In the News
Washington Examiner: There’s no reason to be afraid of ‘dark money’ in politics
By Bradley Smith
Under federal law, candidates, political parties and PACs (including “super PACs”) must disclose all donors who contribute more than $200. Sometimes, however, groups that exist for things other than promoting candidates will spend money on an election ad. Because many people support these groups for reasons other than political activity, they are not required to disclose information on financial supporters unless those people gave for the purpose of financing political ads. But the group making the expenditure must disclose its political spending in excess of $250.
Thus, “dark money” isn’t really “dark” – we know who spent it, and how much they spent. We just don’t know the name of every individual who gave money to that group or organization.
Despite the panic about “dark money,” the Center for Competitive Politics, using data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (an organization that does much to pump up the “dark money” scare) and the Federal Election Commission, calculates that “dark money” was less than 4 percent of all federal political spending in the 2014 election cycle. While final numbers aren’t in yet for 2016, preliminary figures look like they will fall below 3 percent for 2016.
CCP
Amicus Curiae Brief of the Philanthropy Roundtable in Support of Independence Institute
Most important is that many donors will not give unless they can keep their donations confidential. Many donors, for example, give anonymously out of deeply held religious convictions. Some do so to live a more private life and avoid broadcasting their wealth to the world. Others do so for the same reasons articulated by this Court in NAACP v. Alabama-to avoid “economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility” associated with supporting unpopular or controversial causes. Ibid. And still more – the majority, in fact – do so to avoid unwanted solicitations by other organizations to which they would rather not contribute. Forced disclosure of donor names threatens serious unintended consequences for individual donors and non-profit organizations across the nation.
Supreme Court
The Hill: Conservatives press Trump on Supreme Court pick
By Alexander Bolton
Influential conservatives are pressing President-elect Donald Trump to nominate Bill Pryor, a judge feared and disdained by liberals but loved by conservatives because of his “titanium spine,” to the Supreme Court.
Pryor is said to be on Trump’s short list to replace the legendary conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died almost a year ago…
“The person who would mostly likely be my top pick would be Bill Pryor,” said John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, who has had several conversations with Trump’s transition team…
Pryor, however, would spark strong resistance from Democrats, who repeatedly filibustered his nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals a decade ago.
Congress
Huffington Post: Here’s What Congressional Democrats Are Doing About Trump’s Business Conflicts
By Paul Blumenthal
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.), the leading House proponent of campaign-finance and ethics reforms, will lead House Democrats’ Democracy Task Force. In the last Congress, the task force focused on discussion and promotion of campaign-finance, lobbying and ethics reforms, and was led by former Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.). Sarbanes will continue those efforts, while expanding the task force as an organizing body for Democrats responding to Trump’s conflicts.
“We’re going to kind of keep Trump and his crowd – keep their feet to the fire on this,” Sarbanes told The Huffington Post.
The task force will act as a main hub of information about Trump’s business conflicts for Democratic members on oversight committees. The task force also will help Democratic lawmakers craft messaging that connects issues related to Trump’s conflicts with the GOP agenda.
Lobbying
Roll Call: Ryan Calls Trump Lobbying Ban Proposal ‘Dangerous’
By Lindsey McPherson
Speaker Paul D. Ryan said Thursday that a proposal to extend the one-year lobbying ban for retired members of Congress to five years – part of President-elect Donald Trump’s series of ethics reforms – is “dangerous.”
The Wisconsin Republican said during a CNN town hall that he agrees with the intent of preventing members of Congress from leaving the institution and immediately going into the private sector just to get rich. However, he noted there are other “unseen circumstances” that come with the lobbying ban.
“What if you want to become an advocate for the cancer society? What if you want, after you retired, to help your local hospital system and be on their board to support them and then go get legislation?” Ryan said.
“There are a lot of other unseen circumstances that can play into this and you’ve got to be careful about that,” the speaker added. “When people leave Congress, what’s wrong with them going out and advocating for causes they believe in?”
Dangers of Disclosure
New York Times: Trump Tweet About L. L. Bean Underscores Potential Danger for Brands
By Daniel Victor
With a single tweet Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump pulled L.L. Bean, the Maine retailer known for its boots, jackets and preppy New England aesthetic, back into a political crossfire.
The company was already facing a boycott from some customers after reports that Linda Bean, a granddaughter of the company’s founder, had donated thousands of dollars to a political-action committee that supported Trump’s presidential campaign. The donations turned out to be illegal.
These are perilous times for brands, with partisans on both sides threatening boycotts. Grab Your Wallet, a group that opposes Trump, added L.L. Bean to its list. Company executives pleaded with the critics to reconsider. Shawn Gorman, L.L. Bean’s executive chairman, said Sunday: “We stay out of politics.”
But then Trump, who has long had a penchant for promoting his favorite brands, offered a full-throated endorsement of the company Thursday, a rare and highly unusual step for someone elected to the nation’s highest office.
