In the News
Orange County Register: To reduce money in politics, slash the size of government
By Steven Greenhut
Like a terrifying demon that returns during the final scene of a horror movie, campaign-finance reform is the “thing” that never goes away. The United States Supreme Court sometimes saves the day, as it did with the First Amendment-related Citizens United case in 2010. Yet reformers always have a new scheme to take “the money out of politics,” even though their last schemes always resulted in more cash influencing political campaigns.
The campaign-finance scaremongers are back with a symbolic bill that is a political poke-in-the-eye to the sleazy-seeming Trump administration. It could never pass the Senate or gain a presidential signature, but it makes a point. Now that they have a majority in the House, Democrats are pushing HR1…
Writing in National Review, Bradley Smith notes that Democratic lawmakers have proposed a Green New Deal “that would essentially abolish the aviation, auto, energy and mining industries, among others. Why is it illegitimate for shareholders and employees in those industries to voice their opinions on regulatory schemes that would leave them bankrupt and unemployed?” Good question…
Finance reformers are frustrated by the courts, but there’s that thing called the First Amendment. Spending is not speech per se. However, columnist George Will asked if The New York Times would be OK if it were free to write what it wanted, but if the government controlled “the amount it can spend on journalists, paper, ink, printing presses, delivery trucks, advertisements and so on.” You get the point.
Idaho Press Tribune: Idaho Senate panel embraces campaign finance reform bill with unanimous vote
By Betsy Z. Russell
Major campaign finance reforms recommended by a bipartisan interim committee cleared the Senate State Affairs Committee on Wednesday with unanimous support…
Under the bill, whose lead sponsor is the panel’s chair, Sen. Patti Anne Lodge, R-Huston, all campaign finance reporting, from all levels of government in Idaho, would go into a central, searchable database maintained by Idaho’s Secretary of State. Local campaigns would have to report only once they’ve either raised or spent $500.
Other reforms in the bill include more frequent reporting, with monthly reports required for the four months before a primary or general election; and immediate fines of $50 a day, with no grace period, for those who don’t file on time…
The committee ran out of time to hear the second bill proposed by the interim committee, SB 1114, which includes new rules for electioneering communications, but did take testimony from two out-of-state people who traveled to Idaho to speak against the measure, Tyler Martinez of the Institute for Free Speech in Alexandria, Va., and Sean Parnell of the Philanthropy Roundtable in Washington, D.C., both of whom spoke out in favor of “donor privacy.”
“Their donors would have to be disclosed, and most 501c3’s do not want to do that,” Martinez told the senators.
Parnell said, “Anonymous giving … extends back through the millennia. It’s referenced in the Sermon on the Mount.” He said, “Your citizenry would be worse off if voices that would like to participate in the political process are chilled because the price of doing so would be disclosing their donors.”
The Idaho Freedom Foundation is one Idaho organization that doesn’t disclose its donors; its representatives have objected to the reforms at earlier interim committee hearings.
The committee will continue its hearing on SB 1114 on Friday.
Washington Free Beacon: AOC’s Bad Week, Genocide, and ‘Fake News’ Freakouts (Podcast)
By Sonny Bunch, Elizabeth Harrington, Alex Griswold, and Andrew Kugle
On the latest episode of Hacks on Hacks, things get a bit tense as the gang digs into the terrible reporting about the Green New Deal, worries about eco-genocide, and decries the freakout over “Fake News.”
[Ed. note: Beginning at 16:40, the hosts discuss IFS Chairman Bradley A. Smith’s response to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s viral “bad guy” scenario at the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on H.R. 1]
Supreme Court
Washington Post: Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions
By Robert Barnes
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
[To read the Institute for Free Speech’s amicus brief in Timbs v. Indiana, click here.]
