Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: Kavanaugh Fight in State of Uncertainty
By Natalie Andrews and Kristina Peterson
The fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was in limbo Monday as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned a vote by week’s end but uncertainty lingered over whether the scope of a renewed FBI probe would be enough to convince wavering lawmakers to support the nominee.
Philadelphia Inquirer: How a Supreme Court ruling is giving mega-donors even more power
By Jonathan Lai and Holly Otterbein
While super PACs have received huge amounts of attention in recent years, joint-fundraising committees have been steadily growing in importance, funneling more and more money from donors to politicians and parties.
Critics say these committees allow politicians and donors to peddle influence and effectively skirt some campaign finance limits. Politicians say they’re a convenient way to raise funds and help their parties…
There used to be a cap on the total amount donors could give, so they couldn’t just max out to as many candidates as they wanted. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits in McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014, paving the way for larger joint fundraising committees than ever before.
At the time, individual donors couldn’t give more than $123,000 in a single two-year cycle.
The result has been a boom in joint-fundraising committees, both in the number of them and the amounts they’re raising. While they’ve existed for decades, these committees have grown larger than ever in recent years, and candidates have received more and more money through them…
There’s another twist when it comes to joint-fundraising committees: National parties are allowed to transfer unlimited amounts of money back and forth with their state and local counterparts. That creates a legal loophole – donors are limited in how much they can give to a single party committee, such as the national Democrats or the Pennsylvania Republicans, but can actually contribute to related state and local parties that then funnel the money to each other.
It’s a tactic that Republicans and Democrats used in the 2016 presidential election to skirt campaign finance limits, critics charge, with contributions to state parties feeding the national party. So far, that hasn’t emerged in other campaigns.
The Courts
Washington Post: States can’t punish businesses for boycotting Israel, federal judge in Arizona says
By Isaac Stanley-Becker
For 12 years, [Mikkel Jordahl] has provided legal advice to inmates in the Coconino County Detention Facility.
In his personal life, he avoids companies he considers complicit in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories…
In his professional life, however, he was bound by a law, enacted by the Arizona legislature in 2016, requiring any business that has a state contract to certify that it was not boycotting Israel. He challenged the directive in court, claiming that it violated his First Amendment rights.
A federal judge in Arizona found merit in his complaint. U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa issued an injunction last week, blocking enforcement of the measure…
“A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” Humetewa wrote in her opinion in Jordahl et al v. Brnovich et al.
The finding was the second this year to turn back a wave of state legislation using public money to deter anti-Israel activity. It is in line with a similar judgment in January, when a federal judge in Kansas ruled for the first time that enforcing a state provision requiring contractors to sign a no-boycott certification violated expressive rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Similar provisions are on the books in more than a dozen states, including Maryland, Minnesota and South Carolina, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Congress
Politico: Judiciary Republicans’ personal information published during Kavanaugh hearing
By Jesus Rodriguez
The personal information of several Republican senators who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee was published online in the middle of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony before the panel Thursday.
The information – including home addresses, phone numbers, and personal email addresses – appeared on the Wikipedia pages of Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina…
“It’s shocking that someone would post Senator Hatch and other Judiciary Committee Republican’s personal information, including home addresses, putting their families in danger,” said Matt Whitlock, communications director for Hatch…
According to a Twitter bot that identified the changes, the edits appeared to come from a computer on Capitol Hill, although POLITICO could not confirm that was accurate. The purpose of the edits was also unclear.
Independent Groups
Denver Post: Environmental group pledges more than $3 million in Colorado’s gubernatorial, senate races to support Democrats
By Nic Garcia and Ben Botkin
The Conservation Colorado Victory Fund, an independent expenditure committee associated with the political nonprofit Conservation Colorado, is expected Monday to disclose its first round of donations and spending with the Secretary of State.
The committee, which can spend an unlimited amount of money but is forbidden to coordinate with individual candidates, will use its largess to purchase digital advertising and mail literature and support a targeted door-knocking campaign.
The group’s message is simple: Polis and other Democrats running in pivotal state Senate races will be better for the environment, while Republican gubernatorial candidate state Treasurer Walker Stapleton and his GOP peers will not.
The sum, which is expected to be concentrated on the governor’s race, is a new record for the environmental group, the organization said…
The environmental group’s investment puts it among the largest outside spenders in the election. The money it will use to support the Democrats comes from the nonprofit’s 40,000 members. Because of its tax status with the federal government, Conservation Colorado is not required to disclose its donors.
