By Kenneth P. Vogel

“When they lost those two donors last year, it was really debilitating,” a prominent conservative fundraiser said of American Crossroads.

Thus, the most influential political money networks on the left and the right have increasingly encouraged their donors’ kids to attend the closed-door confabs that serve as de facto private conventions for the big-money set, complete with strategy presentations from operatives and get-to-know-you sessions with the most in-demand politicians.

Chase Koch, the 37-year-old son of billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, has been spearheading an initiative to involve the children of wealthy contributors in the Koch brothers’ vast political network, partly by holding special events for them at the network’s twice-annual donor seminars.

Read more…

By John Hinderaker

The Obama Administration’s IRS scandal is multi-faceted. In addition to the persecution of conservative non-profits by Lois Lerner et al., the question has been percolating for some years whether Obama’s IRS has transferred confidential taxpayer information to Obama’s White House in violation of federal criminal laws. The issue first arose when Austin Goolsbee of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers told reporters that he had information about Koch Industries that could only have come, illegally, from confidential IRS files. When questions were asked, the administration immediately clammed up.

Years later, the judicial system may be poised to expose another layer of Obama corruption. A group called Cause of Action began a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of the Treasury, and for several years, your taxpayer dollars have funded the administration’s cover-up. 

But nothing lasts forever, and a federal court in Washington, D.C. has finally overruled the Treasury Department’s frivolous objections, and ordered Treasury to respond to Cause of Action’s request for documents. That request relates to the Department’s Inspector General’s investigation–which began a long time ago, and probably has long been concluded–and asks for “[a]ll documents pertaining to any investigation by [TIGTA] into the unauthorized disclosure of [26 U.S.C.] §6103 ‘return information’ to anyone in the Executive Office of the President.”

Read more…

By Bob Bauer

In a second round, at the second level of the Chevron test, a federal district court has struck down the FEC’s attempt to read a “purpose” requirement into the “electioneering disclosure” rule. Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission, No. 11-0766 (ABJ), 2014 WL 6657240 (D.D.C. November 25, 2014). The general view is that the Court probably got this right and that to the extent that the issue has remained unresolved for this long, the FEC (once again) should take the blame. Those adopting this position point to Judge Jackson’s opinion, in which she lays out in some detail the obscure route by which the FEC arrived at its position.

But, as so often, the FEC is paying handsomely for the complexity of the issue and the sins of others. A fair share of the responsibility for this disclosure controversy lies with the Supreme Court’s garbled jurisprudence, which has produced confusion about the constitutionality of campaign finance requirements applied to “issues speech”.

The rule before the Van Hollen court was promulgated to implement not Citizens United but the second of the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) decisions. The Court had held that the prohibition on corporate and union financing of electioneering communications–pre-election advertising that refers to candidates–could not apply to ads that featured neither “express advocacy” nor its “functional equivalent”. 551 U.S. 449 (2007). The question before the Court was whether a pre-election ad could be a constitutionally protected, “genuine” issue ad, which the Court defined as “advocacy that conveys information and educates” and that “cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election.” Id. at 470, 474. The Court in WRTL II held that the First Amendment test distinguishing this issues from campaign speech could not turn on the speaker’s intent or on the advertising’s effect on voter opinion. The ad at issue in the case was a “genuine issue ad” that a corporation could pay for.

Read more…

By  Samuel Rubenfeld

At its most simple level, how would you define “corporate corruption?”

Ms. Teachout: Obviously, this is a really contested area, and a lot of what I researched [for the book] was the meaning of corruption in American law. The concept of corruption itself within American law is deeply contested. In my book, I say corruption has traditionally meant “using public power for private ends.” But the majority of the current Supreme Court says it only occurs when there’s an explicit quid pro quo.

Corporate corruption, in the contemporary era, is also an intensely contested concept. Many anti-corruption laws companies face are based on international agreements. The [Foreign Corrupt Practices Act] is the most powerful one in the U.S., but to define it internationally is contested. What is corrupt in one country isn’t in another. The broad way we think about corporate corruption [would define it as]: A corporation, or employee of the corporation, is seeking a benefit for the corporation, or a third party, by dealing with a public official in a way that promotes the violation of law, norms or abuse of power on the part of a public official. But I would say another way to define corporate corruption includes when companies use their power to defraud customers.

Read more…

By Albert R. Hunt

But many constitutional scholars believe that limits cannot be placed on a convention; if one were convened, anything could be up for consideration. A convention “can propose what they think is appropriate,” said Michael S. Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis who is an expert on the issue. “There is no good theory under which the convention can be ‘limited’ to specific topics — far less to a specific proposed ‘text.”’

Accordingly, say experts like Walter E. Dellinger III, a former solicitor general and a constitutional scholar, no limits can be imposed on calls for a convention. He believes the current petitions from states, even if they reach the two-thirds mark, are invalid.

Read more…

By Emma Roller AND Rebecca Nelson

A first report is always considered a big bellwether of your potential to fundraise,” he said. “Most strategists will tell you, ‘Don’t file three weeks before the reporting deadline,’ because that’s not enough time to build up the nest egg that you want to show to the public, or the press.”

Rather than waiting until close to a quarterly deadline, lesser-known candidates will likely get into the race right after one passes, giving them as much time as possible to fundraise for the next one. So keep an eye out for movement after Jan. 1, the beginning of the April reporting period.

Every candidate has to prove his or her fundraising mettle to make it in the primaries and beyond. For anyone not named Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, those FEC filing deadlines factor in more heavily to the decision of when to announce.

Read more…

By Jimmy Vielkind and Bill Mahoney

ALBANY—Governor Andrew Cuomo finished his re-election campaign with $9.2 million in the bank, while his Republican opponent, Westchester County executive Rob Astorino, has just under $55,000.

Campaign finance filings show Astorino raised just under $500,000 in the last two weeks of the campaign—and the rest of November—while Cuomo raked in $1.3 million in just the last two weeks. The governor, a Democrat who beat Astorino by 13 points, abruptly stopped raising funds on Nov. 4, and plans to hold a “thank you” event for donors instead of a birthday fund-raiser.

Cuomo transferred just over $3 million into the Democratic State Committee and spent millions more on television and mail advertising. He also spent relatively small amounts—less than $5,000 each—on advertisements in downstate Jewish publications. In all, he spent $7,965,566.85 and has roughly $350,000 in outstanding bills.

Read more…

By Kate S. Alexander

The council’s ask comes on the heels of a warning from Leggett that recent lower-than-expected income tax collections are cause for continued spending restraint, “no matter how worthwhile or broadly supported” an initiative.

“Such measures simply cannot be sustained in this fiscal environment without putting our other priorities at risk,” Leggett warned.
Read more…