CCP
New CCP Issue Analysis: Tax-Financed Campaigns Fail to Increase Political Competitiveness
Subsidizing candidate campaigns with tax dollars does not increase the odds of unseating an incumbent on Election Day. That’s the key finding of a new Issue Analysis released today by the Center for Competitive Politics, America’s largest nonprofit defending First Amendment political free speech rights.
“Taxpayer-funded campaigns are a bad deal that keeps looking worse,” said CCP President David Keating. “In addition to forcing taxpayers to fund speech they disagree with, these schemes appear to have no measurable impact on re-election rates.”…
When states promise free money for political campaigns, it shouldn’t be surprising that more people decide to run for office. What is really striking is that this doesn’t do much of anything to help challengers win,” said CCP Research Fellow Joe Albanese. “Those who say tax financing will fundamentally change the political system don’t have evidence to support this claim.”
Issue Analysis No. 10: Do Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns Increase Political Competitiveness?
By Joe Albanese
Our results indicate that, despite claims that this policy increases electoral competition, taxpayer financing of political campaigns does not produce statistically significantly lower re-election rates for incumbent state legislators. A comparison between states with and without such laws suggests that the system of funding campaigns has no effect on re-election rates. Many factors contribute to high incumbent re-election rates across states, such as name recognition, the platform provided by elected office, and voter satisfaction with their representatives. Tax-financing of campaigns is not one of those factors.
To study the impact of taxpayer-funded campaigns on competitiveness, we analyze the percentage of incumbents in all state legislatures from 2010 to 2016 that won re-election. We divide the states between those with taxpayer-funded campaign programs for state legislators (Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Minnesota) and those without such programs. Incumbent re-election rates were calculated by dividing the number of incumbents who won their primary and general election by the total number of seats up for election, excluding the seats with no incumbent.
In the News
Alliance for Charitable Reform: Debating the Johnson Amendment
David Keating: The current law is poorly written. Given that it was added on the Senate floor in 1954 with no hearings or substantial debate, that’s not surprising. Lyndon Johnson wasn’t looking out for the integrity of the political system or charitable groups when he proposed the amendment. He was concerned about his own reelection prospects after winning by just 87 votes in his 1948 reelection campaign…
Some of the activities banned by the Johnson amendment are clear. Charities may not spend money on ads endorsing a candidate. Charities may not donate to candidate committees, political parties or political committees (PACs). Beyond that, no one knows for sure. That’s a problem, and a big one, because vague laws chill our First Amendment speech rights…
The problems created by the Johnson amendment are getting worse, not better. As everyone knows, the news business has fallen on hard times since the internet cut classified and display advertising and created many new competitors. As a result many news organizations have become 501(c)(3) charities. Does “publishing statements” on candidates or a political campaign endanger such a news organization’s tax status?
The Courts
U.S. News & World Report: Judge Tosses Ethics Rules for Kentucky Lobbyists, Lawmakers
By Adam Beam, Associated Press
The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman says it is now OK for lobbyists who are paid to influence legislation to give gifts to lawmakers. He also said it was OK for lobbyists to donate money to politicians’ campaign accounts and to raise money for their re-election bids.
“Influencing the government through the act of lobbying is at the heart of the political process. A law that specifically restricts what a lobbyist can and cannot do regarding a legislative member of government is a suppression on their freedom of association with those individuals,” Bertelsman wrote…
The judge also appeared to rule it was illegal for lawmakers to form caucus campaign committees that could then give unlimited amounts of money to candidates. That law was challenged by David Watson, a former Libertarian House candidate in November who said he could not compete with the Republican and Democratic candidates because they were receiving support from their respective caucus campaign committees…
Bertelsman wrote the state law defining these campaign committees as only Republican or Democratic was unconstitutional. But he appeared to say a law allowing people to donate money to these committees was legal.
Supreme Court
Illinois Home Page: Supreme Court could rule on ‘fair share’ dues
By Mark Maxwell
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to take up the case of an Illinois state worker who objects to paying public sector union dues.