The Media
The Hill: US ambassador: China running ‘propaganda ads in our own free press’
By Megan Keller
The U.S. ambassador to China, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R), is criticizing “propaganda” from Beijing that ran in the Des Moines Register.
“In disseminating its propaganda, China’s government is availing itself of America’s cherished tradition of free speech and a free press by placing a paid advertisement in the Des Moines Register,” Branstad wrote in the newspaper on Sunday.
“In contrast, at the newsstand down the street here in Beijing, you will find limited dissenting voices and will not see any true reflection of the disparate opinions that the Chinese people may have on China’s troubling economic trajectory, given that media is under the firm thumb of the Chinese Communist Party,” Branstad added, noting that “one of China’s most prominent” papers refused to publish his op-ed.
The Des Moines Register published a four-page insert paid for by The China Daily, a government-run media company, last Sunday.
The insert included arguments for ending the trade war between the U.S. and China and praise for the benefits of resuming trade, particularly for Iowa…
Trump last Wednesday ripped China for placing the insert, saying China did so “because we are beating them on Trade, opening markets, and the farmers will make a fortune when this is over!”…
Trump accused China of attempting to interfere in the November midterm elections, a claim China has denied.
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: Brace for some monster third-quarter FEC reports
By Scott Bland
[W]e’re going to see some enormous totals across the House landscape in the next two weeks, fueled by explosive online fundraising on the Democratic side and furious efforts to preserve the House majority on the GOP side.
We’ve been tracking House Democrats’ online fundraising via ActBlue for months now, and it was higher than ever in August, giving many campaigns fuel to hit the airwaves before Republican outside group attacks started flying. Six Democratic challengers had raised over $1 million online in July and August alone…
Many more were set to clear seven figures by the end of September, including another eight who raised at least $750,000 online in July and August and another seven who were over $600,000 online after two months.
Online fundraising typically accelerates as you get closer to Election Day. (Friday and Sunday were ActBlue’s two biggest days ever, with over $15 million flowing through the Democratic donor platform on Sunday alone.) Plus, Democrats have been raising money offline, too – in just one big example, the House Victory Project was set to make contributions around a quarter-million dollars or more to 21 Democratic House candidates last quarter.
For context: In 2016, nine non-incumbent Democratic House candidates raised over $1 million in the third quarter, heading into the general election. (Two of them were self-funders.) Two self-funding Republican challengers also cleared seven figures, as did seven GOP incumbents. The 2018 field looks set to plow through those numbers.
The States
West Fargo Pioneer: Commentary: Don’t take my word for it, ACLU says Measure 1 is an affront to free speech
By Rob Port
“There is no exception to this reporting requirement for individuals spending their own money to express their personal point of view on a given campaign or piece of public policy,” the [ACLU]’s North Dakota chapter said in a news release this week announcing their opposition to the measure.
“That leaves a constitutional mandate so broad that if a private citizen wants to travel to Bismarck to testify on a bill, they’d have to disclose any money spent on fuel, meals and lodging over $200,” the continued. “There’s also no exemption for the media. Talk-radio hosts, newspaper columnists or bloggers who influence politics and policy with their reporting and analysis would likely be subject to these regulations, too.”
In other words, as a practical matter, isn’t so much about government transparency and accountability as shutting people up.
I’ll leave it to you, the readers, to decide if the Hollywood organizers of this measure, along with their local lackeys, intended that outcome or not.
Either way, no voter who values robust and uninhibited political speech should be a supporter of Measure 1.
Not only is it ill-considered public policy, of potentially malevolent genesis, but it would likely invite lengthy and costly litigation from those rightly defending their speech rights.
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: Ethics complaint targets Democrats’ AG hopeful
By John Moritz
The Arkansas Ethics Commission is looking into claims filed by a Republican official against Mike Lee, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, alleging that Lee skirted campaign finance rules and necessary disclosures on his yard signs.
Similar complaints about Lee’s campaign were raised last week by Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s campaign, which accused Lee of acting “hypocritically” because he rolled out a legislative package of proposed ethics reforms. Rutledge is the Republican incumbent who is seeking her second four-year term.
