“This is an important victory for free speech,” said CCP President David Keating.“The Secretary of State tried to use a law passed after the group spoke in order to fine and impose burdensome government filing requirements simply for exercising its First Amendment rights. The case should never have been brought by former Secretary of State Ross Miller.”“We are grateful to the Nevada Supreme Court for remedying this miscarriage of justice,” said CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson. “The decision to enforce an unclear law violated the First Amendment and fundamental principles of fairness. Today’s decision vindicates one group’s rights, but it also stands for the important principle that when citizens come together to speak, the State may regulate their activities only with care and specificity.”The 5-2 ruling said that “Perhaps the 1997 Legislature intended express advocacy to include more communications than those that contain magic words, but this intent was not clear… when Citizen Outreach distributed its flyers. When it comes to the exercise of First Amendment rights, any ‘tie goes to the speaker, not the censor….’ [W]e conclude that basic principles of fundamental fairness require us to construe [the law in effect in 2009] narrowly, limiting it to only those communications that contain magic words of express advocacy.”
In the News
Associated Press: Oops … court changes ruling in Citizen Outreach appeal
Center for Competitive Politics President David Keating said the court’s decision was an important victory for free speech and the state overreached in bringing legal action against Citizen Outreach.“The secretary of state tried to use a law passed after the group spoke in order to fine and impose burdensome government filing requirements simply for exercising its First Amendment rights,” he said in an email.In the original ruling, the five-judge majority appeared to come to the same conclusion as the two dissenting judges. That ruling has been rescinded.
Forbes: More Political Spending Leads To Better Representation
By Luke WachobIn fact, the candidates that stand to benefit most in the long run from the rulings are not the best fundraisers, but rather political outsiders who lack connections to traditional sources of support like the business community or party leadership. Why? Because one of the major effects of campaign spending is to boost something incumbents already have a lot of: name recognition.It may seem basic, but name recognition is absolutely crucial to a candidate’s chances for victory. That’s why yard signs, which typically only state a candidate’s name and the office he’s seeking, are still such an important part of campaigns. Incumbents get free media coverage from their official duties, creating name recognition worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. They also have ties to party leaders and existing relationships with past campaign supporters, making it easier to raise money in small amounts.The result is that incumbents are far less reliant on campaign spending generally, and on large contributions specifically, than challengers and new candidates are. Laws that make it harder to raise and spend on politics protect incumbents from competition.
Washington Examiner: Dems on FEC open to new regs on donors, Internet
By Paul Bedard
Noting the 32,000 public comments that came into the FEC in advance of the hearing, Democratic Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, “75 percent thought that we need to do more about money in politics, particularly in the area of disclosure. And I think that’s something that we can’t ignore.”But a former Republican FEC chairman said in his testimony that if the agency moves to regulate the Internet, including news voices like the Drudge Report as GOP commissioners have warned, many thousands more comments will flood in in opposition of regulation.“If you produce a rule that says we are going to start regulating this stuff, including the internet and so on, I think you will see a lot more than 32,000 comments come in and I don’t think staff will analyze them and find that 75 percent are favorable to more regulation,” said Bradley Smith, now with the Center for Competitive Politics.
Las Vegas Review Journal: Nevada high court reverses Citizen Outreach decision; clerical error blamed
By Sean Whaley
CARSON CITY — In a rare error, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a new 5-2 order Wednesday in favor of Citizen Outreach in a case involving election fliers and whether the conservative political group had to disclose who paid for them.“Because it is undisputed that Citizen Outreach’s fliers do not contain magic words of express advocacy, the fliers were not subject to regulation under Nevada’s campaign practices statutes that were effective in 2010,” the court majority said.Because the fliers aimed at then-Assemblyman John Oceguera do not contain the “magic” words of “vote for” or “vote against,” they did not qualify as express advocacy requiring the reporting of who paid for them, the court said in the new order.The ruling is a complete reversal of a Monday order that came to the opposite conclusion. That order was withdrawn and the court said it was a clerical error that led to its posting.
Newsmax: FEC Democrats Weigh Regulating Internet Speech
By Joel HimelfarbBut former Republican FEC Chairman Bradley Smith warned that if the agency actually went ahead with plans to regulate the Internet – including widely read news sites like the Drudge Report – it would be deluged with negative comments.FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel has said she wants to regulate politicking on the Internet, and many conservatives and libertarians think she should be taken at her word.“Regulation of the internet has not gone away inside the commission, it has just gone underground,” FEC Commissioner and former Chairman Lee Goodman said in an interview with HotAir.com.
