Campaign Spending Effectiveness
Wall Street Journal: Super PACs Are Spending, So Far to Little Effect
Daniel Nasaw
Since the campaign season began last year, super PACs have spent more than $109 million to trumpet the major candidates for the Republican nomination, a Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Election Commission filings shows.
…but the course of the past two cycles has also shown the limits of their influence.
Mr. Perry, for example, came in fifth in the Iowa caucuses in January 2012 and dropped out of the race later that month, despite the super PAC money backing him.
The $60.9 million that Right to Rise, the super PAC backing Mr. Bush, has reported spending this election cycle on advertising has done little to budge the candidate’s poll numbers. Mr. Bush has the support of less than 5% of Republican voters nationally, according to the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls.
National Review: The Bogeymen of the ‘Billionaire Class’
Jonah Goldberg
The simple fact is that almost everywhere you look, the super-rich are being stymied by democracy. In 2014, David Brat, an unknown academic, defeated the second-most-powerful Republican in Congress, then–House majority leader Eric Cantor, even though Cantor spent more money on steak dinners than Brat did on his whole campaign. The recent referendum on marijuana legalization in Ohio was lavishly funded — and failed. And just a reminder: Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney and his plutocrat pals. Those evil corporations aren’t faring much better. We constantly hear about their vise grip on Washington, yet we still have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (not counting United Arab Emirates). Big corporations rightly want to be able to repatriate their profits earned overseas without being taxed on them again. (Most countries allow corporations to pay taxes on profits solely in the jurisdictions where they were earned.) And yet they can’t get it done. Even the dreaded Koch brothers, those supposed super-villains, have failed to buy the policies they prefer.
Free Speech
Concurring Opinions: Ira Glasser on Free Speech; “Trendy Liberals”
Ira Glasser
Those “liberals” who now question whether the First Amendment should apply to speech they hate, or which causes them “emotional distress,” seem to believe that because they are clever enough to imagine doctrinal distinctions between certain speech content that such distinctions can hold true in the real world in which such decisions are politically made, and by “politically” I include the judiciary.
The critical question about such distinctions is always who decides? Smart people can always make analytic distinctions inside their heads, and construct defensible justifications for their distinctions. But who shall decide how to apply them in the real world? It will always be the government. So who, in fact, will decide?
Law professors intoxicated by their own cleverness seem always either to ignore that question or implicitly assume it will be them, or people like them, when in fact it will most often, or often enough, be people like Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani and Jesse Helms.
Independent Groups
New York Times: Prominent Jeb Bush Donor Questions ‘Super PAC’ Strategist Over Negative Marco Rubio Ads
Ashley Parker and Maggie Haberman
Mr. Volpert said he was concerned about the way in which the money he was giving to the super PAC was being spent, according to the person who witnessed the exchange. Mr. Murphy responded that the group had run many positive ads about Mr. Bush, and that now the race had reached the point that required contrasts. The exchange lasted a few minutes, and no one else raised concerns among the group, according to the attendee.
In an email, a spokesman for Mr. Volpert, Jeffrey Taufield, said Saturday he would not comment “on the off-the-record meeting with Mike Murphy.” He added that Mr. Volpert “believes that Jeb is the best candidate for president and continues to support him strongly.”
Center for Public Integrity: Super PACs get free pass to hide donors
Dave Levinthal and Carrie Levine
That’s because, thanks to a quirk in federal law, such letters give those super PACs the power to withhold their January donors’ names until well after the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are conducted next month…
“I don’t think they’re doing this for subterfuge, and I’ve never heard of a voter who based his or her vote on the identity of a donor to a super PAC,” Goodman said. “But this does, perhaps, leave a gap in disclosure, which is important and certainly something the commission could look at.”
Government Reporting
More Soft Money Hard Law: Disclosure and a Few Hundred Dollars of Spin
Bob Bauer
Beware the opinion on a disclosure issue that begins with the fabled Brandeis observation that “sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.” It is meant to make all that follows relatively simple. Brandeis is powerful authority, and he was not just claiming the insight for his own, but instead assigned it universal standing: disclosure “is said” to have this cleansing effect, and it is the “best” of effects.
The Fifth Circuit propelled itself down this path in a case, Justice v. Hosemann, that the Supreme Court is being asked to take up. 771 F.3d 285 (2014). The question is whether individuals coming together to influence a ballot initiative, but spending little more than $200, can be compelled to register and report as a political committee. Mississippi law includes this requirement and, finding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring a facial challenge, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court and upheld the law as a constitutional measure to serve the voters’ “informational interest.”
Congress
Tampa Bay Times: U.S. Rep. David Jolly filing bill to make Congress stop fundraising and get to work
Adam C. Smith
The Pinellas County congressman and leading candidate for Florida’s Republican U.S. Senate nomination is filing a bill that would make it illegal for members of the U.S. House and Senate to personally solicit campaign donations.
“Put down the phone and get to work” is how Jolly described the underlying goal of “The Stop Act,” which would allow candidates to attend fundraisers and speak with donors, but not to ask specifically for money.
Tampa Bay Times: Jolly’s smart shot at campaign finance reform
Editorial Board
The outsized influence of these groups is not limited to the presidential campaigns. In the special U.S. House election Jolly won in 2014 in Pinellas, outside groups far outspent the candidates and controlled the messages with their television attack ads. Now a U.S. Senate candidate, Jolly has left that issue for another day and taken a narrow approach that would only affect any elected federal official — the president, vice president and members of Congress. The change would not apply to candidates for federal office who are not incumbents, and Jolly believes that would help overcome concerns about limiting free speech. After all, reasonable restrictions on raising campaign money have been upheld for incumbents. Judicial candidates in Florida cannot directly solicit campaign contributions, and state legislators cannot raise money when the Legislature is in session. Members of Congress cannot solicit political contributions from their government offices.
