In the News
Washington Examiner: 9 years after Citizens United, the decision lives rent-free in liberals’ heads
By Eric Peterson
Does the government have the power to suppress a film if it criticizes a candidate running for office?
Nine years ago to this day, the Supreme Court said no and ruled in favor of Citizens United, a nonprofit group that wanted to distribute and advertise a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton.
This was a massive win for free speech and democracy. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak about candidates.
In the years since the decision, however, critics have suggested that democracy died when the Supreme Court made clear that corporations, including nonprofit corporations, and labor unions are free to discuss candidates.
Thankfully, the government is here to help with a 571-page bill that promises to save our democracy and return power to the people. At least, that’s what proponents of H.R. 1, the so called “For the People Act,” would have you believe.
In reality, H.R. 1 is simply the latest government attempt to silence those who want to criticize those in power, while amplifying their own voices.
Look no further than the sections marked “DISCLOSE Act” and “Honest Ads,” both of which have been previously introduced in Congress.
The DISCLOSE Act section would silence many speakers by creating new disclosure burdens on groups that urge elected officials to support or oppose legislation – not just near an election, but 365 days a year, every year…
Meanwhile, the so-called “Honest Ads” section would place new, impossible-to-comply-with restrictions on Internet speech. Everything from a YouTube ad to a promoted Facebook post and more would be subject to regulation. The bill would be a significant blow to the Internet’s history and reputation as a bastion for free speech.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
H.R. 1’s Tax-Financing Program Could Increase Political Polarization
By David Keating
H.R. 1, also known as the “For the People Act of 2019,” is much better understood as the “For the Politicians Act” due to its generous taxpayer handouts to politicians. But it’s worth asking: What kind of politicians might benefit most from the taxpayers’ generous “gifts”?
And the match is very generous – six dollars for every dollar donated, up to a $200 donation. In some cases, the match can reach nine to one.
Certainly, incumbent politicians with large fundraising networks will benefit, as evidenced by the programs in both New York City and Seattle. The more donors a candidate already has, the more matching funds they’ll receive. But who else?
Candidates with close ties to advocacy or labor groups that have large canvassing operations will likely benefit. These groups, even those that are political committees, may not solicit contributions. That’s because the bill requires that a matchable contribution be “made directly by an individual to the candidate…and not [be] forwarded from the individual making the contribution to the candidate … by another person.” Yet if the bill becomes law, it’s a safe bet that these canvassing operations will be made available for hire to favored candidates. For a measure touted as insulating candidates from special interests, that’s a major loophole.
Another likely winner under tax-financed campaigns will be candidates who take extreme positions that appeal to small, concentrated groups of voters.
Rather than appealing to the middle of the electorate, a viable strategy may be to “play to the base” where supporters are more passionate – and partisan. Given the low turnout in party primaries, taking extreme positions to appeal to a base may even become the dominant strategy.
The Courts
Courthouse News Service: Contractor Challenges Illinois Campaign-Finance Law
By Lorraine Bailey
[O]n Dec. 28, 2018, Ellen Daley, Illinois’ chief procurement officer for general services, notified the company that its founder Daniel Levin’s campaign contributions to Democratic gubernatorial candidates in 2018 violated the Illinois Procurement Code and required voiding the 2019 management contract.
Habitat and Levin, represented by Edward Feldman with Miller Shakman & Beem, sued in Chicago federal court on Friday to challenge Daley’s decision and the Illinois law banning government contractors or affiliated persons from making any contribution to a political committee of the officeholder responsible for awarding their contracts.
“Daley’s decision to void the 2019 contract is arbitrary, capricious and, if allowed, would violate plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” the complaint states.
Levin made five contributions to Democratic gubernational candidate Chris Kennedy, and one contribution to Democratic gubernatorial nominee J.B. Pritzker in 2018.
But neither Kennedy or Pritzker had any authority over awarding the Lake Shore Plaza contract to Habitat because the company won the contract during Governor Bruce Rauner’s Republican administration. In fact, the contributions were made to candidates who ran against Rauner, who lost to Pritzker in November.
“Defendants’ decision to void the 2019 contract infringes on Levin’s First Amendment rights of speech and association, and chills him and other Illinoisans from exercising their right to contributing to candidates of their choosing,” the lawsuit states.
Congress
Common Dreams: Nine Years After Citizens United, Calls to Overturn ‘Horrendous’ Decision and Pass Pro-Democracy HR1
By Andrea Germanos
With Monday marking the ninth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, campaign finance watchdogs say it’s more urgent than ever to address “the degradation of our democracy” and overturn the 2010 decision which opened the floodgates to unlimited spending by corporate interests and the super wealthy.
