CCP
Ad hominem attacks from “Sunlight”
By David Keating
Primo further notes that other forms of disclosure “can alter the incentives of corporate managers in counterproductive ways.” He cites a study showing “that mandated disclosure leads corporate managers to prefer decisions that produce favorable, verifiable information — like taking steps to increase short-term profits — over actions that may be better for the company in the long run but do not produce easily measurable data.”
Mr. Drutman continues his rebuttal by emphasizing that a survey used by Primo in his paper was funded by the Institute for Justice (IJ), who in turn is funded by the ever-popular Koch Brothers. The relevance of the Koch connection is never spelled out, presumably because the Sunlight Foundation assumes that mere association with an organization that associates with the billionaire siblings sufficiently places individual’s objectivity under suspicion….
…UPDATE: IJ’s Paul Sherman sent me an e-mail with more information on Drutman’s claims about Koch funding, which I reprint here with his permission:
Mr. Drutman’s claim that the Institute for Justice is “funded by the Koch Brothers” is not just irrelevant, as you point out, but also incorrect. Although it is true that Charles and David Koch have provided generous support to IJ over the years—for which we have always been grateful—Mr. Drutman’s claim is based on single, 12-year-old newsletter article that does not reflect our current funding. Charles Koch has not given us any money since 1997. And although David Koch continues to make contributions to IJ, those contributions amount to less than 1% of our annual budget.
Mr. Drutman can be faulted for either not suspecting or not caring that a 12-year-old newsletter article might not contain up-to-date information on IJ’s funding. But the fact that he thought his claims about IJ’s funding would be rhetorically effective is itself a wonderful illustration of a point that IJ has repeatedly made: that disclosure tends to encourage a simplistic, ad hominem, follow-the-money narrative that cheapens the debate over important political issues.
In the News
University of Denver: University of Denver Strategic Issues Program Uses Consensus-Based Model to Address Campaign Finance Reform
During its process, the panel received 13 presentations from state, national and international campaign finance experts, including Secretary of State Scott Gessler, Former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives Andrew Romanoff, Senior Legal Counsel for the Campaign Legal Center Paul Ryan and Legal Director for the Center for Competitive Politics Allen Dickerson. In addition to receiving presentations, panel members reviewed a wide range of written materials and held extensive discussions on the impact of money on elections in Colorado and the nation. True to the panel’s mission of setting partisan viewpoints aside, the enclosed report reflects the consensus of the University of Denver Strategic Issues Panel on campaign finance reform. The panel’s 14 recommendations provide a practical approach to campaign finance policy in Colorado and nationally, and focus on three key areas: money in elections, expanded disclosure and leveling the playing field.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
More Soft Money Hard Law: The McCutcheon Case: Hard money, soft money and now something in between?
By Bob Bauer
Campaign finance regulation in the United States is complex, and judges have begun to complain about it. Most famously, Justice Kennedy spoke about the proliferating and abstruse rules in his opinion for the Court in Citizens United. At oral argument in a recent case, Justice Scalia suggested that no one really understood the law. The complexity of campaign finance rules is not just the handiwork of the regulators: the Court’s own doctrine can be hard to fathom. Once there was supposedly a clear distinction between “contributions” and “expenditures,” but this is no longer quite the case. And the line that once separated legal, clean “hard money” from illegal “soft money” may soon be harder to discern, after the Court has decided the pending case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
Read more…
Corporate Governance
Acton Institute: Feisty Nuns’ Pipeline Battle Cute but Wrong-Headed
By Bruce Edward Walker
Last time I checked, religious were supposed to care more about the plight of the poor and being good environmental stewards more than serving as advocates for unproven theories concerning catastrophic climate change and trumped-up safety issues. Inexpensive fuel shipped inexpensively benefits everyone.
Wall Street Journal: Petition for Disclosure on Political Spending Gains Support
By Emily Chasan
Since then, the agency has received about 641,799 form letters and 1,800 other letters commenting on the petition, according to Felicia Kung, chief of the rule-making office in the SEC’s corporation-finance division.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Roll Call: Alison Lundergan Grimes Reports Her Financial Worth
By Kent Cooper
The report covers financial activity in 2012-2013. She reported her salary as Secretary of State during the period as $197,921. Her spouse, Andrew, had income of more than $1,000 each from Lexmark International Inc., the University of Kentucky and the Georgetown College (Ky.).
State and Local
Massachusetts –– The Republican: Massachusetts Republican Party files official campaign finance complaints over Attorney General Martha Coakley’s bookkeeping
By Robert Rizzuto
The Massachusetts Republican Party on Tuesday made good on its promise to file official complaints over alleged campaign finance violations by Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democrat seeking to become the state’s next governor.
The complaints, filed with the state and federal agencies charged with overseeing campaign finance laws, stem from a Nov. 3 Boston Globe story which reported that Coakley violated campaign finance rules by paying several bills for a statewide political run from the federal campaign account established for her failed 2010 U.S. Senate campaign.
Michigan –– Michigan Live: Michigan proposal would double limits on individual donations to political candidates
By Jonathan Oosting
LANSING, MI — A new Michigan Senate bill would double limits on donations to political campaign committees — but require more frequent public reporting of those contributions.
Legislation introduced in late October by Sen. Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, would increase the maximum amount that individuals can contribute to a candidate or political party caucus committee each election cycle.
Texas –– Empower Texans: Sullivan & TFR to TEC: ‘Nuts’
“When the Germans had the 101st Airborne Division surrounded at Bastogne, the acting division commander – Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe – responded to an unconditional surrender with ‘Nuts.’ We’re taking the same approach,” said Sullivan. “And just like the Allies won the Battle of the Bulge, so too will conservatives triumph over the speech-regulators at the Texas Ethics Commission.”
More than 20 months ago two allies of House Speaker Joe Straus filed complaints against Sullivan and TFR, alleging that communications with Texans about the performance of the legislature should be regulated by the state.
