In the News
Washington Post: How a political opinion cost a D.C. activist $2,000
By Eric WangCivic-minded citizens of the District: Think twice the next time you write a blog entry, post on Facebook or Twitter or attend a meeting or rally to support or oppose a ballot initiative. You could be required to register and report with the city or else pay a large fine. The Office of Campaign Finance (OCF) at the D.C. Board of Elections dropped this end-of-the-year bombshell in an enforcement proceeding arising from November’s election, in which District residents voted to legalize marijuana.In the run-up to the vote on Initiative 71, District resident William V. Jones III created the Web site “Two. Is. Enough. D.C.” Under the premise that having two legal recreational substances (alcohol and tobacco) was enough, the Web site provided opinions and information opposing marijuana legalization. According to the OCF, Mr. Jones also invoked the “Two Is Enough” slogan when he “participated in various meetings and demonstrations” in the D.C. community.After leaders of the pro-legalization D.C. Cannabis Campaign suggested that Jones was violating campaign finance laws by not registering and reporting as a “political committee,” Mr. Jones registered “No On Initiative 71” to engage in activities opposing the initiative. The D.C. Cannabis Campaign nonetheless filed a complaint with the OCF against the purported group known as “Two Is Enough.”
CCP
Bipartisan group of campaign finance experts urge FEC to improve forms
A bipartisan group of seven well-known campaign finance lawyers, including a bipartisan group of three former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairmen, today petitioned the FEC to propose new rules providing for improved forms and instructions and to implement the Administrative Fines Program (AFP) law adopted last year.The petition notes that grassroots “or unsophisticated filers are often led astray by the current forms, and that even sophisticated filers must guess about how to translate their conduct to the forms’ categories and design quirks. The consequences include not only unnecessary legal exposure for filers struggling to comply with the Act’s reporting requirements, but also inaccurate Commission data as apples and oranges are often reported as each other.”The eight-page petition for rulemaking was made under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law that says that all federal agencies must provide for “the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” The experts say their proposed changes “would materially improve the ease of filing and the quality of reports” filed with the FEC. The petition “would enable regulated committees to comply with the Act’s reporting and disclosure requirements, could be adopted on a fully bi-partisan basis, and would advance the goals of statutory compliance, enforcement, and sound legal administration.”
Citizens United
Wall Street Journal: President Wrong on Citizens United
By Floyd AbramsIf anything, your criticism (“‘A Better Politics’ Or Not,” Review & Outlook, Jan. 22) of President Obama’s latest denunciation of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling was understated. Your statement that the president erred in saying that the decision allowed foreign companies to bankroll American political campaigns since the case did not “reach” that issue is true enough. What is also true is that the Supreme Court in 2012 unanimously affirmed a judgment that concluded that it was constitutional to bar foreign entities from doing so. So the president’s statement on Jan. 21 that Citizens United “allowed big companies—including foreign corporations—to spend unlimited amounts to influence our elections” is even less defensible now than when he said it in his 2010 State of the Union address.
Fox: When will Obama stop making false claims about Citizens United?
By Hans A. von SpakovskyOne can certainly debate the effect of Citizens United, which lifted the ban on independent political expenditures (i.e., independent political speech), and whether it has been beneficial to our democratic system. As a former member of the Federal Election Commission that enforces our campaign finance laws, I certainly disagree with the president’s view that “it has caused real harm to our democracy.” In fact, the decision simply restored First Amendment rights that had been abridged and has made our elections more competitive.This White House seems to believe that if you think up a good political attack theme, stick with it no matter what the truth is.But what cannot be debated is President Obama’s erroneous claim that the Supreme Court ruling allows foreign corporations “to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.” That is simply not true and will remain untrue no matter how many times the president says it – unless and until Congress changes the law.
Independent Groups
Institute for Justice: Washington Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Using the Courts to Settle Political Scores
Rejecting the path taken by the U.S. Supreme Court that holds that an organization can only be considered a political committee when its primary purpose is campaign activity, the Washington Supreme Court today held that an organization can be treated as a political committee when an unclear percentage of the organization’s purpose is supporting or opposing a candidate. Political committee status is burdensome and intrusive, especially for pre-existing organizations that are devoted to other activities and only occasionally weigh in on political campaigns.“The Washington Supreme Court’s decision today creates incredible ambiguity in an already broad campaign finance statute,” said Bill Maurer, managing attorney of the Institute for Justice’s Washington office, which filed an amicus brief in favor of Building Industry Association of Washington. “The decision means that the law can force an organization that reaches some unknown, and unknowable, level of political activity to fundamentally alter itself into a form ill-suited to the majority of its activities.”The case stems from the 2008 election, when former Washington Supreme Court justices Faith Ireland and the late Robert Utter filed a “citizen’s suit” against BIAW for what they alleged were violations of Washington’s Byzantine campaign regulations. BIAW was a long-time supporter of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi and other causes and candidates, including judicial candidates, who urged less governmental restrictions on business. The former justices clearly stated that their motivation in suing BIAW was due to the group’s involvement in judicial elections.
