrifying government powers to intimidate and threaten you, to force you to spend millions defending yourself, to eat up the time you’d otherwise use speaking out.
The Exxon investigation is “pure harassment,” civil-liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate told the Boston Herald this week. “It is outrageous for any law enforcement official,” he continued, “to be seeking to win this battle for minds by flexing law enforcement muscle and trying to shut up the other side.”
Wall Street Journal: Two Can Play at Climate ‘Fraud’
Editorial Board
The letter from the 13 Republican AGs asks, “Should these statements justify an investigation into all contributions to environmental non-profits by Kleiner Perkins’s partners?” They quickly add that they want to undertake no such action. But they deserve credit for pointing out the political Pandora’s box that left-wing AGs have opened by “policing viewpoints” on climate change.
We don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for engaging in political debate, but progressives have shown (see independent counsels) that they’ll cease their abuses only when the same methods are used against them.
Independent Groups
The Smoking Gun: DNC Financial Records Stolen By “Guccifer 2.0”
The March 24, 2015 memo was addressed to campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook, and campaign finance director Dennis Cheng.
In addition to noting that all conversations referring to a “preferred Super PAC” should include a “hard ask for $5000,” the Elias memo offers carefully scripted lines for staffers to use when dealing with prospective contributors to super PACs backing Clinton.
Such PACs are independent political committees that are prohibited from donating money directly to the candidate they support, nor are the groups allowed to coordinate efforts with a candidate’s campaign. Which explains why Elias took more than three pages to detail the dos and don’ts associated with extracting super Pac money from wealthy contributors.
IRS
National Public Radio: Court Documents Show The IRS Focused Scrutiny On Conservative Groups
Peter Overby
Until now, what’s been missing is a list of the nonprofit groups that got special scrutiny — a list that presumably would show whether the agency had a political agenda or not.
Now, thanks to filings in a federal lawsuit in Ohio, there is such a list, with 426 names on it. And yes, it’s top-heavy with conservative groups:
— 62 had Tea Party or Tea Party Patriots in the name
— a additional 14 had Patriots in the name
— 30 groups had 9/12 or Liberty in the name (9/12 refers to groups inspired by conservative television personality Glenn Beck)
In all, 282 conservative groups were on the IRS list, about two-thirds of the total number of groups that got additional scrutiny.
FEC
CRP: The FEC: “Acting” like an enforcement agency
Will Tucker
Like most of the agency’s issues, the problem starts at the top. Weintraub repeatedly said in an interview that the acting officials in the FEC’s leadership ranks are fine public servants who do excellent work. To become permanent, though, they must be approved by the commission — the six members of which are hopelessly deadlocked along ideological lines.
And Weintraub described “ripple effects”: Promote one good public servant from a permanent position to a higher one, and wind up with two officials needing to be approved by the commission.
“Everyone is really working hard and doing their best. I don’t want to suggest that people are not doing their best work…but the agency obviously is not as well-run as it should be,” she said. “That’s our fault. that’s on us — our inability to give clear guidance in policy decisions, personnel decisions.”
Candidates and Campaigns
New Republic: Donald Trump has only 30 paid staffers.
Alex Shephard
“It would be disingenuous and wrongheaded to take a playbook that has been used over and over again,” Trump senior aide Karen Giorno told the Associated Press. “We are creating the playbook.” The playbook, in this case, involves relying on the RNC to lead the way on a state and local level. Theoretically, the RNC will locate people who know the terrain better than Trump does and these people will do more efficient work based on their expertise. But this is assuming a lot of the RNC, which, the AP points out, could decide to cut its losses and focus on maintaining its control of Congress, if Trump looks like he’s going to get annihilated in November.
CNN: Trump campaign: We’re facing an emergency goal of $100,000
Eugene Scott
“Right now we’re facing an emergency goal of $100,000 to help get our ads on the air. We need your contribution by 11:59 P.M. Tonight,” the email from Team Trump said.
“Crooked Hillary is about to invade your TV with ads attacking Mr. Trump. But we’re preparing to fight back,” it reads.
