In the News
The Tribune-Review: The FEC & free speech: Another slippery slope
EditorialDemocrat Chairwoman Ann Ravel is no fan of last year’s McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court decision striking down limits on total individual donations to political action committees. She would reverse a 2006 FEC decision to leave online political advocacy alone; some supporters would even force disclosure of third-party groups’ donors.And fellow Democrat Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said 75 percent of 32,000 public comments submitted in advance sided with Ravel, the Washington Examiner reports.Recognizing incipient tyranny, Republican Bradley Smith, a former FEC chairman, testified that Internet regulation would draw far more than 32,000 negative comments, Newsmax reports. And Dan Backer of the Conservative Action Fund, which represented the plaintiff in McCutcheon, said “these proposed rules appear to be predicated on the notion that money is somehow inherently evil,” according to The Hill.
Bloomberg: Koch Group Claims California Endangers Donors by Demanding Names
By Edvard PetterssonCalifornia keeps the donor information confidential and only uses it for law enforcement purposes, according to the attorney general’s court filings. Nonprofits are required to submit the unredacted donor information they provide to the Internal Revenue Service to keep their tax-exempt status in California, according to Harris.U.S. District Judge Manuel Real is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on the foundation’s request for a preliminary injunction.In a similar challenge to California’s demand brought by the Center for Competitive Politics, a federal judge in Sacramento denied the nonprofit’s request to halt the attorney general’s request for donor data pending the outcome of the lawsuit. That ruling is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which last month said Harris can’t seek the information until a further order from that court.
CCP
Mayday! Mayday! Responding to Professor Lessig’s defense of Mayday PAC’s lawbreaking
By Brad SmithLarry Lessig this week produced a second, more thorough, response to our complaint filed with the FEC against his Mayday PAC. Prof. Lessig’s latest response can, I believe, be accurately summarized into three points: one, disclaimer laws are not too complicated, they are actually straightforward, but vendors employed by Mayday PAC failed to correctly adopt them (despite Mayday’s best efforts). Two, all of the ads had sufficient information to distinguish Mayday from the candidates, and therefore followed the spirit if not the word of the actual law—CCP is just nitpicking. And three, CCP is being hypocritical and somewhat petty for bringing this complaint, as it believes disclaimer laws to be an unjust restriction on free speech. Calling for their enforcement, therefore, is wrong, and Mayday PAC’s failure to comply with the law should be of no concern to CCP.Let’s take this point by point.Because, in many ways, this is an argument about words and their meanings, let me quote extensively from Professor Lessig’s blog to avoid any misconstruing of his remarks…
Independent Groups
USA Today: Obama bundlers slow to back Clinton super PACS
By Fredreka Schouten and Christopher SchnaarsOf the 769 individuals and couples who raised money for Obama, just 54 people and firms have donated at least $5,000 to Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has spent two years working to build grass-roots support for a Clinton campaign, according to the analysis.South Carolina lawyer Richard Harpootlian collected more than $500,000 for Obama’s re-election, according to figures released by the president’s campaign. However, Harpootlian, a former two-time chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, is sitting on the sidelines in the early stages of the 2016 campaign. “I don’t know that she has generated any sort of enthusiasm or excitement,” he said of Clinton.
More Soft Money Hard Law: On the Public Coverage and Discussion of Campaign Finance Issues: The Super PAC Example
By Bob BauerMore balance in the public and press discussion of campaign finance issues would be desirable. This last week the FEC held a hearing, and whatever press coverage came out of it was largely devoted to belittling it. And then there was more of the same:The government brought a criminal coordination case and extracted a plea, and this was immediately advertised in professional reform circles to be a momentous turn of events. The New York Times added the note that perhaps now a “light” would be shone on the dark alleys where coordination flourishes. The regulated community was supposedly on notice that the Super PAC jig might be up, and that punishment could be expected at last for the misconduct the FEC was habitually ignoring.This is all a bit much. The announced prosecution and plea agreement shed little light on any of the key questions about “coordination” in the Super PAC era. Assume the facts as reported, and the activity at issue would be illegal on any understanding of what constitutes coordination—now, or any time since Buckley. This was a case, apparently, that involves a campaign manager’s use of an of alias to mask his involvement in directing outright independent expenditures on behalf of his candidate. The committee set up as “independent” was one he had established. It is reported that he knew he was violating the law. He was also, news accounts suggest, making money off this scam.