That decision by the high court further corrupted the democratic process by opening the floodgates to unlimited corporate political spending.
Among its critics is the advocacy group Public Citizen, which argued in a Twitter thread that “Until #CitizensUnited is overturned, the corporate oligarchy will maintain the power to block the policies favored by the majority of Americans-from raising the minimum wage to addressing catastrophic climate change, breaking up Wall Street banks to winning #MedicareForAll.”
With President Donald Trump pushing the Supreme Court rightward, Public Citizen says the best hope lies in a successful push for an amendment to overturn Citizens United. The group sees hope in a new piece of far-reaching legislation-House Resolution 1 (HR1)-and the fact that is has 223 cosponsors.
Fundraising
Politico: Exclusive: GOP reaches landmark agreement to juice small-dollar fundraising
By Alex Isenstadt
President Donald Trump’s political team and top Republican officials have reached a landmark agreement to reshape the party’s fundraising apparatus and close the financial gap that devastated them in the midterms.
With the deal, Republicans hope to create a rival to ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising behemoth that plowed over $700 million in small-dollar donations into Democratic coffers in the 2018 campaign.
Republicans have had no comparable centralized platform to cultivate small dollars. Since the election, officials including White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel have privately insisted the party needed to come up with an answer.
Following weeks of closed-door discussions, Republicans have agreed to create a new platform dubbed Patriot Pass, which will be used to cultivate and process online donations. The GOP – whose jungle-like ecosystem of vendors has long fought bitterly over contracts and dollars – has struggled in the past to create such a unified system.
The accord, revealed for the first time to Politico by officials at the center of the effort, has received the explicit blessing of party leaders.
Candidates and Campaigns
CNBC: In 2020 Democratic race for the White House, virtually all the barriers are gone
By John Harwood
One by one, barriers to entry have fallen away. And now, in Democratic presidential politics, there are effectively none…
Affluent donors no longer wield veto power. The digital revolution has so up-ended campaign finance that previously-unknown politicians who become viral stars can rapidly build familiarity, poll standing and presidential-size treasuries.
That’s how a young ex-House member, Beto O’Rourke of Texas, has become a plausible candidate for president after losing his 2018 Senate bid. Old hierarchies that once structured the Democratic nomination fight no longer exist.
Traditionally less deferential to front-runners than Republicans, Democrats have repeatedly held wide-open nomination fights. Yet the 2020 field, by so fully representing a modern coalition built on women, minorities and socially-tolerant young people, is unlike any veteran activists have experienced…
Less-experienced Democrats still must demonstrate presidential gravitas. But social media has magnified their opportunity to do so quickly and inexpensively.
The party’s ideological diversity has shrunk nearly as much as its demographic diversity has grown…
Today, women make up more than one-third of the party’s Senate caucus and one-fourth of their governors. African-Americans Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey hold Senate seats from the nation’s largest and 11th largest states, respectively…
The 2020 race may test one more boundary. Pete Buttigieg, a 36-year-old Afghanistan war vet who is now mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is considering becoming the first openly gay candidate to seek the White House.
“Of the negatives he has, I don’t think being gay is the biggest,” says Hilary Rosen, a long-time Democratic strategist who herself is gay. Rosen points instead to competition from other “outsider” candidates not now serving in Washington.
Citizens United
Center for Responsive Politics: A look at the impact of Citizens United on its 9th anniversary
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom, Raymond Arke and Luke Robinson
In the election cycles following Citizens United, the balance of power has shifted more and more toward outside spending groups such as super PACs and “dark money” political nonprofits, unleashing unprecedented amounts of money toward political advertisements meant to influence voters.
The immediate result of the ruling was a massive uptick in spending from outside groups in the 2010 midterms. But it didn’t end there. In the years following Citizen United, prominent party leaders helped establish super PACs, effectively funneling money to a small handful of well-connected outside groups and blurring the lines between super PACs and candidates, who are not allowed to coordinate on independent expenditures.
Unburdened by contribution limits, it didn’t take long for super PACs to surpass national party committees as the top outside spending groups. In 2018, each of the top three outside spending groups were establishment-connected super PACs: the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund ($136 million), Harry Reid-connected Senate Majority PAC ($112 million) and Mitch McConnell-linked Senate Leadership Fund ($94 million).
Since 2010, each new election cycle is breaking records with ease, with the bulk of the increase coming from a jump in outside spending…
A growing number of candidates and congressional members, particularly Democrats, have sworn off donations from corporate or business-related PACs, blaming them for the influence of money in politics…
But despite Democratic messaging on the issue, the reality is corporate PAC contributions have not changed much since Citizens United.
