In the News
National Conference of State Legislatures: Get Rid of Needless Campaign Regulations
By Bradley A. Smith
In the past decade, 18 states have raised contribution limits. But that means more have not. And almost no states have raised their limits to fully account for inflation since the limits were first imposed. Higher limits can reduce time spent fundraising.
Additionally, many states increase compliance costs (a campaign cost) and smother true grassroots campaigns with needless, and needlessly complex, regulations. People should not be discouraged from participating in politics by spools of red tape, but too many states have intricate, confusing campaign laws that desperately need simplification.
Meanwhile, provisions of the federal government’s 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Act, have severely hampered fundraising by state and local party committees. State officials should insist that Congress amend the law to free up local parties, easing the burdens of candidate fundraising and enhancing grassroots participation.
Efforts to lower spending through limits and regulation have been unsuccessful-after all, we have far more regulation than 40 years ago. Lower spending also comes at the expense of voter knowledge. Doing away with needless regulations, and thinking about things such as early voting or restructuring legislative chambers, will make it easier and less costly to run for office, without limiting political speech.
Supreme Court
Knight First Amendment Institute: The Free Speech Jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito
By Garrett Epps
Alito finds no threat to democracy in political speech by wealthy individuals and large corporations. Indeed, he has never voted to approve any restriction on private money in politics. Alito’s first campaign finance opinion for the court, Davis v. Federal Election Commission, invalidated a “Millionaire’s Amendment” to a state law aimed at neutralizing the effect of use of personal funds by wealthy political candidates…
Alito voted with the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) to hold that Congress cannot restrict independent “electioneering communications” by individuals, corporations, and unions during the period before federal elections; in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011), he joined the majority to reject a state public-finance scheme that granted additional public funds to publicly funded candidates whose privately funded opponents exceeded spending limits. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014), he voted to negate a federal law limiting the total amount of money an individual donor could give to federal candidates in a given two-year election cycle (this ceiling limited the number of candidates to whom a wealthy donor could contribute the maximum per cycle), arguing that, since by law it was not corrupt to contribute the individual limit to nine candidates, contributing the same amount to ten or more could not be corrupt either.
The Courts
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: A lawsuit may shed some light on secret campaign donations
By Editorial Board
Six years ago, a watchdog organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked the FEC to look into a 501(c )(4) social welfare organization called the American Action Network, which the lawsuit charges has no “social welfare” purpose but exists only to funnel money into a super PAC allied with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
The FEC, despite a federal judge’s order to take action, failed to do so. A judge ruled last month that the plaintiffs could take their case directly to a federal court.
The move was applauded by Ellen Weintraub, the only Democrat currently on the six-member FEC (two seats are vacant). “It’s time to break the glass and let this matter move forward unimpeded by commissioners who have fought every step of the way to keep dark money dark,” she told Politico.
If Ryan’s American Action Network is forced to register as a political committee and disclose its donors, hundreds of other dark money groups could be forced to do the same. It could take years, but the dark money loophole has existed too long. The court must close it.
Congress
The Hill: Senate Dems request investigation of Mulvaney over lobbyist remarks
By Jordain Carney
A group of Senate Democrats want federal investigators to probe if Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director and the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), broke a law that limits political activities for federal employees…
Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) sent a letter to the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday asking for an investigation of whether Mulvaney violated the Hatch Act.
“In his official capacity as interim director of the CFPB, he suggested to 1,300 bankers and lobbyists that they increase their campaign donations as a way to influence lawmakers. If the initial reporting by The New York Times is accurate, it raises troubling questions about whether his statements ran afoul of the Hatch Act,” the Democratic senators wrote in their letter…
“These comments reinforce the American public’s worst fears about a corrupt Washington establishment that sells access and is rigged for special interests with teams of lobbyists and deep pockets,” the Democrats added in their letter.
FEC
Talking Points Memo: New FEC Complaint: Trump, Cohen Trying To ‘Have It Both Ways’ On Daniels
By Allegra Kirkland
The complaint was brought by the American Democracy Legal Fund (ADLF), a Washington, D.C.-based progressive advocacy group.
According to the complaint, at which TPM was given an exclusive first look, the Trump team is “trying to have it both ways” by claiming that a hush money payment made by Cohen to Daniels, an adult film star who claims she had an affair with Trump, had nothing to do with the 2016 presidential campaign, while also acknowledging that Cohen represented Trump in what the President recently referred to as the “crazy Stormy Daniels deal.”
Campaign funds can only be spent on campaign-related expenses, which can include staffer’s legal bills that cover matters that directly arise from a campaign or a candidate’s tenure in office.
The Trump 2020 campaign acknowledged this week that they paid a total of $228,000 to McDermott Will & Emery, the firm representing Cohen, for “legal consulting” but insisted the payments “were related strictly to the Russia investigations.” The same McDermott attorney, Stephen Ryan, is also representing Cohen in the various litigation brought against him by Daniels, as well as a federal criminal investigation into Cohen’s financial dealings in the Southern District of New York.
