In the News
Washington Examiner: The Founders didn’t limit political contributions, and neither should we
By Bradley A. Smith
When they signed the Declaration of Independence, the Founders pledged their “lives … fortunes, and … sacred honor” to the political cause they were fighting for. They didn’t pledge their “lives, sacred honor, and fortunes up to an amount to be determined by Parliament and signed into law by the King.” And we shouldn’t so limit ourselves, either.
The ability to contribute financially to elect or defeat a candidate for office has long been recognized as a core First Amendment right. It is part of both our freedom of association – to join together with others to voice our views and accomplish our political goals – and our right to speak – to pool our resources to deliver a message to other voters. In the landmark 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court noted that limits on political giving “operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has tolerated, and the states and federal government have regularly enacted, restrictions on this right. This month, the Institute for Free Speech, of which I am chairman, released the first installment of the Free Speech Index, measuring and ranking which states score best and worst when it comes to respecting the rights of their citizens to participate in political discussion and debate. This first installment ranks states on the basic right of citizens to contribute financially to electing or defeating the candidates of their choice.
World News Group: Whose money talks?
By Bonnie Pritchett
What political attributes do deep-red Alabama and deep-blue Oregon have in common?
Both states permit unlimited political campaign contributions by individuals, political parties, and political action committees (PACs). So do Nebraska, Utah, and Virginia. All five states share the top ranking in a first-of-its kind report by the Institute for Free Speech (IFS).
The non-profit organization reviewed campaign finance laws in every state and ranked the states according to five criteria. The results challenge the idea that unrestricted financial contributions corrupt the political process.
Eleven states in all shades of red and blue earned the lowest grade, with Kentucky having the most restrictive contribution laws. But in a different poll conducted by the Institution of Corruption Studies at Illinois State University, the Bluegrass State excelled: It ranked No. 1 in political corruption, according to journalists who cover the nation’s statehouses.
“Low limits can also help protect the corrupt,” IFS president David Keating told me. “When contribution limits are low, it requires the participation of more citizens to get the word out about corrupt behavior or the need for change.”
Juneau Empire: Alaska among three worst states in nation in free speech index
By Luke Wachob and Alex Baiocco
In a new Free Speech Index on political giving, Alaska, along with 10 other states, receives an ‘F’ grade.
In fact, Alaska’s contribution limits are so low that they are currently being challenged in federal court as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech and association. Individuals in Alaska are prohibited from giving more than $500 per election cycle to candidates, and the state imposes the same low limit on individual contributions to political committees. And whereas a majority of states place no limit on individual giving to parties, Alaska limits both the amount individuals can give to parties and the amount of support parties can provide to a candidate. On top of all this, Alaska’s limits aren’t adjusted for inflation, meaning a citizen’s ability to support candidates will continually decline.
Congress
CBS News: Reid, Kerry: Money drives partisanship, gridlock in Congress
By Associated Press
Two retired Democrats who served in the U.S. Senate together for nearly three decades said Tuesday that money has been the driving force behind a dramatic rise in partisanship and resulting gridlock in Congress over the past decade.
“Money is everything in politics today,” former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.
“While money doesn’t always get what it wants, it almost always gets gridlock instead,” added ex-Secretary of State John Kerry. “And that’s what we have today.” …
Both blamed Republicans for blocking efforts to enact enforceable limits on campaign contributions from corporations, political parties and other campaign committees. They said the gridlock often is by design, orchestrated by corporate and business interests that want to thwart federal regulation or equitable tax policies.
Reid said America “is becoming just like Russia … run by a very few wealthy families.”
“They’ve created this unbelievable race for money,” Kerry added.
Independent Groups
Axios: Two super PACs launch $12 million campaign for Democratic House races
By Alexi McCammond
Two major Democratic super PACs are spending a combined $12 million on digital advertising focused solely on helping Democrats win 2018 House races. House Majority PAC and Priorities USA Action haven’t finalized the list of races…
Democrats recognize that outside Republican groups will likely outspend them (as they have in Florida and Wisconsin), but they hope partnering together will give them advantage because they’ll be working from the same plan.
“As more people get their news online, it’s imperative for campaigns to adapt and devote more resources to communicating online,” said Patrick McHugh, executive director of Priorities USA Action.
