In the News
Heritage: Political Speech and the IRS: Protecting the First Amendment
The First Amendment was intended to protect political speech and encourage participation in the political life of the nation. Campaign finance laws implemented over the past four decades have imposed various restrictions on political speech as have tax laws as they have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service. Congress is now conducting an investigation of the possible targeting by the IRS of conservative tea party and other groups because of their political views and beliefs, and lawsuits are pending over the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive donor and tax information by the IRS. Did the IRS unfairly target certain organizations? What is the status of their claims and the investigation? How far can the government go in balancing the interests of preventing public corruption with encouraging open and spirited political debate? Do IRS tax rules need to be changed to protect the First Amendment rights of advocacy organizations? Do current campaign finance rules restrict political speech and discourage participation by citizens and associations? Three experts, including a lawyer representing conservative organizations, the head of an advocacy group targeted by unauthorized disclosures, and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, will discuss these issues. The panel will be moderated by a former FEC commissioner.Brad Smith will be participating on the panel
ELB: GW Event Monday on McCutcheon
The Political Law Society, the student body arm of the Political Law Studies Initiative at the George Washington University School of Law, would like to invite you to attend a panel discussion on the upcoming Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC. Attorneys from organizations who filed amucis briefs on both side will be discussing the legal issues and how the Court might consider the case.Allen Dickerson and Trevor Burrus are among the panelists
CCP
The Biennial Limit: Good for Incumbents, Bad for the First Amendment
By David KeatingThe Supreme Court will hear oral arguments October 8 on a campaign contribution limits case known asMcCutcheon v. FEC. The Court will review the constitutionality of the biennial limit law that sets a cap on the total aggregate amount that an individual may donate to candidates, parties and political committees.If Congress wants to limit our First Amendment right to free speech, it should have a good reason, backed by evidence of corruption and abuses, not untested hypotheticals. Even then, if there is a need to limit speech, any remedy should be carefully crafted to solve that problem. A scalpel is needed, not an axe.There is no evidence that an aggregate limit is needed. Worse yet, Congress used an axe instead of a scalpel. In 2002, as part of the McCain-Feingold law, Congress created an overall biennial limit on how much a citizen can donate to parties, PACs and candidates, which with automatic inflation adjustments is now $123,200. This is broken into two parts: a $74,600 limit on donations to PACs and parties and a $48,600 limit on contributions to candidates.
Independent Groups
Reason: Federal Judges Overturn Speech-Chilling Regulation of Grassroots Activists
By Jacob SullumOne decision involved Mississippi regulations that apply to anyone who spends $200 or more on speech related to inititiatives aimed at amending the state constitution. The case was brought by Vance Justice and four other Oxford residents who wanted to make the case for Initiative 31, an eminent domain reform inititative, but discovered that merely buying a quarter-page ad in the local newspaper would require them to register as a “political committee.” The rules for political committees are so complicated, U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock observes, that “a prudent person might have extraordinary difficulty merely determining what is required.” Aycock adds that “potential speakers might well require legal counsel to determine which regulations even apply, above and beyond how to comport with those requirements.” She concludes that the public interest in keeping tabs on groups like Justice and his friends cannot justify this regulatory burden.
Hollywood Reporter: Conservative Organization Moves Forward With Hillary Clinton Movie Plans
By Paul BondA day after CNN and NBC canceled plans for a Hillary Clinton documentary and miniseries, respectively, another group, Citizens United, said it will press ahead with plans for a movie about the former first lady, senator and secretary of state.The yet-to-be titled movie will be distributed theatrically, shown on television and released on DVD, though partnerships are under wraps so far.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
More Soft Money Hard Law: “Circumvention”
By Bob BauerIf the aggregate limit is a means of enforcing the base limits and blocking circumvention, it raises the question: how effective does an anti-circumvention measure have to be to prevail in a test of the provision’s constitutionality?In the case of the aggregate limit, the inquiry leads quickly to a consideration of a new fact of campaign finance—the super PACs. In today’s reporting in the New York Times, the issue of super PACs is raised, but as counsel to the RNC Jim Bopp states it, the problem is one of unfairness to the parties. Adam Liptak, “Justices to Weigh Key Limit on Political Donors,” New York Times (Oct. 2, 2013). Bopp tells the Times that “candidates and parties are being disadvantaged” by the limits within which they are expected to operate while super PACs are free of the same restrictions. In the brief he authored for the RNC, he makes the same point. Republican National Committee, Brief on the Merits (May 6, 2013) at 12-13. McCutcheon’s brief notes—literally, in a footnote—that super PACs are not subject to a contribution limit. McCutcheon, Brief on the Merits (May 6, 2013, at 6, n.4). On the issue of circumvention, however, the briefs argue from within the campaign finance legal structure that various controls already on the books are sufficient to prevent evasion of the contribution limits, such as the specific per-election and calendar year “base limits” and the anti-earmarking provisions.
Lobbying and Ethics
Politico: Shutdown can’t stop lobbyists from their appointed rounds
By Byron TauIt’s not exactly business as usual — but even a shutdown can’t put a stop to K Street lobbying.Far from relaxing on the links or taking boozy two-hour lunches, Beltway lobbyists are making their normal load of Hill meetings and client work happen — in spite of a federal government operating without hundreds of thousands of staffers and a congressional stalemate over Obamacare and the budget.
Roll Call: What’s a Hill Résumé Worth on K Street? Maybe Not $500K
By Kate AckleyIn fact, it’s the rare congressional aide who can decamp for a lobbying job and command half a million dollars a year in compensation. And in the current K Street economy, hiring managers get jittery at the prospect of bringing on new employees who don’t come with a book of client business and a record of getting paid to effectively persuade.“In the 17 years I’ve been doing this, I haven’t seen it as difficult for people to make the transition to K Street as it is now,” said Ivan Adler, a headhunter at The McCormick Group. “If there was a tax bill or some major legislation going and coming on the Hill, the demand would be higher. The demand’s just not there.”