CCP
Nevada Supreme Court Decision Vindicates Free Speech, But Narrowly
By Eric WangMoreover, under this warped view of the world, government “watchdog” groups like the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) would be treated as political organizations and subject to a panoply of laborious and intrusive campaign finance laws – simply for attempting to hold politicians to high standards. And, indeed, that is precisely what one complainant recently alleged CREW was required to do. The Federal Election Commission punted on whether CREW’s efforts to promote its list of “Most Crooked Candidates” amounted to express advocacy and dismissed the complaint on other grounds. However, had the FEC applied the dissent’s reasoning in the Citizen Outreach case, CREW, a self-styled master of government ethics laws, would have found itself their servant. (Apologies to “The Police” for this poor paraphrase and inversion of their lyrics.)
FEC
Washington Post: The FEC’s farcical open hearing
By Dana MilbankThis semi-constructive dialogue deteriorated quickly.A woman with a heavy accent gave a difficult-to-follow homily about “fairness, freedom, justice, peace, humanity, productivity” and seemingly unrelated things. “To help you understand the social problem as I have identified,” she said, “I’ve given you six attachments, including my candidate statements. I have run for public office from local to federal since 1994, including U.S. Senate.”A man who identified himself as a D.C. lawyer warned that “the United States is rapidly descending into a Koch brothers plutocracy!” The woman who had just testified about the antipsychotic drug applauded.
Independent Groups
Politico: Clash of the Clinton fundraisers
By Kenneth P. VogelThe stumbles — and the slow fundraising start — raise doubts about a key assumption about Clinton’s strength as a presidential candidate: that her allies will be able to rely on a seemingly bottomless well of support from rich supporters to build an historic political money juggernaut that will overwhelm prospective rivals.Over the past two years, the two super PACs that have been most active paving the way for an expected Clinton campaign — Brock’s American Bridge 21st Century and Ready for Hillary — raised a combined $29 million, according to Federal Election Commission filings.And the Clinton Foundation this week said it had raised all but $2 million of an aggressive $250 million fundraising drive for an endowment it had hoped to complete before any campaign kickoff, at which point the Clintons themselves likely would have to withdraw from foundation activities.
Washington Post: Big donors holding off making pledges to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC
By Matea GoldPriorities USA Action — which has positioned itself as the main advertising vehicle to back a Clinton candidacy — had hoped to line up dozens of seven-figure pledges before April as a show of strength but has secured only about 10, according to people familiar with the situation.One factor that has contributed to the reluctance: Many wealthy political givers on the left have written large checks to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, part a drive to raise money for the nonprofit organization before a likely Clinton presidential run. Major foundation donors have indicated to super-PAC fundraisers that they are holding off on other large pledges for now, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Syracuse.com: Top 10 list of House election losers: Only 2 outspent opponent by more than Dan Maffei
By Mark WeinerWASHINGTON, D. C. — Money can buy a lot of things, but in politics it’s not always a path to success.Final campaign disclosure reports for the 2014 midterm elections reveal at least 10 races where one House candidate outspent their opponent by more than $1 million — and still lost.
Wall Street Journal: Why White House Hopefuls Dodge the Big Question About 2016
By Patrick O’ConnorThere are many reasons for this dance. One is practical: Candidates want to line up staff, donors and activists before they announce. Another is strategic: They want to maintain the aura of uncertainty to build some drama into the announcement. Also, candidates tend to announce early in a fundraising quarter to maximize the time they have to raise money, so many Republicans are waiting until at least April 1 to take the plunge because that will give them a full three months to raise campaign cash.But the biggest reason might be legal.“Once they turn the corner and start advocating for their election in an unconditional way, they become a candidate,” said Ken Gross, a campaign-finance lawyer at Skadden who once ran the Federal Election Commission’s enforcement division. “Once they’re a candidate, all the disclosure requirements kick in, all the restrictions kick in and all the rules kick in.”
Wall Street Journal: Unease Grows as Hillary Clinton Stays on Sidelines
By Peter NicholasThe Republican race for president already has the feel of a sprint, with likely candidates attending fundraisers and party forums all over the map.Some Democrats, meanwhile, are wondering: When will their front-runner join the contest?Hillary Clinton is all but certain to seek her party’s nomination, and there are no signs she will have a serious challenge. But there is some drama—and tension among Democrats—surrounding her timetable.