Politico: How John Bolton hyped himself – and got a job with Trump
By Maggie Severns and Marianne Levine
The John Bolton Super PAC ran ads, doled out campaign contributions and endorsed candidates for five years, all in the name of helping elect defense hawks to office.
But perhaps its greatest purpose was reflected in its name: It served as a hype machine for Bolton, boosting his image and political views…
Plenty of politicians have used super PACs to keep their names in the news until they launch a bid for elected office, but it’s an unusual approach for a Washington bureaucrat – and a surprising background for a White House national security adviser…
Bolton’s super PAC, which shut down as of March 31, has drawn scrutiny since Trump named him national security adviser because of its ties to Cambridge Analytica, the data firm that allegedly used Facebook data harvested by an outside contractor without users’ knowledge.
Policy Research
Campaign Finance Institute: Introducing CFI’s Groundbreaking Database Of State Campaign Finance Laws
The Campaign Finance Institute is pleased to release a groundbreaking new tool, “CFI’s Historical Database of State Campaign Finance Laws“. The database covers all of the states’ campaign finance laws every two years since 1996. It is designed for everything from interactive and visualized lookups to downloadable datasets.
Anyone with a serious interest in politics is bound to have made, heard, or wondered about claims to the effect that the laws governing money in politics “make a difference”. These claims may be about who runs for office, how they campaign, who wins, how they govern, or what policies come out in the end. But until now it has been impossible to evaluate most of these claims properly. You cannot really understand a law’s effects unless you can compare jurisdictions with different laws to themselves and each other over time.
CFI’s new tool opens the door to let everyone make those comparisons. It covers every state since 1996 and is structured to handle queries from the simplest to the most complex. Because not everyone will want to use the tool in the same way, the material comes in two formats.
Corporate Giving
New York Times: Charitable Giving by Corporations Is Also About Getting, a New Study Finds
By Eduardo Porter
Sifting through the donations to charity from 1998 to 2015 by foundations set up by the largest companies in the United States – those in the Fortune 500 or the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index – Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business; Matilde Bombardini and Francesco Trebbi of the University of British Columbia; and Raymond Fisman of Boston University detected a pattern of contributions to 1,087 charities linked to 451 members of Congress.
Turns out that the spending is a little more self-serving than companies would have us believe. Some of the charitable giving looks a lot like corporate lobbying. Because companies get a break for such giving, it amounts to political spending at taxpayers’ expense. “Firms deploy their charitable foundations as a form of tax-exempt influence seeking,” the researchers write…
The researchers who conducted the new study don’t claim that any specific charitable contribution was meant to manipulate the political process. But their work lays bare the extent to which corporate donations may respond to political, rather than charitable, motivations…
For those who favor campaign-finance reform, perhaps the most urgent message is that there are many doors that corporate America can use to buy influence.
Political Parties
Politico: Democrats fund start-ups to leapfrog RNC technology
By Edward-Isaac Dovere
“People who have given money before are craving a different way to participate and a different way to invest in the Democratic Party,” said Betsy Hoover, a Higher Ground Labs co-founder and the digital organizing director for former President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.
The list of investors includes Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn; SoulCycle founders Alan and Elizabeth Cutler; and big Silicon Valley investors Tamim Mourad, Ron Conway and Scott Mason.
Of the new groups, one provides software to automate the process for fundraising calls. Another streamlines online polling for faster, more accurate online polls. Still another connects people to activism through analyzing their social media interests, while a fourth uses that public information to tailor ads and other voter appeals…
The DNC is happy to have the help, and the competition. It desperately needs it.
“If we had infinite funds and infinite resources, it would be great to build this all in-house. We have none of those,” said Raffi Krikorian, an alum of Twitter and Uber who was hired as the DNC’s chief technology officer last year to start getting the party headquarters back up to speed. “Let people do some of the R&D work with a different set of funds.”
The States
Seattle Stranger: Seattle Elections Watchdog Tells Facebook to Make Its Political Ad Disclosures More Accurate
By Eli Sanders
It’s been well over three months since the City of Seattle told Facebook to hand over data on political ads that targeted this city’s 2017 municipal elections.
After three different responses from Facebook, the company still isn’t in compliance with a unique Seattle law that requires Facebook to release each local political ad’s cost, as well as the “exact nature and extent” of the ad services Facebook provided to those seeking to influence Seattle voters.
