In the News                      

Washington Examiner: Soon-to-be former Democratic FEC chair tried to politicize the bipartisan commission

By Bradley A. Smith

Commissioner Ravel came to Washington with a sincere desire to make the FEC a more effective, more efficient agency. Her plans, however, broke down in a combination of ideological overreach and a disdain for the hard work of democracy and governance.

Ravel ignored advice to focus her efforts on modest but meaningful goals that would have bipartisan support at the FEC, such as updating outdated regulations and improving reporting guidelines and mechanisms. Instead, she sought to implement a sweeping progressive campaign finance agenda that had not passed Congress: imposing controls on new media and pushing for unprecedented invasions of Americans’ political lives under the guise of “disclosure.”…

Ravel ends her stint on a disappointing note, with a flurry of media activity and the publication of a “report” prepared by her office offering tendentious descriptions of cases on which she lost votes at the FEC. As proof that the agency’s Republicans are violating their constitutional oaths to “enforce the law” she offers the mere fact that she could not muster a majority of the commission to agree with her.

Colorado Independent: US Supreme Court to Colorado think tank: Disclose your donors or don’t run these ads

By Corey Hutchins

The outspoken think tank director said he saw the case as a good, clean test for the U.S. Supreme Court. So, with help from the Washington, D.C.-area Center for Competitive Politics- its motto: Campaign Freedom- up to the nation’s highest court the case went…

The High Court upheld the lower federal court ruling against the group Monday, without comment, essentially saying the lower court got it right.

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to forgo full consideration of this important appeal, and instead summarily affirmed the lower court,” said Center for Competitive Politics legal director Allen Dickerson in a statement. “We look forward to continuing our efforts to defend the right to free speech and association.”

Dickerson told The Independent he still believes there is tension between the court’s blessing of laws that regulate advocacy for or against candidates and its rulings in favor of “privacy of association” in other contexts. The radio ads were not attack ads against a candidate, he says, but rather a discussion about pending legislation that merely mentioned an officeholder who happened to be running for reelection.

Bloomberg BNA: Supreme Court Backs FEC Disclosure Rules

By Kenneth P. Doyle

Federal Election Commission disclosure rules for political ads known as electioneering communications have been upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (Independence Institute v. FEC, U.S., 16-743, affirmed 2/27/17)…

Lawyers for the Independence Institute, led by Allen Dickerson of the nonprofit Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), have acknowledged in court filings that previous rulings have “routinely” upheld FEC disclosure requirements. But, the challengers argued that this case presented “an opportunity to reverse this trend and broadly safeguard” a right to fund some political messages anonymously.

The institute’s lawyers argued that disclosure requirements can violate First Amendment free speech guarantees, unless the government has a strong interest in disclosure. They said the government’s “informational interest is particularly weak” in this case because it involved a radio ad focused on a legislative issue and didn’t mention anything about an election…

The center’s chairman, Bradley Smith, a former Republican FEC commissioner, said uncertainty over the limits of disclosure law has led to passage of “intrusive laws that provide little or no value to the public, and enable official and unofficial harassment of speakers.”

Jurist: Supreme Court upholds advertising disclosure requirement during elections

By Justin Cosgrove

The US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission in a summary disposition on Monday. The case revolved around whether Congress may require organizations engaged in policy issues and unconnected to campaigns, to report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and publicly disclose their donors pursuant to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Independence Institute wanted to run an ad in support of a bill that would give federal judges discretion for sentencing of non-violent crimes. In their advertisement, they mentioned the name of a sitting senator and were therefore qualified as an “electioneering communication.” Under such a designation, the Institute would be required to report to the FEC and disclose their donors. Upon challenging this provision before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the court found in favor of the FEC. With their summary disposition, the justices affirmed the district court’s ruling without discussion.

FEC                       

Sacramento Bee: Ann Ravel doesn’t go quietly, which is good

By Editorial Board

No one can accuse Ann Ravel of fading quietly from her job as one of six members of the Federal Election Commission. That’s not her style, to her credit.