The complaint against Lee’s campaign was submitted by Republican Party Executive Director Sarah Jo Reynolds. She alleges that Lee was late in filing three campaign finance reports during the primary; violated the ban on corporate contributions by accepting an “in-kind donation” of food and drink from a Little Rock restaurant; and failed to include “paid for by” disclosures on his yard signs.
Lee’s campaign has denied breaking the rules. It attributed the tardy reports to problems with the state’s new online reporting system. It also provided photos of its signs that bear the proper disclosure in fine print. (Asked to provide its own evidence, the Republican Party of Arkansas supplied this newspaper with a photo taken from farther away, in which an attribution cannot be clearly seen.)
The March donation of $850 worth of food and drink from Trio’s restaurant in Little Rock should have been attributed to the restaurant’s owner — Little Rock City Director Capi Peck — rather than to the business itself, Lee’s campaign said. The gift came during a fundraiser held at the restaurant shortly after the start of Lee’s campaign.
An amended report was filed this month to attribute the donation to Peck…
As part of his ethics package, Lee has proposed disallowing candidates from amending reports that show “illegal campaign finance filings.”
Everett Daily Herald: Pursuit of campaign-spending violations breaks the budget
By Jerry Cornfield
Enforcing Washington’s campaign finance laws is proving more expensive than expected.
The Public Disclosure Commission is in need of hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to cover the tab of lawsuits against Tim Eyman and others accused of being political scofflaws.
Commissioners will ask the governor and state lawmakers for $889,000 in the 2019 supplemental budget to pay legal bills from the Office of the Attorney General, which handles complex cases at the request of the commission.
And the citizen commission is seeking $1.97 million in the next two-year state budget for services of Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s staff. The amount is more than double what the agency received in the current budget…
Commissioners can refer serious and complicated cases of alleged campaign violations to the attorney general, whose office can obtain larger penalties than the commission…
[A] prominent case referred by the commission led to Ferguson suing the Grocery Manufacturing Association for violations in a 2013 initiative campaign. An $18 million verdict for the state is under appeal.
The attorney general’s office has acknowledged the financial challenge faced by the commission. As the state wins cases and collects attorney fees, those resources can help alleviate the strain, a spokeswoman for the office has said.
For example, in the Grocery Manufacturing Association, attorney fees totaled around $3 million at the end of May.
Albuquerque Journal: ABQ councilors to take up city election bills
By Steve Knight
Albuquerque city councilors are expected as soon as next month to consider bills to comply with a new state election law, as well as a proposed public financing city charter amendment bill.
City Clerk Katy Duhigg told the Journal on Friday that the proposed legislation would place the city in compliance with the Local Election Act, which went into effect July 1…
Councilors also are expected to take up an election code ordinance bill designed to “encourage compliance with election laws and discourage frivolous complaints,” clean up and add definitions to establish expectations for candidates, close campaign finance loopholes and make the campaign finance reporting schedule match the state’s schedule…
Councilors also are expected to consider a proposed public financing city charter amendment, which would need at least six council votes to pass, then voter approval in a special election…
The proposed amendment would increase the public financing distribution for mayoral and council races from $1 per voter to $1.75 cents per voter for regular elections and from 33 cents to 60 cents for runoff elections.
The proposal also would increase seed money from $100 per person to $250 per person and the aggregate seed money from 10 percent to 20 percent of distribution, but the distribution would be reduced by the amount of seed money collected.
The proposed amendment also would increase the length of qualifying period and match dates to the petition signature period for mayoral and council races.
Santa Fe New Mexican: Vote to strengthen democracy with better public financing
By Bruce Berlin
In 2008, Santa Fe voters overwhelmingly approved a charter amendment requiring the City Council to “provide for meaningful public financing” of election campaigns. Santa Fe’s Ethics and Campaign Review Board has been working diligently toward this goal.
At a recent meeting, the review board unanimously passed a proposal strengthening Santa Fe’s existing public campaign finance ordinance. So the question is not whether to have public campaign financing, but how to improve the system…
No system is immune from misuse and no system of qualification can ever be perfect. Although public financing has been obtained by one or two candidates whom some people might find unworthy, it’s also true that some very good candidates – including two prominent councilors running for mayor – have come up short in their efforts to qualify for public funds…
Due to Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United and other Supreme Court decisions, we cannot make public campaign financing perfect. However, the matching system proposal is an important step in the right direction, and well worth doing…
The Ethics and Campaign Review Board meets Monday to vote on approving the amendment, and the City Council meets Oct. 10 to consider it.