FEC
Mother Jones: Elections Commission Chief Uses the “Nuclear Option” to Rescue the Agency From Gridlock
By Nihal Krishan
Fed up with the Federal Election Commission’s gridlock that has given violators of election law a free pass, the agency’s new chair says she won’t allow FEC lawyers to defend the government when the FEC has been sued for not enforcing the law. This drastic step, which one former FEC lawyer called the “nuclear option,” is effectively an effort to sabotage her own agency in order to enforce the law and create more campaign finance disclosure…
The FEC is supposed to have six commissioners at all times, but there are currently only four: two Republicans, one independent, and Weintraub, a Democrat…
Because four votes are needed for the agency to take action on any matter, any one commissioner’s veto can grind the FEC to a halt…
Weintraub plans to use her veto power to stop the FEC from defending itself in court, since the agency needs four votes to initiate a legal defense.
So what happens when the FEC gets sued and is not authorized to defend itself, as Weintraub plans? “It has not happened in the history of the agency,” she told Mother Jones.
“If [the commissioners] are not going to vote to enforce the law, I’m not going to pull any punches and I’m not going to be shy about calling them out,” she said. “And if we get sued, that requires four votes to defend those kinds of lawsuits…I’m not going to authorize the use of agency resources to defend that litigation.”
Online Speech Platforms
Cato: Roger McNamee’s Facebook Critique
By Alan Reynolds
In a recent Time magazine article, Roger McNamee offers an agitated criticism of Facebook, adapted from his book Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe…
McNamee supposedly became alarmed while perusing “Bay Area for Bernie” on Facebook and finding suspicious memes critical of Hillary. Later, he imagined the Brexit vote must be due to misleading Facebook posts (as if British tabloids and TV were silent)…
He suggests goofy Facebook ads by Russian trolls stole the U.S. election from Clinton. Actually, the Mueller indictment said the Internet Research Agency “allegedly used social media and other internet platforms to address a wide variety of topics” to inflame political debates, frequently taking both sides of divisive issues…
McNamee’s political agenda is partly a matter of endorsing aggressive discretionary use of antitrust prosecution, which I have analyzed at length in Regulation. But he goes much further than that. He would empower politicians to both dismantle and constrict McNamee’s suspiciously selective list of disfavored firms…
McNamee’s proposed regulation of “harmful behavior” would invite political censorship and propaganda. So too would his proposed subsidies and protection from competition for new firms deemed “civically responsible” by politicians and bureaucrats…
McNamee’s scheme for inviting ambitious political operatives to force Facebook to submit to being micro-managed as a regulated public utility is because he is confident that most common folk (unlike himself) are easily duped.
Politico: ‘Sustained and ongoing’ disinformation assault targets Dem presidential candidates
By Natasha Korecki
Researchers and others interviewed for this story say they cannot conclusively point to the actors behind the coordinated activity. It’s unclear if they are rogue hackers, political activists or, as some contend, foreign state actors such as Russia, since it bears the hallmarks of earlier foreign attacks. One of the objectives of the activity, they say, is to divide the left by making the Democratic presidential primary as chaotic and toxic as possible…
In January 2019, Twitter published an accounting of efforts to combat foreign interference over political conversations happening on the platform. Earlier efforts included releasing data sets of potential foreign information operations that have appeared on Twitter, which were composed of 3,841 accounts affiliated with the IRA, that originated in Russia, and 770 other accounts that potentially originated in Iran.
“Our investigations are global and ongoing, but the data sets we recently released are ones we’re able to reliably attribute and are disclosing now,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement to POLITICO. “We’ll share more information if and when it’s available.”
Facebook says it has 30,000 people working on safety and security and that it is increasingly blocking and removing fake accounts. The company also says it has brought an unprecedented level of transparency to political advertising on its platform…
Alex Kellner, managing director with Bully Pulpit Interactive, the top digital firm for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, warns that campaigns that don’t have a serious infrastructure set up to combat misinformation and dictate their own online messaging will be the most vulnerable to attack in 2020.
“I think this is going to be a serious part of any successful campaign: monitoring this and working with the platforms to shut down bad behavior,” Kellner said.
DOJ
CNN: Justice Department preparing for Mueller report as early as next week
By Evan Perez, Laura Jarrett and Katelyn Polantz
Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller’s confidential report, according to people familiar with the plans.
