CCP      

Trump Down to Three on Supreme Court…Where Do They Stand on Free Speech?

The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), America’s largest nonprofit defending First Amendment political speech rights, has published detailed analyses on the three leading picks to be the next Supreme Court justice, as reported Tuesday by Politico.

In the News         

New York Times: South Dakota Legislators Seek Hasty Repeal of Ethics Law Voters Passed

By Monica Davey and Nicholas Confessore

Stung by scandal and rebelling against a state government known for its resistance to public scrutiny, South Dakota voters narrowly approved a ballot measure in November to impose ethics oversight and campaign finance restrictions aimed at cleaning up the capitol in Pierre…

Some organizations that oppose restrictions on political spending in the name of free speech said that the South Dakota initiative was poorly drafted and overly broad. David Keating, the president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said the measure as written was likely to be mired in state and federal litigation for years.

“It was one of the most poorly written proposals we’ve seen,” Mr. Keating said. “I think there’s a legitimate worry that the legislature has and the governor has, which is that this could be in the courts for a long time, and it could cost a lot of money to litigate it. So why not start with a clean sheet?”

Acton Institute: Clobbering Free Speech with the Constitution

By Bruce Edward Walker

Post-Citizens United, the left doubled down on free-speech efforts in a manner that makes even the most outrageous claims about McCarthyism seem banal by comparison. In her book, Strassel hopscotches through these efforts adroitly beginning with the targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service team led by Lois Lerner…

Just last week, amicus briefs were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court related to Independence Institute vs. FEC. At issue is the Federal Election Commission’s demand for the Colorado-based Independence Institute’s donor information after the think tank ran an advertisement urging readers to contact their legislators in support of a sentencing reform bill.

Donors possess any number of reasons for desiring anonymity for their political activities, including freely yet privately expressing their respective religious beliefs in the public sphere without any threat of retaliation. Strassel’s Intimidation Game is perhaps the best casebook explaining why demanding donor transparency is far worse than McCarthyism.

MediaPost Communications: Election 2016: The Big Marketing Takeaways

By Dan Curran

Is the era of marketing arrogance coming to an end?

The 2016 presidential election made it painfully clear that conventional tactics can spell doom. Politicians come and go, but the real losers are the marketing fools who helped Jeb with his exclamation mark and offered Hillary #ImWithHer.

Blaming bad slogans is oversimplifying these foiled, expensive campaigns, but the fact remains: Antiestablishment marketing methodologies have officially bypassed “Mad Men”-era tactics.

Consider these numbers: According to the Center for Competitive Politics, Clinton’s campaign outspent Trump’s by more than double. Pro-Clinton TV ads outnumbered pro-Trump ads by an even larger margin: 383,512 to 125,617. And at $159.3 million, more money was spent on Bush than Trump during the primaries. Yet he defeated both.

Free Speech         

Scott Adams’ Blog: Should Twitter and Facebook be Regulated as Utilities?

By Scott Adams

The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right of free speech. But what happens when the most effective channels for that speech are corporations such as Twitter and Facebook? Does the government have an obligation to make sure those companies are not limiting free speech for some classes of users?

My sketchy understanding of the law is that the government is only responsible for making sure the government itself is not abridging free speech. I think most of us agree that we don’t want the government volunteering for any more work than the constitution says it should be doing.

But shouldn’t the federal government get involved if a few monopoly corporations start to control the national conversation by filtering out voices that disagree with them?

That seems to be the situation right now. For example, Twitter is apparently “shadowbanning” me because of my past Trump tweets, or so I assume. That means my tweets only go out to a subset of my followers. The rest don’t know I tweeted. My followers tell me this is the case. They have to visit my timeline to see my tweets.

Supreme Court        

Bloomberg: Trump Fulfills Conservative Wishes With Supreme Court Shortlist

By Greg Stohr

Conservatives who care about the U.S. Supreme Court put their faith in Donald Trump. Now he is poised to reward it.

Barring a dramatic shift in approach, the president is a week away from nominating someone who would become a core member of the court’s conservative wing. Each of four appellate judges in contention for the slot, including frontrunners Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, would fit neatly into the ideological mold of the man they would succeed, the late Justice Antonin Scalia…

Appellate judges William Pryor and Raymond Kethledge are also possibilities for the nomination, a person familiar with the selection process said. Pryor, who has decried abortion and the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized it, would invite an especially contentious confirmation fight.

No matter whom Trump chooses, the next justice will largely restore the balance that existed before Scalia’s death last February. That could mean a court that broadens gun rights, upholds voter-identification laws and blocks campaign-finance regulations.

Citizens United        

Reuters: How companies should respond to Trump’s attacks – and praises

By Bruce F. Freed and Charles E.M. Kolb

Seven years ago, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision freed companies to engage in political spending. The cost of elections keeps surging with the 2016 presidential cycle nearing $7 billion, up from $6.3 billion in 2012. Today, how will U.S. companies respond to rising concerns about bullying or favoritism in federal government intervention, and will Trump’s L.L. Bean endorsement provide a greater incentive to engage politically?…

In large part due to Citizens United and other court rulings, the U.S. election cycle in 2016 broke spending records. Driving much of the record costs were outside groups not formally connected to either political party, including organizations not required under U.S. law to disclose their donors. These latter groups’ secretive political funds often are called “dark money.” Because these organizations may keep their donors anonymous, they are particularly attractive to like-thinking corporations and others who want to keep their donations under the radar.

