CCP

Super PAC Funding Comes Overwhelmingly from Individuals, Again

By Luke Wachob

Data from the 2016 election continues to undermine a key prediction made by critics of Citizens United in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s famous 2010 ruling. Once again, super PACs are being funded overwhelmingly by citizens, not corporations. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, “A study by the Conference Board’s Committee for Economic Development found that individuals made about 80% of all super PAC contributions in the 19 months through July 31. Companies contributed just 8% in the period and unions a mere 1.9%, according to the report slated for release Wednesday.”

Longtime readers will recall that critics of Citizens United warned that corporations would jump at the chance to spend large amounts urging voters to support candidates whose policies favor big business. (Ironically, many media outlets – themselves corporations – took up this line of thinking as well.)…

CCP has long pointed out that regardless of whose political agenda temporarily benefits or suffers from allowing more speech about elections, voters gain knowledge and interest in elections from hearing about candidates and issues.  

Free Speech

Media Research Center: YouTube Censors Video on … Left-Wing Censorship

By Matt Philbin

What do you suppose happens on YouTube to a video that is a “discourse on the First Amendment and the tactics that progressives are using to limit speech and political engagement by conservatives”? Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, it falls victim to an algorithm with absolutely no sense of irony.

A video titled “The Dark Art of Political Intimidation” was posted last week by WSJ columnist Kimberly Strassel as a PragerU lecture. “Within several hours of PragerU posting the video,” said a WSJ editorial, YouTube placed it in ‘restricted mode,’ making it inaccessible to schools, libraries and young Americans whose parents have enabled YouTube technology filters.”

FEC

Washington Post: How to fix Congress? Make representatives accountable to voters.

By Ellen L. Weintraub

“60 Minutes” reported earlier this year that each day of their terms, members of Congress are expected to spend four hours on the phone raising $18,000 a day from big donors across the country. This is time not spent legislating. Not learning about the issues. Not getting to know their colleagues better. And since “call time” is horrible, soul-crushing work, it can’t be improving their moods.

Shedding this telemarketing burden will go a long way toward giving members of Congress the capacity to build more constructive relationships with each other, with their constituents and with the executive branch. And what single reform can do all this? Bringing a voluntary system of public campaign financing, which has been successful at the state and local levels, to congressional races.

Daily Caller: EXCLUSIVE: Senior Gov. Official Says Obama Made Quid Pro Quo Deal With FEC Commissioner

By Alex Pfeiffer

Ravel, a Democrat, told the senior government official about the arrangement in private and even showed the official pictures of her and Obama in The White House. The official told TheDC Ravel had wished to step down and move back to California before the Jan. 28 White House meeting. Obama told Ravel she could move back and do most of her work from California and that she would be supported in her effort to replace California Attorney General Kamala Harris as Attorney General if Harris were to win her Senate election.

The government official said that Ravel didn’t say that the support would necessarily come directly from President Obama but from senior Democratic officials. It was recently reported by the Washington Examiner that Ravel is a top contender to be appointed by California Gov. Jerry Brown if Harris were to be elected senator.

Citizens United

The American Prospect: Time for an ACLU Shift on Campaign Finance?

By Eliza Newlin Carney

Now that Georgetown constitutional law professor David Cole has been named the American Civil Liberties Union’s next national legal director, his April article in The Atlantic on “How to Reverse Citizens United” delivers a second punch.

Cole’s article gives campaign-finance reform advocates a blueprint for how to overturn the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 ruling to deregulate campaign spending, which has ushered in a flood of secret big money unseen since Watergate, and has fueled mounting public anger over political corruption.

Yet Cole’s new employer sided squarely with the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, arguing as it has in a string of cases going all the way back to Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 that limits on political spending trample on the First Amendment…

While Cole agrees with Citizens United that corporations deserve the same spending protections as individuals, he rejects the Court’s finding that the only form of corruption that may be regulated is the case of an explicit quid pro quo in exchange for a donation.

Lobbying

Washington Post: K Street says social media are growing faster than traditional lobbying as way to influence Washington  

By Catherine Ho

Many K Street leaders view social media and digital advocacy, not traditional lobbying, as the fastest-growing segments of the influence industry, according to a recent survey of Washington lobbyists, lawyers, association executives and think tank leaders.

When asked about the next five years, the greatest percentage of respondents, 38 percent, said they expect organizations to increase social media to influence policymakers, according to an October survey of 202 Washington “insiders” by the opinion research firm Prime Group. The next largest percentage, 21 percent, expect organizations to increase their digital capabilities. Only 17 percent said they expect organizations to increase lobbying.