The preparations are the clearest indication yet that Mueller is nearly done with his almost two-year investigation.
The precise timing of the announcement is subject to change.
The scope and contours of what Barr will send to Congress remain unclear. Also unclear is how long it will take Justice officials to prepare what will be submitted to lawmakers…
Speculation about the end of the probe has been running rampant in Washington. NBC News reported recently the probe would be done by mid-February.
The States
Wyoming Liberty Group: Rock Springs Investigation Shows the Dark Side of Campaign Finance Laws
By Stephen Klein
A recent episode in Rock Springs shows the dark side of so-called campaign finance “reform”-all too often, these laws are not used to investigate and prosecute political corruption, but to punish or retaliate against free speech, undermining citizens’ First Amendment rights.
On October 31, 2018, Bruce Pivic, owner of Wyo4News, published a roughly 2,600-word opinion piece on the channel’s website that was critical of Tim Kaumo, who was a little over a week away from being elected mayor of Rock Springs. Kaumo previously served two terms in the position, which ended about eight years ago…
But a few days after Pivic published his piece, just before the election “A Group of Employees of the City of Rock Springs” responded to it with an article on the website SweetwaterNow. It counters a number of Pivic’s points and alleges numerous problems within the city government, some that are alarming…
Rather than enter this budding discussion, some members of the Rock Springs City Council filed a campaign finance complaint, and the county clerk and County Attorney Daniel Erramouspe found it to be worth investigating. The investigation finally concluded in late January, with Erramouspe deciding not to bring charges and instead to publish his reasoning and the names of the “group of employees” in a press release…
The problem is that anyone who really did want to punish this group of employees for speaking out could not have done a better job of it… By ending with the press release here, the government got to flush out anonymous speech under the guise of “campaign finance” without having to confront that it is unconstitutional to even investigate anonymous political speech that is so far removed from campaigning.
New Jersey Globe: Pro-Murphy group spent $503k on lobbying
By David Wildstein
New Direction NJ, a non-profit group aligned with Gov. Phil Murphy that has faced criticism for not disclosing its donors, spent $503,750 on lobbying expenditures in 2018.
The organization that advocates on behalf of Murphy’s agenda reported spending $411,966 on cable television ads, according to reports filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.
They also spent $91,250 on digital media advertising.
“Fighting for policies that will benefit the middle class and working families is a central part of why New Direction New Jersey was formed, and we are proud to have played a role in building public support for higher wages and a stronger economy for millions of New Jersey residents,” said Phil Swibinski, a spokesman for New Direction NJ. “NDNJ is in full compliance with all state and federal law, and as our annual lobbying expense disclosure form shows the organization was a strong advocate for the landmark $15 minimum wage law recently passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Murphy.”
New Direction NJ promised in April that they would release their contributors at the end of the year, but in December they made a different decision.
Sentinel Colorado: Congressman Jason Crow, Secretary of State Jena Griswold team up for dark money town hall
By Kara Mason
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Aurora Congressman Jason Crow serve at two different levels of government, but they share a mutual interest in shining a light on dark money in politics. The two teamed up for a town hall-style panel on the topic Tuesday in Aurora.
Crow’s first bill submitted to Congress – part of HR 1, the first package of bills House Democrats released this session – is dubbed the “End Dark Money Act.” It would allow the Internal Revenue Service to establish policies for tax-exempt, social welfare organizations that are funneling big sums of money into campaigning…
At the forum, held at Aurora’s Village Exchange Center, Crow and Griswold said it’ll take a joint effort to achieve more transparency among political campaigns.
“It’s about influence,” said Griswold, who began the night with talking about how low and middle income voters feel like they don’t have a voice in politics. Crow said he experienced that when campaigning the 6th Congressional District last year.
Like Crow, Griswold has been eyeing possible campaign finance reform mechanisms. Most notably, after being elected she said she’ll have a working group to specifically advise on campaign finance issues. She also pegged Jenny Flanagan as a deputy secretary – she’s the former vice president of Common Cause, which advocates for more transparency in government.