Huffington Post: How Obama Made This Congressman’s Day
Michael McAuliff
Sarbanes admitted that his bill, which has 157 co-sponsors as of now, still faces an uphill battle. But he said if people come to realize that big-spending special interests are the primary impediment to Congress passing popular legislation — from gun violence measures to climate protections — a powerful coalition could form to do what Obama has asked.
“Money consistently is standing in the way of progress on any issue you can identify. It is the gateway issue,” Sarbanes said, adding that when people realize that, they get interested in something as seemingly arcane as campaign finance reform.
Philadelphia Inquirer: American Oligarchy
Editorial Board
Thanks to secret election cash, our representative democracy, based on the principle of “one person, one vote,” is looking more and more like an oligarchy in which the superrich can surreptitiously tilt the election scales in their favor.
This sad state of affairs is possible because those who make these insidious rules also benefit from them, and they do so through obscure mechanisms shielded from public view. If McConnell and his allies asked the American people whether they should let millionaires and special interests secretly spend bundles of money to influence elections, we all know what the answer would be.
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: Ted Cruz Failed to Report a Second Campaign Loan in 2012
Mike McIntire
The Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, already facing scrutiny for not disclosing a Goldman Sachs loan he used for his 2012 Senate campaign, also failed to disclose a second loan, from Citibank, for the same race, according to a letter he sent Thursday to federal election officials.
The one-page letter said that the “underlying source” of money for a series of personal loans Mr. Cruz made to his Senate campaign in Texas included both bank loans, which totaled as much as $1 million. Both loans were “inadvertently omitted” from the required filings, the letter said. Previously, Mr. Cruz had acknowledged only using the loan from Goldman for his campaign.
Time: How Bernie Sanders Blamed Wall Street for Almost Everything
Tessa Berenson
For Bernie Sanders, almost every policy debate comes back to Wall Street and campaign finance reform.
At the fourth Democratic debate in Charleston Sunday night, Sanders tied everything from criminal justice to global warming to Wall Street and the big money he sees infecting the political system.
When asked how he would pay for many of his expensive plans, including his proposal to alleviate student debt, Sanders said, “I want to substantially lower student debt interest rates in this country as well. How do I pay for it? I pay for it through a… tax on Wall Street speculation. This country and the middle class bailed out Wall Street. Now it is Wall Street’s time to help the middle class. ”
The Hill: Trump open to campaign finance reform
Bradford Richardson
Pointing to the effects of “horrible” super-PACs, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Sunday said America needs to come up with a solution to keep big money out of politics.
“Well, I think you need it, because I think PACs are a horrible thing,” Trump said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked if he would pursue campaign finance reform.
The billionaire businessman, who said he is self-financing his campaign, said the wall separating super-PACs and candidates running for public office is illusory.
“First of all, everyone’s dealing with their PAC. You know, it’s supposed to be like this secret thing. They’re all dealing with it,” he said.
NPR: Clinton Finds Herself In A Real Debate As First Voter Tests Loom
Ron Elving
Hillary Clinton encountered rougher seas Sunday night in her latest meeting with her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Both Sen. Bernard Sanders and former Gov. Martin O’Malley questioned her veracity and intensified their criticism of her policy positions and campaign financing.
The States
Los Angeles Times: Amount of lobbying done in the shadows is growing, California ethics officials agree
Patrick McGreevy
“Gasoline restrictions … will hurt families in LA,” the geographically targeted mailer warned, alerting the recipient that legislation being debated in Sacramento would “take away our ability to drive to work in our own cars.”
The group’s name sounded as if it was a grass-roots organization of motorists, but it was actually the creation of the Western States Petroleum Assn. as part of its successful lobbying effort last year to kill a proposal that would have reduced gas consumption by 50% in California by the year 2030.
When the leading oil industry association in the state publicly filed a required disclosure of its lobbying effort, there was no mention of its funding of the mail campaign and a related YouTube video.
Event Reminder: CCP-Cato Institute Conference on January 26, 2015: The Past and Future of Buckley v. Valeo
On January 30, 1976, the United States Supreme Court handed down Buckley v. Valeo, still its most important decision at the intersection of campaign finance and the First Amendment. The Court brought forth a per curiam opinion that invalidated significant parts of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Buckley Court denied Congress the power to limit campaign spending. But not completely. The same Court decided Congress could restrict contributions to candidates to prevent quid pro quo corruption or “the appearance of corruption.” Giving citizens an “equal voice” in elections, however, could not justify suppressing speech.
Buckley remains a vital precedent that restrains and empowers Congress. But should Buckley be considered a First Amendment failure? Or did it embrace inevitable compromises that were both worse and better than everyone desired? How does Buckley affect the law and American politics and campaigning today? Does the decision have a future? Please join us to discuss these essential questions of First Amendment law and politics.
The January 26 event is free of charge and will be held at The Cato Institute at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW in Washington, DC. The program will begin at 9:00 AM and conclude at 12:30 PM with a luncheon to follow. Speakers are still being finalized, but CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith will be speaking. More information, including an agenda, can be found here. All those interested in attending should RSVP at the following link.