Congress

Huffington Post: This Congress Has Spent One Million Hours Raising Money

By Nick Penniman

It costs us taxpayers about $6 billion a year to operate Congress, which in turn has the power to appropriate and oversee $4 trillion in government spending. The problem is that members of Congress – the senior managers – are spending half of their time raising campaign cash. That’s time they’re not spending attending oversight hearings, reaching out to their constituents or building the bipartisan bridges necessary to move legislation forward. That includes, by the way, federal spending legislation, which is evidenced by the fact that Congress, regardless of who is in control, cannot consistently pass a budget. It just keeps passing “continuing resolutions” to kick the hard work of compromise to the next Congress…

The good news is that through the unified voices from the left and right, politicians are already reacting to public outcry on money in politics. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both talk about stopping the selling of influence and access in our government; and in the case of the latter, Clinton has laid out a plan to do so. 

Washington Post: Let’s shine some light on dark money

By Steve Israel

Ever since the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United decision, we’ve seen corporations and wealthy individuals spend without abandon to elect candidates who align with their priorities. This dark money is bad for our democracy and bad for our government institutions. Even within the halls of Congress, there is a sense of distrust and evasiveness – members do not know where the next attack will come from or who is responsible.

Now, both parties are coming off one of the most grueling campaign seasons in recent memory. To improve the political atmosphere in Washington and on our airwaves, there’s a simple action Congress can take on Day One of the new session: Pass the Disclose Act to provide much-needed transparency to our campaign finance system.

Independent Groups

McClatchy DC: There is a huge amount of money pouring into the NC race that could decide the Senate

By Greg Gordon

Independent groups’ spending on North Carolina’s torrid Senate race has soared beyond $58 million, far eclipsing the money raised by the two candidates, Republican Sen. Richard Burr and Democratic challenger Deborah Ross, the latest Federal Election Commission data shows.

That brings the total cost of the race climaxing on Tuesday to at least $81 million. Burr’s and Ross’ campaigns so far have reported raising a combined $23 million, less than 30 percent of the total expended on the high-stakes contest, which could decide control of the U.S. Senate… 

The deluge of spending illustrates the degree to which the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling, in a case brought by the conservative watchdog group Citizens United, and other recent court decisions have lifted the lid on campaign spending and left opaque the sources of some of the money in the North Carolina race.

Candidates and Campaigns

CRP: UPDATE: Federal elections to cost just under $7 billion, CRP forecasts

By Ashley Balcerzak

We reran the numbers, and have a new-and-improved prediction for the total cost of the 2016 federal election: at least $6.9 billion, about $350 million more than we predicted last week. This time, we were able to make a more precise comparison by analyzing data from exactly matching dates in 2012 and this year – appropriately enough, Halloween. However, it’s important to keep in mind these are just estimates, and there is a good chance the real total will be far different.

When adjusted for inflation, our head-to-head comparison tells us we’ll likely see at least $308 million more spent in total over 2012. As with our last analysis, the biggest driver of the leap is spending by outside groups, which makes up about 26 percent of all total spending, compared to 16 percent at this point in 2012.

Los Angeles Times: The Clintons’ old attack dogs have a profitable new role, and sometimes it makes the campaign nervous  

By Evan Halper and Joseph Tanfani

As Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was about to launch last year, its architects were desperate to dampen the impact of an upcoming book deeply critical of her family’s financial dealings.

They turned to David Brock, who crusaded for the Clinton family during the days of impeachment and scandal in the 1990s…

Soon after Clinton entered the race, Brock announced that Correct the Record, a super PAC he created in 2013, would work directly with her campaign. That wouldn’t break campaign finance rules prohibiting coordination with a candidate, group representatives argued, because no money would be spent on ads; Correct the Record would instead concentrate on posting material for free. With that, the organization assumed key roles for Clinton, handling opposition research and the “rapid response” job of blasting out fiery attacks on her critics. 

The States

North County Public Radio: Senate controlled by Democrats might pass long-stalled issues 

By Karen DeWitt

Cuomo has said in the past that he backs public financing of campaigns, but has not pushed as actively for it as he has for other issues, like raising the minimum wage.

Wisneski, whose group supports public campaign financing, said with Democrats in charge of the Senate, it’s more likely that they will respond to what she said is increasing voter demands to get big money out of politics. She said the popularity of the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders – who said his average campaign donation was $27 – is evidence of that. “The public at large is very ready for a deep change of course,” she said.