Event
The All-Out Assault on the First Amendment: Restricting Speech, Religion, and Association
Hosted By Hans A. von Spakovsky
From the IRS targeting of certain advocacy organizations, to proposals to overturn free speech cases and give Congress power to restrict political speech, to restrictions on individuals exercising their religious beliefs, to attempts to force membership associations to reveal their donors, there appears to be an all-out assault on the First Amendment rights of Americans. Is this a growing trend? Are we at risk of losing some of our liberties? Must those rights be limited to accommodate politically correct societal “values”? Join us for a vigorous and spirited discussion by some of the foremost experts in America on the First Amendment.
When: Today, October 13, 12:00PM – 1:00PM
Where: The Heritage Foundation
Free Speech
Pew Research Center: Americans more tolerant of offensive speech than others in the world
By Richard Wike
Enshrined in the Bill of Rights, free expression is a bedrock American principle, and Americans tend to express stronger support for free expression than many others around the world. A 38-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2015 found that Americans were among the most supportive of free speech, freedom of the press and the right to use the internet without government censorship.
Moreover, Americans are much more tolerant of offensive speech than people in other nations. For instance, 77% in the U.S. support the right of others to make statements that are offensive to their own religious beliefs, the highest percentage among the nations in the study. Fully 67% think people should be allowed to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, again the highest percentage in the poll. And the U.S. was one of only three nations where at least half endorse the right to sexually explicit speech. Americans don’t necessarily like offensive speech more than others, but they are much less inclined to outlaw it.
FEC
McClatchy DC: Federal election agency gets complaint on conservative paper
By John O’Connor
One of several startup newspapers tied to a conservative Illinois activist has been challenged in a federal complaint as a Republican mouthpiece, meaning it should count as a campaign contribution.
Kim Savage, a Democrat from the Chicago suburb of Darien, argues in a Federal Election Commission filing that the DuPage Policy Journal is not an independent newspaper, but controlled by businessman and radio talk-show host Dan Proft through his political action committee, Liberty Principles PAC, which got a $2.5 million contribution in June from Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner…
The complaint, filed last week in Washington, maintains the DuPage Policy Journal is illegally coordinating with GOP congressional candidate Tonia Khouri and that its publication costs should be reported as political contributions in her race to unseat incumbent Democratic Rep. Bill Foster.
IRS
Daily Caller: Obama’s Tax Lawyers Had Conservative Groups Confidential Information
By Ethan Barton
President Barack Obama’s White House hired at least two Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys who accessed conservative groups’ confidential taxpayer information while defending the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the targeting scandal.
The two were among 10 Justice Department Tax Division lawyers Obama has kept on the White House staff without taxpayer privacy training since April 2009, nonprofit government watchdog Cause of Action Institute (CofA) said in a report made public Wednesday.
Obama “is the first president to have recruited litigation specialists from the DOJ Tax Division, some of whom had knowledge of confidential taxpayer information concerning his political opponents,” the report said. “The DOJ has supplied a regular stream of Tax Division lawyers to the Obama White House for more than seven years, all without any apparent guidance or safeguards to ensure against the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information.”
Congress
Vox: Bernie Sanders’s lone Senate endorser explains why corporate cash is threatening American politics
By Jeff Stein
There’s a way of looking at the 2016 presidential election and concluding that liberal reformers have dramatically overstated the danger corporate cash poses to the political system.
The worry normally goes that the candidate who can amass the bigger war-chest will get an unfair advantage at the polls. But Bernie Sanders outspent Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and lost. Donald Trump basically spent no money and cruised to the top of the Republican field. Jeb Bush spent $130 million and could barely get a hug, much less win a state.
So should we reconsider the principle that money from big businesses can buy our elections? Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, Sanders’s only supporter in the Senate during the primary, thinks that the answer is a clear “no.”
BillMoyers.com: Talking Democracy with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
By Frances Moore Lappé and Adam Eichen
Frances Moore Lappé: We sense a real movement of movements beginning, what we think of as the Democracy Movement, with people across many issues uniting for real system reforms. Do you see this happening too, or does it sound like a pipe dream?
Sheldon Whitehouse: No, it’s not a pipe dream. It’s not easy for groups lobbying on different issues to see the commonality in why they’re not winning. But recognition of the problem is growing across a whole variety of progressive causes. When, if you are in my position, you can go in front of a crowd of people at a community dinner, and say, Citizen United and everybody in the room knows what you mean, now that’s a sign that people are tuned into the problem. This Supreme Court ruling, which unleashed money in campaigns, has a foothold in the public’s imagination. It’s easier for organizations to step in and take advantage of that foothold.