Politico: The rise of ‘scam PACs’
By Kenneth P. VogelThe efforts bear some of the hallmarks of a phenomenon that watchdogs say is threatening the integrity of the campaign funding system, and that conservative leaders worry could seriously undermine their interests headed into 2016. Since the tea party burst onto the political landscape in 2009, the conservative movement has been plagued by an explosion of PACs that critics say exist mostly to pad the pockets of the consultants who run them. Combining sophisticated targeting techniques with fundraising appeals that resonate deeply among grass-roots activists, they collect large piles of small checks that, taken together, add up to enough money to potentially sway a Senate race. But the PACs plow most of their cash back into payments to consulting firms for additional fundraising efforts.A POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission covering the 2014 cycle found that 33 PACs that court small donors with tea party-oriented email and direct-mail appeals raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs. POLITICO’s list is not all-inclusive, and some conservatives fret that it’s almost impossible to identify all the groups that are out there, let alone to rein them in.“These groups have the pulse of the crowd, and they recognize that they can make a profit off the angst of the conservative base voters who are looking for outsiders,” said the influential conservative pundit Erick Erickson, who has taken it upon himself to call out PAC operators and fundraisers he sees as scams. They are “completely a drain,” said Erickson, whose assessments of candidates and groups carry particular weight among tea party activists and the Republicans who court them. “The conservative activists feel like they’ve contributed to a cause greater than themselves, but the money goes to the consultants, and eventually the activists get burned out and stop giving money, including to the legitimate causes.”
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Wall Street Journal: Protest Group Foils Supreme Court on Cameras Again
By Brent Kendall
The protesters spent a night in jail and are facing multiple charges, including under a federal law that makes it illegal to make “a harangue or oration” in the Supreme Court building.
99Rise: Supreme Court Protest
The “Supreme Court 7” of 99Rise protested inside the Supreme Court on the 5th anniversary of Citizens United. They were forcefully arrested, released after being held in jail overnight, and now face trial on federal charges next month.
Kochs
Washington Post: Charles Koch calls on fellow conservative donors to expand their commitment
By Matea Gold“Americans have taken an important step in slowing down the march toward collectivism,” he said, according to excerpts of his speech shared with reporters. “But as many of you know, we don’t rest on our laurels. We are already back at work and hard at it!”“In fact, the work never really ends,” Koch added. “Because the struggle for freedom never ends. Much of our efforts to date have been largely defensive to slow down a government that continues to swell and become more intrusive – causing our culture to deteriorate.”
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Wall Street Journal: Jeb Bush Gives Potential Big Donors a Price List
By Beth Reinhard
As he lines up support for a likely presidential bid, Republican Jeb Bush is offering donors the chance to join his “national executive committee” – if they raise $500,000 by March 31.A pledge form for Mr. Bush’s newly formed Right to Rise political committee offers other levels of membership: donors who collect $250,000 by March 31 can join the “national committee,”$100,000 to join the “state executive committee” and $50,000 for the “state committee.”The pledge form reflects the former Florida governor’s “shock and awe” strategy, aimed at demonstrating a fundraising prowess unlikely to be matched by any potential rivals. Many of the big donors pursued by Mr. Bush supported 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, who is also weighing a 2016 bid.
FEC
Center for Democracy and Technology: FEC Should Preserve ‘Breathing Space’ for Online Political Debate
By Emma LlansoIn the past decade, millions more individuals in the US – and billions around the world – have begun to use the Internet as a key platform for political discourse. In 2014, Pew Research Center found that 16% of registered voters followed a candidate or other political figure on social media, and nearly 30% followed election-related news online using their mobile phones. Just last night, 2.6 million tweets were sent during the President’s State of the Union address. The FEC’s hands-off approach has supported the development of this dynamic sphere of public debate; it should ensure that its regulatory approach continues to promote – not discourage – political participation online.
State and Local
New York –– NY Times: Sheldon Silver to Temporarily Relinquish Speaker Duties
By Susanne Craig and Thomas KaplanHis decision came amid mounting pressure from his fellow Democrats in the Assembly, who worried that the criminal charges would impair his ability to carry out the duties of one of the most powerful positions in the state’s government.In an unusual arrangement, Mr. Silver would not quit his post. Instead, he would temporarily delegate his duties as speaker to a group of senior Assembly members.Under the plan, which the Assembly’s Democratic caucus is to consider in a closed-door meeting on Monday afternoon, Mr. Silver would “not specifically step down, but step back,” according to a person briefed on the situation, who insisted on anonymity because the plan had not yet been presented to the caucus.
