CCP
Owen Yeates Joins CCP as Staff Attorney
“Owen brings an impressive background to our efforts defending the First Amendment’s guarantee of free political speech, assembly, and petition,” said CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson. “The Center has successfully argued cases in courts across the country, and Owen’s addition to our litigation team will allow us to vindicate the rights of more individuals and groups in the years ahead.”
Owen Yeates received his J.D. from Stanford Law School after completing a Ph.D. in Political Science at Duke University. He has clerked for judges of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and was most recently an associate at Klarquist Sparkman, LLP in Portland, Oregon.
In the News
Nonprofit Times: Supreme Court Declines To Hear Fundraising Appeal
Mark Hrywna
The Center for Competitive Politics v. Attorney General Kamala Harris isn’t the only such case brewing that involves donor information. The Citizens United Foundation filed suit against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the Americans For Prosperity Foundation has taken on Harris in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s possible the Supreme Court could take up a case if other major courts come out in opposite ways, which often can be a premise for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal.
Depositions in the Americans For Prosperity Foundation case were cited by Keating, who said the AG’s head auditor testified that an investigation has never been initiated as a result of reviewing Schedule B but also that some 1,400 confidential forms recently appeared on the state’s website.
“The office doesn’t need this information and has demonstrated its inability to keep these forms confidential,” Keating said. “It’s time to end this anti-association policy permanently,” he said in a statement.
Independent Groups
Washington Examiner: Money still doesn’t buy elections — just ask Ohio’s pot plotters
Timothy Carney
The pot hustlers outspent the anti-marijuana group by a 40-to-1 margin according to the latest campaign finance filings available, and they lost at the ballot box last week almost 2-to-1.
What were they thinking?
I have a theory: Maybe they believed the media line that money could buy elections.
In related news last week, campaign-finance crusader Lawrence Lessig dropped his confusing and quixotic presidential run. Lessig professionally rails against money in politics and objects that “money [can] buy results in Washington.” Lessig unwittingly undermined his own premise in 2014, when his Mayday PAC spent $10 million backing like-minded campaign-finance reformers and lost basically every competitive race.
Washington Post: Green group endorses Hillary Clinton, and feels the Bern
Juliet Eilperin
The League of Conservation Voters Action Fund’s endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday has prompted a backlash from many of its members, who argue Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) deserved the nod…
Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs, for his part, issued a statement saying his candidate’s “record on the environment is unbeatable.”
“That’s why he was endorsed by Friends of the Earth. That’s why Bill McKibben called him ‘the most aggressive voice in the Senate’ on climate issues,” Briggs added. “That’s why he has a 95 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters. The league agreed with former Sen. Clinton only 82 percent of the time, so its endorsement is based on something other than the merits.”
Buzzfeed: For Now, The Big GOP Groups Are Spending In Senate Races — Instead Of Against Clinton
Tarini Parti
Instead, they have spent big going up early in battleground Senate races, as Republicans face a difficult election ahead in trying to defend their majority in the upper chamber. Before the airwaves get saturated with presidential ads and airtime gets more expensive, outside groups are spending millions on positive spots to drive up incumbents favorability or attack Democratic challengers early in the election cycle.
“(Clinton’s) difficulties have clearly allowed outside groups to save money that would have most likely been spent detailing her shortcomings,” said a GOP strategist affiliated with an outside group. “On the face of it, it’s a glaring omission, but her shortcomings have allowed the money to be spent elsewhere.”
Free Speech
Washington Free Beacon: Koch Adviser to Axelrod: Cure For Speech You Don’t Like Is More Speech, Not Less
Daniel Bassali
“We don’t have that kind of power,” Holden said. “I’m not saying we don’t have any. I think that most politicians are going to do their own thing. At the end of the day, we try to be engaged in the political process so we can get the ideas that we think are important passed through and implemented to the extent there is will for it, the political will that the elected officials have to have.”
Holden said there is a “common thread” of government intrusion on the people’s lives that the Koch brothers aim to fight against, not only for corporations but for citizens’ liberties.