The States
Washington Post: D.C. ‘pay-to-play’ ban closer to becoming law after mayor declines veto
By Peter Jamison
Sweeping changes to campaign-finance regulations in the nation’s capital are on track to become law after Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) opted not to veto legislation passed by the D.C. Council.
Bowser, who had refused to take a public stance on the bill’s core provisions, allowed it to advance without signing it – a way of expressing her disapproval that stops short of a veto.
Among other things, the measure would ban campaign contributions from companies and their top executives if they hold or are seeking government contracts worth at least $250,000; give new authority and independence to the city’s Office of Campaign Finance; and require increased disclosure from independent expenditure committees.
The Council unanimously approved the bill last month.
During an interview Friday on “The Kojo Nnamdi Show” on WAMU-88.5, Bowser said the new legislation is not an improvement on the status quo, in which businesses that obtain government contracts are free to fund the campaigns of the elected officials who control those contracts. The mayor suggested that such donations pose no problem as long as they are adequately disclosed.
“I highly value how candidates disclose. I highly value that we have a simple process that everybody understands,” Bowser said. “I don’t think the council landed in the right place.” She said the new legislation is “confusing, in a lot of ways.” …
The bill will head to Congress for a mandatory review period. If U.S. lawmakers do not act to reverse it, the legislation’s regulations would take effect during the 2022 election cycle. A separate bill passed by the Council that establishes public financing for local campaigns will take effect during the 2020 election cycle.
Oregon Public Broadcasting: Oregon Legislative Preview: Democrats In Charge With Ambitious Agenda
By Dirk VanderHart and Lauren Dake
In the teeth of a tough re-election fight this year – the state’s most expensive ever – Kate Brown vowed to pursue changes to Oregon’s permissive campaign finance system, which she has called “the wild, wild west.”
Brown has since said she wants lawmakers to refer a measure to voters that would modify the state’s Constitution, which the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled currently bars any limit on campaign contributions or spending.
“We’re working with lawyers and stakeholders to see if we can figure out an approach to amend the Constitution to allow for reasonable campaign finance limits in Oregon,” Brown told reporters on Jan 14…
Limiting contributions could be a sticky subject in Salem – past proposals have been opposed by both parties – but a constitutional change isn’t the only idea that could emerge this session.
State Rep. Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, has a slate of bills that would tighten requirements for reporting campaign contributions, allow increased auditing of campaign accounts, and more.
Rayfield is also taking another crack at a bill to create a public financing system for campaigns that agree to limit contributions to $250 and meet other thresholds. He’s got the backing of state Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Medford, a rookie lawmaker chairing a new committee on campaign finance.
Casper Star Tribune: ‘Wyoming Promise’ bill dies in committee
By Nick Reynolds
A bill that would have called for a convention of states to amend the Constitution and overturn the controversial Citizens United ruling was killed in committee Wednesday by a narrow 3-2 vote.
Sponsored by Sen. Jeff Wasserburger, R-Gillette, SJ-002 would have added Wyoming to the list of five states that have called for a convention of the states to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a landmark Supreme Court decision that led to an unprecedented amount of corporate spending influencing federal elections.
“No” votes included Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, Sen. Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester, and Sen. Jim Anderson, R-Casper.
The impetus for the bill began with a petition drive from a group called Wyoming Promise, which in late 2018 attempted – and failed, despite gathering more than 26,000 signatures from across the state – to get a question calling for a convention of states passed as a ballot initiative.
VT Digger: Ethics commission wants investigatory authority
By Mark Johnson
The Vermont State Ethics Commission will be seeking to expand its power to include the authority to investigate complaints.
The commission, which started last year, refers complaints to other agencies including the Attorney General’s Office and state Human Resources Department, but was established with no power to conduct investigations…
The commission is seeking statutory authority to hire a full-time examiner and add another part-time position to follow up on complaints. Currently the only staff member is a part-time executive director. The chair of the volunteer five-member commission, Madeline Motta, estimated the examiner would cost $40,000 to 50,000 a year …
Motta told the Senate Government Operations Committee on Thursday the commission should have broader powers, including investigating campaign finance complaints, which she said many other state ethics commissions do and are currently reviewed by the Vermont Attorney General’s Office. Motta said many complaints the commission received in the past 12 months involved campaign-related questions as well ethical questions about municipal officials, which the commission does not have jurisdiction over, only state office holders and some high-ranking state employees. Lawmakers have their own ethics panels in each chamber.
Investigating campaign finance complaints is the “bread and butter” of many other state commission, Motta said.