Barack Obama placed Ravel on the commission in 2013, after she made waves as Gov. Jerry Brown’s appointed chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

In both jobs, Ravel, whose final day on the FEC is Wednesday, embraced the concept that campaign finance law is intended to help show voters the impact of money on democracy…

In Washington, D.C., where partisanship is paralyzing the FEC, her successes were less dramatic.

But she can claim credit for bringing that dysfunction to the public’s attention through frequent speaking engagements and writings, including a parting 24-page report about the commission.  

Washington Examiner: FEC Dem blames GOP for threats to ‘hurt me, kill me, do misogynist things to me’

By Paul Bedard

The Democratic commissioner on the FEC who has been leading a shame campaign against Republican colleagues now charges that her GOP foes are to blame for inspiring “thousands of people” to threaten to “hurt me, kill me, do misogynist things to me.”

Ann Ravel, who recently announced her plans to leave the Federal Election Commission by March 1, told the New York NPR station WNYC that the Republicans have “purposefully” lied about her, prompting the attacks.

Speaking to Bob Garfield for “On Media,” Ravel added that she has raised her complaints to Republican FEC members “but to no avail.”

For over a year, she has been on the attack, charging that the three Republicans on the evenly split FEC have gummed up the agency, a charge the GOP calls silly and obscures Democratic efforts to crackdown on conservative outlets…
She is expected to continue her campaign against the GOP when she gives her first address after leaving the FEC, Wednesday at the Center for American Progress. The title of the event is “Departing dysfunction.” 

Disclosure                         

More Soft Money Hard Law: Political Reform in An Era of “Existential Politics”

By Bob Bauer

One other consequence of this brand of politics is the collapse of any agreement about the rules of political competition. For the existential warrior, these rules either cost too much-they just get in the way-or they require tighter alignment with self-interest. . . As noted here, the progressive opposition may include campaign finance limits among its reform commitments, but how far can this go, if resources are thought essential to the project of stopping Trump?

The rejection of rules tends to be rationalized, and rationalization has been spreading. Last to go has been the acceptance for the need for disclosure; but it may be on the way out, as Republican and conservative critics argue that transparency requirements are devices that the administrative state has established for the surveillance of the political opposition…

It would be easy but wrong to imagine that the net effect on political reform will be de-regulation, an era of anything-goes in which various restrictions lie inert and unenforced on the books. In a free-for-all, the rules governing political participation can be weaponized as well as discarded. The same pressure to get rid of inconvenient rules drives political actors to write new ones that nicely serve their purposes.

FCC                        

Broadcasting & Cable: Dems Seek FCC Political Disclosure Closure

By John Eggerton

Most of a dozen Democratic members of Congress are calling on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to vote on clarifications to the FCC’s political ad disclosure rules…

The legislators also pushed for the FCC to bring “true transparency” to political files by using its authority to require disclosure of specific donors, which is something not even Democratic FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler would do despite similar calls from some of the same legislators from his own party.

Even as clarified in the now set-aside Media Bureau decision, the FCC’s rules only require a list of the CEOs or board of a sponsoring entity, not the funders of such entities and their political ads…

Separately, in resolving complaints against a number of stations, the FCC took no enforcement action but provided clarification going forward about how political ads need to be disclosed, clarification that has been mooted for the moment.

Groups looking for better disclosures of the funders of ads, in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations and unions to fund TV and radio ads in the run-up to elections, had pushed for tighter rules and complained that stations were violating the FCC disclosure rules already on the books.

Congress                         

Boston Globe: Senator blasts ‘corporate tentacles’ wrapping around Donald Trump

By James Pindell

In an interview, Whitehouse, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, said the way that Donald Trump was elected president – without mega-donors or an effective Super PAC – could have changed the relationship between politicians and the corporate donor class.

“Instead, what you are seeing are corporate tentacles just wrapping the White House,” Whitehouse said.

A former state attorney general now in his second Senate term, Whitehouse said that he wants to increase discussion on how corporations influence politicians and regulators…

With Republicans running the show in Washington , D.C., Whitehouse allows that his some of his proposed changes — such as overturning the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling or creating a new government watchdog agency – aren’t likely to happen soon.