Congress          

Huffington Post: GOP Committee Members Take First Vote To Protect Trump’s Conflicts of Interest

By Paul Blumenthal

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee unanimously voted against an amendment offered by Democrats to the committee’s rules to prohibit the committee from approving any legislation that could directly benefit President Donald Trump and the many businesses he owns.

This was the first time any member of Congress has had to vote on the record on whether they endorse the president’s decision to forgo divesting his ownership stake in any business holdings that could present a conflict…

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, offered the amendment to “remove the question” of whether any committee actions could be construed as benefiting the president’s bottom line…

Cummings’ sentiment toward protecting the committee was not felt by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman.

“This is clearly a gotcha amendment,” Chaffetz said. “While it’s cute in its creativity, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the rules package and I would stand in opposition and would hope and urge members to vote no.”

Independent Groups           

More Soft Money Hard Law: The CREW “Emoluments” Suit and the Congress

By Bob Bauer

CREW and its distinguished legal team has produced a sharply turned-out complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and associated injunctive relief to redress their claim that President Trump is violating and will continue to violate the Emoluments Clause. It may face long odds: there is a challenging question of standing, and, spooked by the unprecedented nature of the intervention being requested, courts may be eager to seize on the standing issue as their way out. But if CREW is motivated to keep the pressure on the President, increasing the cost of his adoption of a controversial resolution of this issue, the complaint will have served at least that purpose.

There is some suggestion that CREW’s team may hope (and indeed have reason) to declare victory if awarded enough discovery to pry the President’s tax returns out of his hands. In announcing the suit, CREW’s Chair has stated that “President Trump is the first president in decades not to release his tax returns. Seventy five percent of Americans want to see the President’s tax returns and so do we. We will seek those in discovery in this case in order to establish the details of the emoluments clause violations here.”

The States

Pierre Capital Journal: Lawmakers offer potential replacements of Measure 22

By Associated Press

A Republican-backed bill that would dismantle South Dakota’s voter-approved government ethics initiative is headed to the full Senate after passing through a committee Wednesday.

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 7-2 to approve the bill, which would repeal the ballot initiative that created an ethics commission, public campaign funding and limitations on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers. The embattled law – called Initiated Measure 22 – isn’t in effect while a legal challenge from Republican legislators and others moves forward.

As the repeal bill barrels toward GOP Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s desk, lawmakers have floated several proposals that could replace pieces of Initiated Measure 22.

Here’s a look at how some of lawmakers’ potential replacement plans compare to the original… 

Richmond Times-Dispatch: Sen. Chap Petersen spars with Dominion over campaign donations

By Patrick Wilson

State Sen. J. Chapman Petersen, D-Fairfax City, filed a campaign finance bill that is unlikely to go far in the legislature.

But that’s not the point.

Senate Bill 1593 would prohibit members of the General Assembly or statewide office from accepting campaign money from public service corporations.

The bill is aimed squarely at Dominion Virginia Power, which already was at odds with Petersen this legislative session over an unsuccessful bill he filed to restore state oversight of the energy monopoly’s base electricity rates…

A Dominion spokesman responded that Petersen’s bill is against the First Amendment, arguing that campaign donations are free speech…
“Not only has Sen. Petersen introduced legislation to roll back advancements in solar energy and payment assistance for low income families, but now he’s against the First Amendment.

“Our 16,200 employees – 9,000 of whom work in Virginia – are proud of the role we play in helping the commonwealth grow and improve. We believe our democracy works best when all participate, not when government chooses who can speak and who cannot.”

Princess Anne Independent News: DeSteph bill would end exemption for nonprofit advocacy that kept voters in the dark during light rail referendum

By John-Henry Doucette

State Sen. Bill DeSteph, R-8th District, has introduced a bill to change language in Virginia law that can let some nonprofit groups shield the identities of financial backers and the extent of their spending to influence voters in ballot initiatives.

DeSteph said he filed the bill to remove language from state campaign finance law that – following an opinion by a state election official – exempted a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization from campaign finance reporting during the light rail referendum this past year.

“I believe if you’re doing something to persuade a political issue, you should disclose who is donating money,” DeSteph said during a telephone interview on Wednesday, Jan. 4. He added that the bill also is meant to ensure such nonprofits disclose the sums of money they spend to influence voters.

New York Post: De Blasio says DA interviewed him over campaign fundraising

By Yoav Gonen and Danika Fears

Mayor de Blasio admitted for the first time Wednesday he was interviewed by investigators probing his campaign fund-raising – but he refused to offer even basic details about his sit-down with the Manhattan DA’s office.

“I’m not going to characterize it – it was fine,” he told reporters at an unrelated press conference in Brooklyn. “I’m not going to get into any details – lawyers can fill in for you. I just told you the factual answer to your question.”

He would only say he met with prosecutors a few weeks ago at the behest of the DA’s office.

“The Manhattan DA’s office asked for an interview and we did an interview,” de Blasio confessed…

De Blasio’s fund-raising is under investigation by both state and federal authorities.

Separate probes are examining if de Blasio and his allies violated state campaign-finance laws in a failed bid to put a Democratic majority in the state Senate in 2014, and if special favors were given to donors to the mayor’s now-shuttered nonprofit, the Campaign for One New York.