In the News
Washington Times: An alternative to nonstop political fundraising
Eric Wang
If Mr. Jolly is correct that members spend too much time fundraising because of the campaign finance laws, it is not for the reason he thinks. When the federal contribution limits were originally enacted in 1974, an individual could give $1,000 per election to a candidate, and a PAC could give $5,000 per election to a candidate and $15,000 per year to a party committee. Had those limits been properly adjusted for inflation, those limits today would be $4,814, $24,070 and $72,211, respectively. But under current law, those limits are just $2,700, $5,000 and $15,000, respectively. Under these effectively lower per-donor limits, candidates spend more time chasing after a greater number of contributors for their own campaigns and their party committees.
Los Angeles Times: All the money in the world isn’t buying votes this primary season
Noah Bierman
But as anti-establishment fervor has grown, many of those billionaires have seen their money wasted.
“Certainly, the cataclysmic arguments about super PACs, what was being said in 2010, has not come true,” said Bradley Smith, former chair of the Federal Election Commission, who advocates loosening campaign finance rules. “What I think you’re really seeing here, they’re normal. They’re citizens spending money. And some citizens are sending votes that way, and some are not.”
Ed. Note: This story appeared in yesterday’s Media Update, but contained the wrong hyperlink. The link has been corrected below.
Independent Groups
The Daily Caller: Clinton Surrogate Howard Dean Says Labor Unions Are Just Super PACs That Democrats Like
Chuck Ross
“He then took aim at Sanders’ frequent campaign stump claim that he does not receive money from super PACs, which have become a target of progressives who support campaign finance reform.
Dean said that the statement is inaccurate since the 74-year-old candidate receives money from labor unions.
“For Bernie to say that he doesn’t have a super PAC, labor unions are super PACs. Now they’re super PACs that Democrats like, so we don’t go after labor unions,” asserted Dean, who is perhaps most famous for a maniacal scream he made following a third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses in 2004.
“This is a double-standard. I’m tired of the attacks on Hillary Clinton’s integrity. I think they are unwarranted.”
Politico: The POLITICO 100: Billionaires dominate 2016
Kenneth P. Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf
All told, the super PACs supporting Bush, Paul and the now-defunct campaigns for the GOP presidential nomination of Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Rick Perry and Scott Walker raised $181 million through the end of 2015 ― the period covered by the most recent Federal Election Commission filings.
With a potentially protracted battle shaping up for the Republican presidential nomination, free agent megadonors could provide a huge boost to Rubio, Cruz and, potentially, Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and John Kasich of Ohio, who are banking on strong finishes in New Hampshire.
Bloomberg: Top Clinton Donor Wants a Law Against $1 Million Gifts Like His
Max Abelson
Schwartz’s donations to politicians “never bought me anything,” he said. “But it does buy people access, an ear, maybe advice.”
His $1 million contribution to Priorities USA Action was one of the super-PAC’s biggest in the second half of last year. Schwartz, who also gave the Clinton Foundation between $1 million and $5 million, said he supports the former secretary of state’s White House run because she wants to improve infrastructure, cut unemployment and help Americans loaded down by student debt.
“I didn’t lose it,” he said about the $1 million gift. “I got something better: I bought an opportunity for a candidate that I believe in.”
Citizens United
CNN: Jeb Bush would ‘eliminate’ Citizens United
Tom LoBianco and Ashley Killough
Despite being backed by the monumental Right to Rise super PAC, Jeb Bush said Monday he would “eliminate” the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for super PACs.
“If I could do it all again I’d eliminate the Supreme Court ruling” Citizens United, Bush told CNN’s Dana Bash. “This is a ridiculous system we have now where you have campaigns that struggle to raise money directly and they can’t be held accountable for the spending of the super PAC that’s their affiliate.”…
“The ideal situation would be to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that allows for … unregulated money for the independent and regulated for the campaign,” the former Florida governor told a Luncheon in Nashua, New Hampshire. “I would turn that on its head if I could.”
Bush has grumbled before about the fundraising demands of the 2016 cycle, but he has sharpened his tone on the trail recently. He cited a mailer from one opponent’s super PAC that attacked his mother, former First Lady Barbara Bush.
Wall Street Journal: Bush, Trump and the Super Pacs
Editorial Board
It’s a loopy system, as Mr. Bush says, and he’s right to want to have control over all the money donated to elect him. But there’s no need to rewrite the First Amendment to make this possible. Congress could fix the mess by repealing the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, lifting all donation limits and letting candidates collect the cash they need from any American donors in any amounts.
Then Mr. Bush and the other non-wealthy candidates wouldn’t need Super Pacs and could control all of their own political advertising. This would help political accountability, and it would also make it easier for non-wealthy candidates to compete against billionaire self-funders like Mr. Trump.
Weekly Standard: Jeb Bush: Overturn Citizens United
John McCormack
Bush did not elaborate on what regulations he would like to impose on independent campaign activities. Bush spokesman Tim Miller wrote in an email to THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Bush’s “view is there should be unlimited donations with 48 hour transparency. For all groups.”
But overturning Citizens United would not remove all limits on campaign contributions to all groups. Overturning Citizens United would actually impose restrictions on the campaign activities of independent organizations.