Plaintiff Mark Janus works for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and is represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees trade union…
AFSCME described the case as a “renewed effort by corporate and special interest groups to upend the longstanding rights of people who work in public service.”
The Illinois Policy Institute’s Liberty Justice Center is representing Janus before the High Court. IPI President Kristina Rasmussen expects Janus will prevail on the basis of the First Amendment.
“If Mark Janus’ First Amendment rights are upheld in this case,” Rasmussen says, “then that would be applied to public servants across America.”…
The eight-member bench split down the middle in a similar 2016 case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.
The Media
Real Clear Politics: The Media Have Been Played by Trump’s Tweets
By Bill Murray
This failure of U.S. broadcast media to use proper news judgment in covering Trump is among the gravest professional sins the industry has committed in recent memory because it fails to recognize the manipulation involved. George Lakoff, a professor emeritus of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, asserts that Trump’s tactics are “all strategic” in nature, “not crazy,” as many observers believe.
Lakoff has written several books on political speech and is an expert on the concept of idea framing, which has become an influential technique in the art of political persuasion. He asserts that Trump’s tweets embody one of four strategic communication tactics: preemptive framing, diversion, deflection and trial-ballooning.
“In general, if you frame first you win, and Trump knows that,” Lakoff said. “The media is having trouble with the truth because the truth doesn’t sell – and they could sell it if they went about it the right way,” he added. “Right now they can’t help themselves, having the entertainment elements of their job take over for the news element.”
Independent Groups
International Business Times: Trump Supporters Pay For Comey Attack Ad Through ‘Dark Money’ Group
By Josh Keefe
The 30-second spot, paid for by a group called Great America Alliance, represents a peculiar kind of political maneuver: an attack ad running nearly a year and half before the next election, that targets a private citizen with no obvious political ambitions who isn’t advocating any particular policy, political issue, party or candidate…
“Certainly, non-politicians have been mentioned in ads before (e.g., Paris Hilton, the Koch Brothers), but that was in the context of attacking a politician,” Travis Ridout, a professor of Government and Public Policy at Washington State University and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks tracks political ads nationwide, told IBT…
But while the group calls itself the “largest outside group to support President Trump’s agenda,” it is legally, according to the IRS, not a political group at all, but a 501(c)(4) non-profit, tax-exempt “social welfare” organization. That IRS designation allows the Alliance to keep its donors anonymous – the definition of a “dark money” group – as long as it doesn’t make political operations its “primary activity.”
The States
Wisconsin Public Radio News: Wisconsin Democrats Propose Tougher Campaign Finance Laws
By Hope Kirwan
A group of Democratic state lawmakers has introduced a package of bills to tighten Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws.
Sen. Chris Larson has proposed eight measures in his “Campaign Integrity” package. Among several changes, the legislation would keep corporate money out of political action committees and expand the state’s definition of a PAC. It would also lower campaign contribution limits for committees and individuals…
But Rick Esenberg from the conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty said the proposal would have a negative impact on individuals’ rights to express their opinion.
“Issue advocacy is an important safety valve. It lets people be heard in a less restricted or unrestricted way during an election season,” Esenberg said.
Esenberg said the proposal would also hurt donor privacy, through a bill that would require committees to disclose the employer and occupation of individuals who contribute more than $100…
With record GOP majorities in the state Assembly and Senate, the Democratic reform package faces an uphill battle.
Lawrence Journal-World: Israeli boycott prohibition bill goes to governor
By Peter Hancock
Kansas lawmakers gave final passage Wednesday to a bill that would bar the state from contracting with companies or individuals engaged in a boycott against Israel, despite claims by some that the bill is likely unconstitutional.
Similar bills have been introduced in most statehouses across the country. If Gov. Sam Brownback signs the bill, as is expected, Kansas would become the 21st state to enact such a law…
In May, the Kansas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to lawmakers, saying the bill was an unconstitutional infringement on the right of free speech.
“According to the United States Supreme Court, ‘speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection,’ and nonviolent political boycotts have consistently been held as core political speech, unquestionably protected under the First Amendment,” Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas, wrote in the letter.
Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, also spoke against the bill when it was debated last week in the Senate.
