Trump’s SCOTUS List of 21
Charles Canady on Judicial Campaign Speech Rights: Pro-Speech, then a Mystery in Williams-Yulee
By David Keating
Using our initial screen to find cases, Judge Canady wrote or joined an opinion in two First Amendment cases of note while on the Florida Supreme Court.
The first was In re Turner, 76 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2011). This case involved a Florida judge’s serious misconduct both while campaigning for the bench and after winning election. Of the six counts against Judge N. James Turner where he was found guilty by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, two were campaign finance allegations. One count involved personally soliciting campaign funds in violation of Florida Judicial Canon 7C(1), and the other was a clear violation of a Florida contribution limit. Judge Turner argued the personal solicitation rule violated his First Amendment rights. The Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the issue as the other violations warranted Turner’s removal from the bench…
Judge Canady concurred in the result, but argued the Court should have heard Turner’s constitutional challenge to the personal solicitation ban… The constitutionality of Florida’s solicitation rule was later decided in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. In that case, Florida’s high court upheld the rule under the First Amendment. Chief Justice Ricky Polston and Justice Canady concurred in part and dissented in part. But we do not know which parts or why.
Charles Canady in Congress: A Strong but Mixed Pro-Free Speech Record
By David Keating
Canady cast several votes against bills and amendments that would have greatly limited the right of Americans to participate in campaigns. Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) passed Congress in 2002, there were earlier iterations of that highly restrictive law that failed to clear Congress. Canady voted against such measures in 1998 and 1999. His votes on amendments to these bills were consistent with his votes against final passage. However, he did vote twice to support amendments to limit the ability of candidates to raise money outside of either their own districts or states. These amendments would have required at least half of the candidate’s funds to be raised inside the district or state.
He also voted against a 1993 bill to create tax-funded campaigns and a host of new campaign-finance restrictions…
One of Canady’s most troubling votes on First Amendment rights was his support for the “Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994.” Passage of the bill in March of that year generated little controversy, but as more groups became aware of the provisions in the legislation, it became highly controversial. The strongest criticism was aimed at provisions to regulate grassroots lobbying by nonprofit groups.
In the News
New York Post: Democrats’ only idea for ‘draining the swamp’ is a proven failure
By Brad Smith and Luke Wachob
Democratic proposals to “get money out of politics” have been tried for over 40 years, starting with the institution of campaign-contribution limits and donor-disclosure requirements via the Federal Election Campaign Act in the 1970s. It hasn’t gone as planned.
Notably, comparisons across states find no correlation between campaign-finance restrictions and public corruption, quality of governance or public trust in government. Given how dramatically these laws vary from state to state, this is startling. Eleven states allow individuals to donate any amount to candidates, while other states limit contributions to just a few hundred dollars.
Yet from the start, progressives have insisted on misreading Trump’s anti-corruption message as an endorsement of their failed policies…
Even if you support these policies, it’s silly to say they’re the only way to change the culture of Washington. When Trump says “drain the swamp,” only progressives hear “force nonprofits to disclose their donors” or “add more regulation of political participation.”
For Trump voters, extensive regulation, massive bureaucracy and “the swamp” go hand in hand.
CCP
Amicus Curiae Brief of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Support of Independence Institute
The precise and highly important issue in this case is whether the First Amendment forbids application of donor disclosure requirements to non-campaign-related issue speech by the Independence Institute merely because the speech mentions a candidate for federal office in his home state during the time before a federal election. The donors to the Institute desire to remain anonymous and will not fund the speech if their identities are disclosed. Thus, the threat of government-mandated donor disclosure is actually suppressing the Institute’s speech…
Senator McConnell submits that this case provides the Court a critical opportunity to reconcile the tension between Citizens United and Buckley. That tension may be resolved by making clear that any government interest in publicly identifying persons engaged in campaign-related speech does not correlate to or outweigh the right to anonymity of a speaker engaged in non-campaign-related issue speech. This distinction would effectuate the legislative intent behind the disclosure provisions. Accordingly, as applied to the Institute’s speech, any interest in disclosure does not outweigh the core First Amendment right of the Institute’s donors to remain anonymous in their discussion of issues.
Public Financing
National Review: It’s Time to End Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns
By Jim Geraghty
You may have noticed that check box on your income-tax return, inviting you to direct $3 of your federal tax bill to a government-managed fund that matches the money raised by presidential candidates who meet certain criteria and accept spending limits. Checking the box has no effect on the amount of taxes owed, but the program is not popular: just 6 percent of taxpayers opted in in 2013.
That government fund isn’t running out of money, though, because most serious candidates forego matching funds, calculating that they can raise more without the spending limits…
Since Obama’s 2008 decision, candidates of both parties have “voted with their feet”; no one wants public financing badly enough to accept the risk of defeat. In 2014, Congress passed and Obama signed legislation to end the public funding of party presidential conventions, removing one major way that taxpayer dollars supported partisan activities. It’s time to do the same for campaigns.
Citizens United
Washington Post: Republicans want to fight climate change, but fossil-fuel bullies won’t let them
By Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Climate change became partisan in 2010, shortly after the five Republican-appointed justices of the Supreme Court upended a century of law and precedent to issue the Citizens United decision, which rejected limits on corporate spending on political campaigns. The timing is not a coincidence…
The justices allowed the fossil-fuel industry to roll heavy artillery out onto the political field, not just its previous musketry. Industry operatives brag about putting hundreds of millions of dollars into each federal election cycle, though undisclosed “dark money” and identity-laundering pass-throughs make this increasingly hard to track…
Republicans are trapped. The merciless might of the fossil-fuel industry’s new post-Citizens United political armaments is directed at them. After I gave a speech about the hoodlum politics of the fossil-fuel industry, a Republican friend approached me on the Senate floor and said: “What the hell are you complaining about? They’re spending more against us than they are against you!” I suspect they were at the time. The fossil-fuel industry knew that if it could bring a political party to heel, it could use that party to block progress.