Independent Groups
Daily Beast: No One Knows Who’s Spending Millions on the West Virginia Senate Race
By Gideon Resnick
One super PAC with links to national Democrats has spent more than $1.3 million primarily targeting a single Republican candidate in the West Virginia Senate race. Another, with links to national Republicans, has spent more than $1.5 million targeting a different Republican candidate.
The money represents a substantial investment in a primary in a small state. But what’s even more remarkable is that the groups have done it all without disclosing a single name of a donor funding their efforts.
It’s totally legal. The PACs have elected to adjust their filing frequency with the Federal Election Commission so as to shield who is funding their respective PACs until the primary ends.
The Media
Wall Street Journal: Freer Markets, Freer Media
By Kevin Brookes and Patrick Déry
Our suggestion to help make journalists safer around the world: Expand economic freedom. Press freedom is indispensable to democracy. But economic freedom is a necessary condition for freedom of the press. In modern times, there has never been a democratic society that respects individual rights without at least a minimum of economic freedom.
The first newspaper was launched in early-17th-century Germany because its publisher envisioned a profit-making opportunity-and he had the freedom to pursue the project. The principle persists today. In a real market economy, an avid defender of socialism will always have the possibility of finding donors, investors and readers to finance the dissemination of his opinions. But in an economy controlled by the government, diverging opinions will have greater difficulty being heard because of bureaucratic obstacles, the difficulty of finding financing, and even outright censorship. A good way to silence a media outlet is to tax or regulate it.
The freer a country is economically-and the more it facilitates the entry of new actors into the market-the greater the chance that the press will be free. A study just published by the Montreal Economic Institute confirms this strong and significant link.
The States
Dallas News: Facing lawsuit, McKinney council scraps rules that created special areas for electioneering
By Nanette Light
Facing a lawsuit that the city’s electioneering ordinance is unconstitutional, McKinney City Council members voted 5-0 Tuesday to strike a controversial rule that established special areas for election canvassing.
Council members Chuck Branch and Tracy Rath abstained.
Mayor George Fuller said that he stands behind the original ordinance and the reasons for drafting it but that with runoffs in the Texas primaries just weeks away, the pending litigation had become a “distraction.” …
Last month, state district Judge Benjamin N. Smith ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the ordinance, saying the city hadn’t shown “a compelling governmental interest” that justified enforcing the ordinance and its restrictions. A trial date was set for Sept. 4 to determine whether or not the injunction will become permanent…
Attorney Joseph Nixon, who represents the campaign workers, has said McKinney’s ordinance is unconstitutional and that the designated areas prohibit free speech.
He called the council’s vote to amend the ordinance a “good move” but said he didn’t yet know how the change would influence the lawsuit, saying that depends on the interest of his clients. He said the lawsuit will remain as long as the campaign workers’ citations are pending.
Reason: New York Officials Weaponize Regulatory Power Against the NRA
By J.D. Tuccille
“I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support,” the governor wrote in a statement.
The Department of Financial Services, which regulates the banking and insurance industries in New York, followed up with guidance letters to insurance companies and banks…
Of course, this isn’t the first time that a government body has been weaponized for political use. “My father may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution,” Elliott Roosevelt observed of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The federal tax agency remained a handy bludgeon for politicians from that day through the present, including its recent deployment against Tea Party groups…
Weaponizing regulatory power-if normalized-opens the door for Cuomo’s political opponents to do the same to his allies in the places where they govern. If liberals demonize the NRA, the equivalent bogeyman for their enemies is Planned Parenthood, which is vulnerable if conservative regulators adopt the same tactics. Actually, anybody who takes a controversial position on matters of public policy is at risk if the targeting of opponents through regulatory agencies becomes standard.
Tampa Bay Times: Who funds the group bankrolling this Democratic candidate for governor?
By Kirby Wilson
The Collective PAC wants to see Democrat Andrew Gillum in the Florida Governor’s Mansion next year, and the group is willing to spend big bucks to make it happen.
Dedicated to helping black leaders win political office, the Collective PAC has contributed $231,000 to a Gillum-associated political committee, Forward Florida, since December. (Political committees, unlike campaign committees, do not have contribution limits.)
The Washington, D.C.-based Collective PAC has an associated political action committee and a SuperPAC that are required to disclose their donors. But Collective Future, the 501(c)(4) arm of the group that has served as Gillum’s largest contributor in 2018, does not have to.
Quentin James, the founder and executive director of The Collective, did not respond when asked about the identity of the major donors to Collective Future. But he did write in an earlier email, “The Collective has received over 13,000 individual contributions from over 6,000 people. We are a grassroots led and funded organization.” …
When asked why the Collective decided to support Gillum through its least-transparent fundraising arm, James wrote, “Collective Future has simply raised more money than our PAC or Super PAC entities.”