“I think that unless there is a really significant epiphany, the tentacles of the corporate sector will continue to wrap themselves tighter and tighter around the White House,” he said. “I think he is going to continue to be more and more hemmed in by the very power structure he ran against.”

Trump Administration                         

The Hill: Trump email misstates FEC deadline in plea for donations

By Max Greenwood

The Trump campaign misstated a Federal Elections Commission deadline in an email to supporters on Tuesday, urging backers to donate before 8:30 p.m. – more than a month ahead of the actual filing date.

While Feb. 28 marks the close of the commission’s monthly reporting period, the Trump campaign filed a notice in January that it would begin reporting on a quarterly schedule. That means the close of the campaign’s reporting period is March 31.

The email was sent out ahead of President Trump’s planned address to Congress Tuesday night. In it, the president encourages supporters to make a last-minute donation to the campaign before his speech – and before Feb. 28 deadline passes…
It’s not uncommon for political campaigns to ask potential donors for contributions just before an FEC deadline. 

The Hill: Democrats, media are launching Alinskyesque attacks on McGahn

By David Warrington

Weintraub, who is 14 years into a six-year term, was defeated time and time again by McGahn. The commissar of speech has become unhinged over McGahn’s ascent to White House counsel…

Contrary to the assertions of his critics, McGahn’s actions show a respect for the law and the due process rights of Americans who participate in our democratic process.

Weintraub and the others, most of whom were cited anonymously in the Politico and Slate articles, were willing to sacrifice those due process rights on the altar of supposed campaign finance reform. They wanted to wield the FEC as a sword to slash their political opponents. It is they that showed a disregard for the law, not McGahn.

Thus all of the manufactured worrying over McGahn’s role as White House counsel is misplaced.

Americans should have confidence knowing President Trump has McGahn at his side.

Weintraub and others are simply trying to settle old political scores and are using a willing media to do their bidding.

The States

Wall Street Journal: A South Dakota Silencing

By Editorial Board

Republicans typically oppose limits on free speech, at least when they put principle ahead of politics. Then there’s South Dakota, where a GOP legislature is indulging in progressive methods to restrict political speech.

The South Dakota House voted 42-25 last week to require sweeping disclosure of names and addresses of donors to political nonprofits. The bill requires any group that spends more than $25,000 in independent political expenditures in a year, or more than $25,000 on a ballot question, to disclose the names of its top 50 donors. This is the kind of chilling “transparency” legislation you might find in California or Vermont, not a statehouse with GOP supermajorities…

Republicans say this is about exposing outsiders who are meddling in state elections, but both sides know the real goal is chilling political participation. Money for issue advocacy will dry up if donors fear becoming targets of political retribution, boycotts or bureaucratic assaults. (See Lois Lerner’s IRS.)

Los Angeles Times: California’s campaign finance and lobbying violations are down, but total fines are up

By Patrick McGreevy

California’s campaign finance watchdog found fewer lobbyists and campaigns to sanction in 2016, while collecting more in fines as it focused on bigger cases.

The Fair Political Practices Commission reported Monday that last year’s violations were at a three-year low. But the agency collected $200,000 more in fines than it did in 2015, raking in $900,000 because it pursued bigger cases.

The agency issued fines in 311 cases last year, down from the record 333 such cases the year before, and 332 cases in 2014.

The agency also sent out 489 warning letters last year for technical or minor violations, but didn’t fine those violations. It sent out hundreds more warning letters in 2014…

The numbers reflect an agency “focusing on strict enforcement of serious violations,” chairwoman Jodi Remke wrote in the agency’s annual report.

West Virginia State Journal: WV Senate introduces bill to eliminate public funding for Supreme Court races

By Rusty Marks

Seven years after passing a law allowing public financing for West Virginia Supreme Court races, and months after watching how the law worked in practice, members of the West Virginia Senate have introduced a bipartisan bill that would eliminate the public financing option.

“It isn’t working,” said Senate Minority Leader Roman Prezioso, D-Marion, one of the co-sponsors of the bill. “It’s a sham.”