Des Moines Register: We need a 28th Amendment to limit money’s influence in elections
By Jim Leach, Nina Turner, and Jeff Clements
As a Republican, a progressive Democrat, and an independent, we join together to ask all Americans to support the 28th Amendment to our Constitution to win effective government and equal rights for all Americans. No one else but the American citizenry can do this, and no half-measures that fail to address our constitutional crisis can set our course right.
Make no mistake, we do face a constitutional crisis, not just a “campaign finance” problem. The dangerous lack of balance, fairness, inclusion and trust in our political system in large measure results from disastrous decisions by a divided Supreme Court, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the court decreed that corporations, unions, and billionaires have a “free speech” right to spend unlimited money to decide elections and policy, and they are doing so with a vengeance.
Billions of dollars of “speech” now dominate our system, and most of the money comes from far less than 1 percent of Americans. This is the money that decides who runs, who wins and who governs.
Political Parties
Bloomberg BNA: ‘Soft Money’ Challenge Heads to Supreme Court
By Kenneth P. Doyle
The Supreme Court has been asked formally to review a challenge to restrictions on “soft money” contributions to political parties-the last remaining major element of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law passed in 2002.
The filing of a “jurisdictional statement” appealing to the high court had been expected since a lower court ruling last fall, which rejected the soft money challenge launched by the Republican Party of Louisiana. The party committee sued the Federal Election Commission, the agency that enforces restrictions on campaign money to national, state and local parties…
The new appeal-announced Jan. 6 but not yet docketed by the Supreme Court-gives the court an opportunity to scrap or uphold the restrictions on political party funding that have been in place for nearly 15 years. The case is being considered under streamlined procedures for constitutional challenges to campaign finance laws, meaning that the Supreme Court must issue some type of ruling on the merits, though there’s no guarantee of an oral argument or written opinion.
The States
Washington Post: In a city plagued by pay-to-play politics, an important decision looms for D.C.
By Aaron C. Davis
The D.C. Council returned to work Tuesday, setting out a good-government agenda that will force a quick decision on campaign finance reform in a city that has been plagued by pay-to-play politics.
Council members introduced more than a half-dozen bills to increase transparency in campaign fundraising and to limit the influence of big donors who do business with the city.
Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D), who has said she would run again for mayor in 2018, opposed such measures last year on the grounds that they might run afoul of the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, which said the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, unions or associations.
Arizona Capitol Media: Sec of State’s Office raps panel’s tactic against ‘dark money’
By Howard Fischer
An effort by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to crack down on the increasing influence of “dark money” in campaigns is drawing criticism from the state’s chief elections officer.
An aide to Secretary of State Michele Reagan said that a proposed commission rule designed to clarify when groups need to disclose donors amounts to a “power grab,” specifically of what she claims is her sole power over regulating political committees.
“Secretary Reagan believes the commission’s mission creep is extremely dangerous and unfortunately demonstrates that this unelected and unaccountable body seeks to declare itself as Arizona’s free speech policeman,” said Matt Roberts. And he said the proposed rule goes beyond what the Legislature decided is the appropriate level of regulation.
Los Angeles Daily News: LA leaders call for ban on campaign finance from developers to ‘restore’ faith
By Elizabeth Chou
In an election season in which city politicians have increasingly come under attack for a perceived closeness with deep-pocketed developers, five council members on Tuesday sought to dispel that image by proposing a ban on political contributions from donors seeking approval for their real estate projects.
The city’s ethics laws already forbid those seeking public contracts from donating to elected officials and candidates. A motion introduced by council members David Ryu, Joe Buscaino, Paul Krekorian, Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin now seeks to also bar campaign finance donations from developers trying to get projects greenlighted.
Ryu said in a statement that he wants to “restore Angelenos’ faith in the city’s ability to fairly review and approve major development projects.”
This means avoiding “even the appearance of a conflict,” he said.
CBS 19 Charlottesville: McAuliffe proposes campaign finance reforms, changes to voting laws
The 2017 General Assembly will get a package of proposals from Governor Terry McAuliffe, dealing with campaign finance reform, the voter ID law and expanding absentee voting.
“Virginians have a right to expect a government that is as transparent, accountable and accessible to its citizens as possible,” said McAuliffe.
The campaign funds proposal would ban candidates and elected officials from using such monies for personal use.
“This year, I look forward to working with the General Assembly to build on our successes strengthening our ethics laws by banning the personal use of campaign funds,” said McAuliffe. “These donations should be used to inform the public, not to line the pockets of politicians.”
Rapid City KOTA News: Measure 22 backers gather outside the capitol building for State of the State Address
By Associated Press
Supporters of a voter-approved government ethics overhaul are urging state lawmakers not to repeal the initiative.
The governor opposes and wants to repeal initiated Measure 22. The secretary of state is proposing a different overhaul to South Dakota’s campaign finance laws.
Roughly a dozen Initiated Measure 22 backers gathered Tuesday outside the state Capitol on the first day of the 2017 legislative session…
Doug Kronaizl is a spokesman for pro-Initiated Measure 22 group Represent South Dakota. He says that repealing the law would set a bad precedent.
The group is a local chapter of Represent.Us, a Massachusetts-based organization working to reduce the influence of money in politics that helped fund the South Dakota ballot measure campaign.
