Independent Groups
Washington Post: Yes, watching Fox does make you more conservative
By Max EhrenfreundWhat decided the 2000 election? A few hanging chads? The Supreme Court? Or was it Fox News?A new working paper argues that former President George W. Bush’s popular vote total would have been 1.6 percentage points lower in his race against former Vice President Al Gore if Fox had not launched four years earlier. The paper provides new evidence that Fox and MSNBC have a real influence on how their audiences are likely to vote.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
NY Times: 19 Years Later, Article by Kagan Echoes at the Supreme Court
By Adam LiptakA church and its pastor sued, saying the ordinance violated the First Amendment by applying different rules to political and religious messages.“If a sign says ‘Vote for McCain,’ it can be 32 square feet,” the church’s brief said. “But if it says ‘Learn Why Voting Matters, Visit Good News Community Church,’ it can only be six square feet.”Justice Kagan, in her 1996 article, identified the starting point for analyzing whether laws like the Gilbert ordinance are constitutional.“The distinction between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech,” she wrote, “serves as the keystone of First Amendment law.”
Tampa Bay Tribune: Unlock financial shackles on judicial candidates
By State Sen. Tom Lee, R-BrandonI believe that judges are honorable people whose decisions are unlikely to be influenced by campaign donations. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I see little need for this paternalistic regulation of campaign activity.No one is allowed to trample all over the First Amendment just because it makes them feel better. The court must first identify an actual public benefit and, in this case, the evidence is clear that requiring intermediaries to solicit judicial campaign contributions does nothing to sanitize judicial campaigns.If the Florida Supreme Court really believes that their trial court colleagues require this adult supervision, they could much less onerously advance the principles of judicial integrity by rewriting their current rule to simply prohibit lawyers with cases pending before a sitting judge from donating to the campaign of that judge. Otherwise, let’s free judicial candidates to directly solicit contributions based on their own personal ethical standards and hold them accountable for their actions. As compared to the current system, what harm can be done to the image of the judiciary by encouraging broader community participation in judicial campaigns?
Disclosure
London School of Economics: Campaign finance laws that make small donations public may lead to fewer people contributing and to smaller donations.
By Ray La RajaPerhaps this was an unusual case but it raises important issues about the role of transparency in civic life. Notable figures in the US, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, favor a lot of transparency, arguing that citizens should be responsible for what they say or do. In his words, “running a democracy takes a certain about of civic courage”. Others claim this position is too heroic for ordinary citizens and will surely discourage political participation. My goal was to test empirically whether citizens participate less when they realize that private information will be divulged to the public. I looked specifically at how such laws affect small donors.Using experimental survey data I looked at how potential donors behave when they realize their names might be made public. Half the respondents were asked “how much, if anything, would you consider donating to a candidate who reflects your views: The amounts offered were between 0-$2500 and most respondents (who chose to donate anything) gave amounts less than $50. In the treatment group respondents had the same question but with a the additional statement: “please note: names of donors are made public on the Internet.” I also varied this last statement to adjust the amounts at which donations would be made public (e.g., “over $50” or “over $100”) to see if people changed the amounts they gave based on these thresholds.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Bloomberg: Republicans Who Got Boehner Donations in 2014 Turn Against Him for Speaker
By Greg GirouxSo, it’s true, money really can’t buy you love—or loyalty. John Boehner’s re-election as House Speaker was opposed by some Republicans whose campaigns he helped finance in the most recent election.Nine of the 24 Republicans who voted for someone other than Boehner received donations from him during the 2014 campaign through his personal campaign committee (Friends of John Boehner) or his leadership PAC (Freedom Project). Boehner won a third term as Speaker with 216 votes, a majority of the 408 votes cast for named candidates. The bloc of two dozen defectors is more than twice as large as the anti-Boehner group in the 2013 speaker’s election. Today’s vote showed that, despite winning their biggest House majority since the 1928 election, Boehner’s rebellious wing also has grown larger and signaled with this first vote that the speaker’s job won’t be any easier.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Reporter: O’Keefe officially asks judge to open probe into John ‘Doe’ Chisholm
By M.D. KittleMADISON, Wis. — In October, Milwaukee County-based District I Chief Judge Jeffrey Kremers said he would not order a misconduct investigation into Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm because he was not directly asked to do so.Eric O’Keefe has taken care of that problem.O’Keefe, one of the many targets in Democrat Chisholm’s politically charged, secret investigation, is directly asking the judge to sign off on a John Doe investigation into Chisholm.
FEC
IB Times: Tea Party Darling Christine O’Donnell Faces FEC Suit For Alleged Misuse Of Campaign Funds
By Ginger GibsonWASHINGTON — Christine O’Donnell, the failed 2010 Delaware Senate candidate and tea party darling, is being sued by the Federal Election Commission for alleged misuse of more than $20,0000 in campaign donations to pay for her residence. O’Donnell shot to national attention that year, becoming one of the first faces of the tea party who would prove unable to win a general election.“The use of campaign funds for rent or utility payments for any part of a federal candidate’s personal residence constitutes unlawful personal use,” the FEC said in the suit filed this week.
State and Local
Virginia –– Wall Street Journal: Former Va. Gov. McDonnell Sentenced to 2 Years for Corruption
By Valeria BauerleinRICHMOND, Va.—Former Gov. Bob McDonnell was sentenced to two years in federal prison Tuesday afternoon after being found guilty of accepting lavish gifts and loans in exchange for helping a wealthy donor’s business.Mr. McDonnell, a one-time GOP presidential hopeful, had faced up to 12 years in prison for his September conviction on 11 counts, including conspiracy and fraud, related to his relationship with the former chief executive of a dietary-supplement business.
NY Times: Iowa and New Hampshire Have Already Seen Cash From 2016 Contenders
By Derek WillisThe next two years are a good time to be a local candidate or party organization in Iowa and New Hampshire.The political action committees supporting Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton have already started doling out cash to the campaigns of potential supporters in the states with the earliest presidential contests of 2016.Leadership PACs — like the one Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, will be forming soon — provide a natural vehicle for sending campaign money to state and local candidates and committees in key early presidential states.