The email promises to release ads attacking Clinton on her role in Benghazi, the integrity of her donors and reported FBI probing of her private email server while secretary of state.
The urgent fundraising email is routine for most presidential campaigns. But it’s particularly notable since Trump insisted repeatedly during the GOP primary season that he was self-funding his campaign, only to start asking for donations later on.
Politico: Would Donald Trump really drop out for $150 million?
Ben Schreckinger
“I bet if someone offered him $150 million to drop out, he would,” one former Trump adviser told POLITICO, unprompted, during an interview Friday.
Asked about whether Trump would drop out, another former Trump adviser, Jim Dornan said he believes the presumptive GOP nominee would be willing to cut a deal. “Yeah, probably,” Dornan, a veteran Republican operative who worked for Trump last spring on an abortive effort to set up a super PAC, replied via text message — adding there would be plenty of interest in buying him out. “The Kochs would be the first in line.”
Trump himself says it’s a ridiculous proposition and that he’s not a fan of the question.
“This story is a total fabrication from you and POLITICO, as usual,” the New York billionaire said in an email sent by his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.
The States
Politico: Legislature passes transparency bill before 5 a.m.
Bill Mahoney
The end of session reform package passed by lawmakers early Saturday morning includes a dozen changes to the state’s campaign finance system, lobbying law, and constitution.
However, despite a spate of scandals involving top legislators and multiple investigations into several levels of government, it doesn’t do much to directly affect the behavior of the elected officials who voted for it.
The compromise mostly focuses on the activity of private sector groups. Super PACs will be subjected to clearer rules governing their relations with candidates, more advocacy groups will need to disclose their donors, and some consultants will need to register with the state. Aside from a constitutional amendment to strip felons of their pensions, the only new attempt to regulate elected officials comes from a requirement that they close their campaign committees no later than two years after they die.
New York Post: How Bill de Blasio tore the heart out of NYC’s campaign laws
Editorial Board
Because Team de Blasio raised that cash from a host of developers and unions with business before the city, it faces multiple probes. But Tusk is right that the whole arrangement is also a challenge to the city’s system of public campaign finance.
If a mayor can use his power to freely raise and spend millions to boost his public profile, no challenger can hope for anything remotely close to a level playing field.
Under the campaign-finance laws, the mayor is limited to spending $7 million through the 2017 primary election; if CONY outlays count, he’s already run through half of it.
But if they don’t, then he’s made a mockery of the limit.
Anderson Independent-Mail: South Carolina Legislature approves ethics reform bills
Tim Smith
The South Carolina Legislature on Wednesday approved two ethics reform bills after years of trying.
One bill would require lawmakers and other public officials disclose sources of private income, while another would provide independent ethics investigations of ethics complaints against lawmakers…
The votes send both bills to Gov. Nikki Haley, who has pushed for years for lawmakers to pass ethics reform, which repeatedly stalled in the Senate.
Charleston Post and Courier: Passage of ethics reform welcomed, but others say much more still needed
Maya T. Prabhu
John Crangle, head of government watchdog group Common Cause in South Carolina, said that while he was encouraged by the bills that passed last week, there are several other ethics-strengthening reforms that need to be tackled.
Dark money, outlawing leadership political action committees like Haley’s A Great Day SC, and cracking down on campaign donations through limited liability companies all are issues Crangle said he’d like to see examined next year. He’s not optimistic it will happen.
Bozeman Daily Chronicle: Judge rules Wittich can remain in office after taking illegal campaign contributions
Matt Volz
Instead, Republican Rep. Art Wittich of Bozeman was ordered to pay a $68,232 fine, plus court costs, for a total between $80,000 and $90,000.
District Judge Ray Dayton stressed that he is only imposing the will of the Legislature through its laws and that he must be cautious with any discretion he has in interpreting the statute.
Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl’s request that Wittich be ousted and not allowed to run again until he files a campaign report acknowledging he accepted illegal contributions goes against the Legislature’s intent, Dayton said.