“Throughout our history, there are a lot of different people with different views—and the thing I love about our country is you get to say it; you don’t have to like it,” Holden said. “But the cure for speech you don’t like or don’t agree with is more speech, not less speech.”
Donor Disclosure
The Hill: Dems push Ryan on campaign finance reform
Mike Lillis
The Democrats, who had no luck moving their Disclose Act under previous Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), are hoping his newly tapped replacement will be more receptive to their argument that anonymous donors are undermining democracy.
“Since taking the gavel for the first time, you’ve made numerous statements about ushering in a new era of transparency and changing the process in the House to make it more ‘deliberative and participatory,’ ” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Ryan Tuesday. “[U]nless we open up the process to the American people, these goals will remain rhetoric and nothing more.”
Wall Street Journal: Donor Disclosure Fits the First Amendment
Floyd Abrams
With your repeated editorial support for the Supreme Court’s much maligned Citizens United ruling, you have served as a rare journalistic voice in defense of core First Amendment principles. But your opposition to disclosure requirements as reflected in your editorial “Show Us Your Donors” (Nov. 5) is not only at odds with Citizens United but with virtually all Supreme Court rulings in this area and the views of all but one of the present members of that Court.
The Media
NPR: NPR Politics – There’s More To It
“Picking winners is the job of voters. Our job is to deliver the most comprehensive issue-based election coverage combining local and national knowledge to produce stories that illuminate the choices voters will make,” said Michael Oreskes, NPR Senior Vice President of News and Editorial Director. “There’s so much more to it than the latest tweet and sound bite, public media journalists across the country will provide context, grapple with issues and use every tool in their media arsenals to contribute to a more civil electoral discussion.”
“Political coverage now requires specialized reporters with well-placed sources and deep knowledge on topics including demographics, voter engagement, policy, technology, campaign finance, and voting law,” said Beth Donovan, NPR’s Washington Editor. “We are assigning NPR reporters to these topics to focus our stories on the original reporting the public radio audience expects, and away from incremental, horse-race coverage.”
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: Donald Trump Advertises Rising Value of Free Political Publicity
Ashley Parker
Donald J. Trump hosted “Saturday Night Live” this past weekend and gave interviews to at least four national television networks on Sunday. The result: an opportunity to reach millions of potential voters, without spending a dime.
In fact, while many of his Republican presidential rivals have poured money into the airwaves in search of such exposure, Mr. Trump has not spent any money at all on television advertising since he announced his candidacy in June. Yet he has remained at or near the top of most national and state polls for months.
The States
Washington Post: Democracy beats Oligarchy
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Fifty-five percent of Maine voters cast their ballots to strengthen the “clean election” law passed in 1996, which established a voluntary system of public financing. For nearly two decades, the law has empowered ordinary citizens such as progressive state Rep. Diane Russell, a former cashier, to run for office, but recent court rulings and budget cuts have conspired to weaken the system. Local activists worked with national reform groups, such as Every Voice and Common Cause, to build support for the ballot initiative, which provides additional funding for public financing and stronger disclosure requirements…
These local victories send a powerful signal that our democracy is not for sale, even in a post-Citizens United world where billionaires and corporations can flood the electoral process with unlimited sums and drown out the voices of ordinary voters.
Great Falls Tribune: Contribution limits back in court ahead of 2016 elections
Matt Volz
Lovell sided with Bopp’s clients in 2012, but the 9th Circuit ruled the judge had used the wrong legal standard in his decision. The appeals court ordered Lovell to determine whether Montana has a legitimate interest in keeping its campaign contribution limits, using a post-Citizens United test to prove whether the limits are preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Lovell set an April 18 hearing on the case and a May 23 trial, if needed.
Attorney Anita Milanovich, an attorney for Bopp’s firm, said her clients don’t want chaos in the June 7 elections, but they want the case resolved in time for the primaries.
“This is the nature of First Amendment litigation,” she said.