Donors
New York Law Journal: For Many Big Law Trump Donors, ‘Stigma’ Kept Support Below the Radar
By Christine Simmons
It was no secret during the presidential race that Donald Trump trailed Hillary Clinton in financial donations from the legal industry. Lawyers and firms gave Clinton and affiliated groups more than $39.3 million, while they gave Trump and his groups $1.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
But many partners at the nation’s largest law firms did back the president-elect-even if they opted to keep their support unusually private.
Some Trump donors at large or prominent law firms, especially in New York, said they made a point not to advertise their political preferences this election. Those who did speak up about their support said they thought others were too intimidated to join them.
Many who donated to Trump said they didn’t talk about their support because they felt it would turn off Democratic clients or colleagues, or they didn’t want to be seen as culturally insensitive.
Trump Administration
Politico: Trump asks public for blind trust
By Isaac Arnsdorf
There is a common thread in the ethics plan Trump outlined Wednesday: His pledge to separate his private interests from public policy depends almost entirely on him and his team following their own rules, with almost a total absence of public disclosure, outside oversight or independent verification.
Trump’s self-verification system drew criticism from both parties after it was announced, including an extraordinary response from the government’s top ethics official.
“I need to talk about ethics today because the plan the president has announced doesn’t meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting and that every president in the past four decades has met,” Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub said during an afternoon press conference hosted by the Brookings Institution.
Associated Press: Trump raises millions to cover inauguration’s steep costs
By Nancy Benac
Trump’s Presidential Inaugural Committee has raised a record $90 million-plus in private donations, far more than President Barack Obama’s two inaugural committees. They collected $55 million in 2009 and $43 million in 2013, and had some left over on the first go-round…
Trump’s committee has 90 days after the inauguration to reveal its donors, although some presidents have reported donations as they came in. A few contributors already are known. Among corporate donors, Boeing has given $1 million and Chevron, $500,000. AT&T says it has made both cash and in-kind donations, including quintupling phone capacity on the National Mall.
Alex Howard, deputy director of the private Sunlight Foundation, said the Trump inaugural committee is a “major vector for corporations and individuals who wish to make donations and have influence on the presidency.” He said the big donations and the lack of speedy disclosure “set a tone” that has implications for the transparency and accountability of the new president.
The States
Seattle Times: Lawmakers in Olympia seek new campaign-disclosure and ethics rules
By Joseph O’Sullivan
A handful of Washington lawmakers, joined in one case by Attorney General Bob Ferguson, are making another push to strengthen the state’s campaign-disclosure and ethics laws.
Sen. Andy Billig, D-Spokane, is introducing a pair of bills aimed at increasing transparency in campaign donations.
Senate Bill 5108 would bar political-action committees from getting 70 percent or more of their contributions from another single political committee, or a combination of political committees.
That proposal aims to limit “nesting doll” practices – where money is shuttled from one generic political committee to another, then to another – that are becoming a source of hard-to-track “gray money” in election campaigns…
Billig also plans to reintroduce his campaign-finance legislation that Senate Republicans blocked in 2015 at the last minute.
That proposal required nonprofit organizations that spend $25,000 or more on elections to disclose their 10 largest donors of $10,000 or more.
Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Senate leaders send message to lobbyists: Stay out
By Dana Ferguson
State Senate leaders are proposing new rules that would block lobbyists from the chamber and adjacent hallways during working hours.
Supporters of the rule change said lobbyists on the floor and in the hallway to one side of the chamber have become too much of a distraction. The committee deferred action Thursday but is likely to take up the proposal again next week.
Senators denied any connection to the passage of Initiated Measure 22, a voter-approved campaign finance and ethics overhaul that would have set caps gifts that lobbyists could provide to lawmakers, some suggested that the timing was intended to improve the approval ratings of lawmakers who’ve said they plan to repeal and replace the measure.
Meanwhile, lobbyists filled the hearing room Thursday to argue on their own behalf, saying they should be able to access legislators during working hours to fulfill the will of the people.
Los Angeles Times: L.A. politicians propose banning campaign contributions from developers
By David Zahniser and Emily Alpert Reyes
Real estate developers have long been a pivotal part of political fundraising at Los Angeles City Hall, bankrolling the campaigns of mayors, City Council members and other elected officials.
That phenomenon has fueled persistent suspicions that campaign contributions – not established planning rules – influence the votes of local lawmakers as they approve shopping malls, hotel towers and other building projects.
Now a handful of Los Angeles lawmakers are calling for a ban on such donations from real estate developers, saying they want to counter the perception that money drives those decisions.
The proposal, unveiled Tuesday by City Council members David Ryu, Joe Buscaino, Paul Krekorian, Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin, would direct city officials to draft a new law that would prohibit donations from development companies and their principals during, and shortly after, city reviews of their building projects.