Huffington Post: Bill Clinton May Be Barred From Soliciting Big Checks From Donors In 2016
By Ryan GrimWASHINGTON — Headed into the 2016 presidential campaign, the Hillary Clinton camp has been confident it will be able to raise the kind of money that can scare off any Democratic challenger and compete with the GOP in the general election. Part of that confidence comes from knowing that two of the planet’s best fundraisers — former President Bill Clinton and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — are core members of the team.But it may not be that simple. Lawyers involved with Hillary Clinton’s as-yet-undeclared election effort are studying whether campaign finance laws significantly restrict the activities of both men, according to sources close to the discussions.For the former president, the question comes down to coordination: While a super PAC can legally raise unlimited amounts of money from high-dollar donors, it cannot coordinate with the candidate or the campaign. As a spouse of the candidate, it’s unclear how involved Bill Clinton can be in the super PAC’s activities.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Real Clear Politics: How a Former Justice Wants to Restrict Your Political Participation
By Walter Weber and Hans von SpakovskyThus, according to Stevens, a flat ban on corporations and unions (which cannot vote in any elections at all) making campaign expenditures would be constitutional. But this would also prevent a resident of Texas from making a campaign contribution in support of a candidate in Nevada or buying an ad in a Nevada newspaper with a political message about that candidate.Despite its unconstitutionality, this approach may have some surface appeal. No longer could rich corporate, union, or out-of-state individual interests influence, or attempt to influence, local elections. Planned Parenthood could not use its massive funds to target pro-life candidates or ballot questions anywhere. Multi-millionaire Tim Gill could not pour money into elections outside of Colorado to sabotage the chances of candidates who support traditional marriage. Wealthy teachers unions could not dump big bucks into political races to support their agenda. Instead, individual Texas voters would fund Texas campaigns; individual Nevada voters would fund Nevada campaigns; etc.But there is a difference between residents of other countries and residents of other states. A Frenchman cannot move tomorrow to Louisiana and register to vote in the next election; but we could. Indeed, it is a privilege of citizenship to move freely from state to state. Americans therefore have important, immediate interests in governance throughout the nation, not just in their own particular state.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Reporter: First Amendment expert: Wisconsin ought to be ‘embarrassed’ by John Doe
By M.D. KittleMADISON, Wis. – Good riddance to an abusive investigation.That’s how First Amendment expert and former member of the Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky sees a federal judge’s recent order that effectively ends Wisconsin’s politically charged John Doe investigation into dozens of conservative groups and Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign.“I think this is a terrific decision by that judge,” said von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’sEdwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “He understands that statute (Wisconsin’s campaign finance law) violated basic First Amendment rights.”
FEC
Washington Times: FCC, FEC look to ruin the Internet
By Tammy BruceWe knew this was coming. Within the last couple of weeks, both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission declared their intention to regulate the Internet. Fascists always explain their actions as efforts to either make something more efficient, “fair,” or to supposedly “protect” their target. Sometimes they simply lie, like saying they’re nationalizing health insurance to make it more affordable and to increase access to health care.Now, with the feds’ latest effort, their new slogan might as well be, “If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.” Make no mistake: The Internet is under assault and saving it is up to us.Democrats and their liberal sycophants have been contemplating for years how best to smash the Internet. Open discussion among the great unwashed masses poses a threat to the superiorly educated and groomed establishment. First, it was the magnificence of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which made free speech on the radio impossible. President Reagan’s reversal of that Orwellian control mechanism made talk radio possible (to say nothing of the likely increase of gastrointestinal disorders among liberals).
Washington Times: Obama’s war on the Internet
By Judson PhillipsThe truly alarming attack is coming from the Federal Election Commission. The Democrats, or as they are known to most real Americans the Party of Treason, wants to limit political speech on the Internet. The Democrats on the FEC do not simply want to put limits on political advertising; they want to put limits on political speech.In the Democrats’ rabid hysteria over the Citizens United case, some important facts are completely forgotten. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, which was partially struck down by Citizens United, put onerous restrictions on free speech by organizations. Corporations, non-profits and even unions, were blocked from making “electioneering” comments within 90 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.This meant, for example, that newspapers could not endorse candidates or even comment favorably or negatively about a candidate within two months of an election.
State and Local
New Mexico –– AP: Lawmakers say New Mexico campaign finance law isn’t enforced
The newspaper reviewed campaign finance data obtained through a public records request. It found Duran waived more than a third of fines and more than 60 percent went uncollected. Her office amassed only 4 percent of nearly 2,000 fines levied against candidates during the 2012 and 2014 primary and general elections.State law requires that candidates’ reports list donations and expenditures. The public documents are also supposed to list the donations’ sources.A late campaign finance report triggers a letter from state officials, saying the candidate will be fined $50 per working day until the report is filed. If the candidate offers an explanation within 10 days, that fine could be waived.
New Mexico –– Albuquerque Journal: Editorial: SF race shows folly of public campaign finance
EditorialWhile they demonstrated the futility of public campaign financing in a highly competitive race, the unions and progressives also illustrated why Citizens United was the correct decision under the U.S. Constitution: They simply exercised their right to assemble and advocate for the candidate of their choice. How much more American can you get?One would hope that the members of the progressive establishment in Santa Fe who united around Gonzales in 2014 will reconsider their arguments on how to take “big money” out of local politics. Their message last year was that, at least in Santa Fe, big money is OK as long as only their side has it to spend.Public financing, Bushee said, was “a grand experiment that failed miserably.” She’s right.