Contributions
The Hill: Dem takes Exxon fight to GOP chairman’s backyard
By David Henry
During an event at the Texas statehouse on Monday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) raised questions about House Space, Science, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith’s opposition to state probes into ExxonMobil Corp.
Smith has subpoenaed documents from two Democratic attorneys general who are investigating allegations that the Irving, Texas-based company lied about the extent of its knowledge of climate change. Smith and Exxon allies have said those investigations invade the free speech rights of Exxon and its scientists.
But Whitehouse noted that Smith has received campaign contributions from Exxon, and the Democrat called the attorneys general subpoenas “unprecedented” congressional actions.
Influence
Washington Free Beacon: Hacked Memo Reveals Steyer’s WH Climate Policy Influence
By Lachlan Markay
Within weeks of John Podesta’s appointment as a top White House energy policy adviser, billionaire Democratic donor Tom Steyer, a board member of the think tank Podesta founded, was helping to steer White House climate policy, hacked documents reveal.
Democratic strategist and Steyer lieutenant Chris Lehane emailed Podesta a memo in January 2014 detailing a proposed structure for an overarching Obama administration climate policy plan that, he hoped, would both achieve policy gains and hurt Republicans at the ballot box.
According to Lehane, Steyer himself was also promoting the plan.
Washington Examiner: DNC chair promised to be Clinton’s ‘biggest surrogate’ before primaries began
By Sarah Westwood
Donna Brazile, acting chair of the Democratic National Committee, vowed to serve as Hillary Clinton’s “biggest surrogate” in January, a full month before voters cast the first ballots of the Democratic primary.
Brazile’s statement of support came in an email to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chair, that was published Wednesday by Wikileaks. The website has released nearly 7,200 Podesta emails in five batches, all posted online since late last week.
“As soon as the nomination is wrapped up, I will be your biggest surrogate,” Brazile wrote in a Jan. 3 note to Podesta. At the time, she was vice chair of the DNC, and Clinton was locked in a surprisingly competitive primary battle with Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Politico: At Clinton campaign’s behest, Daley asked to get Illinois primary date moved
By Natasha Korecki
At the behest of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley called top Illinois Democrats in late 2014 asking that the Legislature move the state’s primary to a later date to stop possible GOP momentum, according to emails recently made public through Wikileaks.
Sources with knowledge of the conversation confirmed to POLITICO Illinois that Daley made the call, but Mike Madigan’s people weren’t interested in helping, despite an offer that Illinois would receive “10% extra delegates if they move to April and 20% if they move to May.”…
“The key point is that this is not an Obama ask, but a Hillary ask,” he wrote. “And the Clintons won’t forget what their friends have done for them. It would be helpful to feel out what path, if any, we have to get them to yes. This will probably take some pushing.”
American Thinker: Clinton email leaks show campaign’s close cooperation, collusion with media
By Rick Moran
Two examples from the Wikileaks email dump from the account of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta show the shocking level of cooperation and deference paid by the media to the Clinton campaign.
First, New York Times reporter and CNBC anchor John Harwood sent an email giving the Clinton campaign advice on how to deal with other GOP candidates in the race while gloating about how he provoked Donald Trump at a debate that he moderated…
Also, a reporter for the New York Times gave the Clinton campaign veto power over quotes that were to appear in a fluff profile piece.
Candidates and Campaigns
Reuters: Trump’s missing donors: the people who work for him
By Michelle Conlin and Grant Smith
Only a dozen of an estimated 22,450 people employed at Trump’s companies have donated more than $200 to the celebrity businessman’s bid for the U.S. presidency, a Reuters review of federal campaign finance records through August shows. Those who gave less to either Trump’s campaign or his joint fundraising committees would not have shown up in the review…
He often speaks about the thousands of jobs he has created and portrays himself as a dealmaker who drove hard bargains and avoided paying taxes to benefit his company, his family and his employees.
Those employees may vote for Trump on Nov. 8, and could be supporting his candidacy with smaller-dollar contributions that do not appear on the filings. But when it comes to putting more significant money toward Trump’s candidacy, his workers have shown little inclination to support their boss.
Politico: RNC TV ad spending for Trump: $0
By Kenneth P. Vogel and Alex Isenstadt
The Republican National Committee insists that it’s doing everything in its power to elect Donald Trump, but as Trump gets clobbered on the TV airwaves by his well-funded Democratic rival, the RNC has been conspicuously absent.
A POLITICO analysis of campaign finance records reveals that the committee has not spent anything on commercials boosting Trump since he emerged as the party’s likely nominee.
That’s a stark departure from recent elections. In 2008 and 2012, the RNC spent tens of millions of dollars on so-called independent expenditures – principally TV ads, but also direct mail and phone banks – supporting its nominees or attacking their Democratic rivals.