There is no Supreme Court ruling stopping Congress and the president from enacting a law to remove contribution limits to political campaigns.
MSNBC: Jeb Bush calls for amendment to fix Citizens United
Benjy Sarlin
Bush went on to suggest that the issue be taken up at a constitutional convention along with other items like term limits, a line item vote and a balanced budget amendment.
“A fourth possibility could be overturning the Supreme Court decision and creating greater transparency for how you raise money and how you spend it,” Bush said of the convention process.
Bush’s campaign quickly stepped in to clarify the comments, saying that the candidate was restating his old position and did not favor reversing the court’s decision.
“He’s not advocating for additional restrictions on the ability of an organization to have political speech, he’s calling for increased transparency and for balancing it back to campaigns,” Bush campaign spokesman Tim Miller told MSNBC.
National Review: Jeb Bush vs. the First Amendment
Kevin Williamson
The Citizens United case, let us recall, was about whether the federal government could forbid the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was running for president last time around. The Supreme Court said “No,” because we have this thing called the First Amendment, which ensures that people in government don’t get to set the terms under which they are criticized or challenged. Senator Harry Reid led an effort in the Senate to effectively repeal the First Amendment so that Congress can decide who criticizes whom and how. If you want to be a Republican presidential candidate, or if you just believe in free speech, then you want to be on the other side of that fight.
Dangers of Disclosure
CNN: Curt Schilling’s political donation came with comments on ESPN job
Adam Eichen
Schilling, the former World Series champion who has covered baseball for ESPN since 2010, donated $250 to Ben Carson on September 1, 2015, according to a publicly available report from the Federal Election Commission…
In his filing to the FEC, Schilling indicated that his time at ESPN might be running out. Under the section marked “name of employer,” Schilling wrote, “ESPN (Not Sure How Much Longer).” Under “occupation,” Schilling said, “Analyst (For Now Anyway).”
“I was being a smart alec online in a document no one should care to see or read,” he told CNNMoney in an email. “If that’s newsworthy doesn’t that signal a much bigger problem on the media’s end?”
Two days after the donation to Carson was filed, ESPN went further with its discipline, suspending Schilling for the remainder of the Major League Baseball regular season and the wild card playoff game
Voters
Bloomberg: Let’s Hear It for the American Voter
Leonid Bershidsky
As a first-timer covering the presidential campaign, I expected to confirm the widely held impression that the process is dominated by vested interests, big money and powerful parties operating in the background. To my surprise, I found instead a process that can be taken at face value, in spite of the hype and intrigue. My biggest discovery was that whatever goes on in back rooms, spin rooms and newsrooms, the ordinary voter always is the central character in the drama, and the best way to understand the campaign is from the voter’s point of view.
Tax Financed Campaigns
Washington Post: Public campaign funding is so broken that candidates turned down $292 million in free money
Kathy Kiely
For years after the public fund for presidential candidates was established in 1974, the biggest worry for its minders at the Federal Election Commission was whether there’d be enough money for all the candidates. Now, despite a sharp decline in the number of people participating in the $3 tax return check-off that funds the program (down from a high of 28 percent in 1977 to less than 6 percent last year), the fund has been growing steadily — because candidates don’t want the money anymore.
…This year, only one presidential contender sought and qualified for public financing: Martin O’Malley, who has already dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination.
Influence
CNN: Sheldon Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses Marco Rubio
Dan Berman
The Las Vegas Review-Journal, recently acquired by the family of Republican casino billionaire mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, is endorsing Marco Rubio for the upcoming GOP caucuses there…
The newspaper maintains its endorsement is independent, noting the editorial board interviewed Rubio two months before it was announced the newspaper was sold to the Adelson family last fall.
Candidates and Campaigns
Boston Globe: Here’s how much each presidential candidate has spent on Dunkin’ Donuts
Eric Levenson
If America really runs on Dunkin’, then Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are in lockstep with U.S. voters.
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, however, are running on—gasp—Starbucks.
Dunkin’ Donuts and its beloved year-round iced coffee holds a place near and dear to the heart of New England. So ahead of the New Hampshire primary election on Tuesday, we analyzed recent campaign finance reports from the Federal Election Commission to get to the bottom of a key question on voters’ minds.
How much has each presidential candidate’s campaign spent on Dunkin’ Donuts?
The States
KOB4 Albuquerque: Campaign finance reform bill headed to House floor
Ryan Luby
Rep. Jim Smith, R-Sandia Park, explained to the House Appropriations committee how KOB pointed out the pitfalls of a political money tracking system that misleads and fails voters.
“There were some questions – what happened to this missing money,” Smith said. “And I think it was more of a problem with the information system that either candidates or lobbyists misreporting data.”
That’s the impetus for Smith’s bill, which would mandate a full-blown overhaul to fix the problems we found, which is why open government groups are so supportive.
Duluth News Tribune: Don’t let politics alter Constitution
Editorial Board
As vigorously as Minnesotans should insist on open and transparent government, an effort launched last week to forever change our state’s Constitution can be met with equally vigorous skepticism and apprehension.
The effort was launched in the name of government transparency. But it reeks of politics.
House DFLers — and House DFLers only — want voters this fall to approve a constitutional amendment to eliminate a campaign finance loophole exempting some groups from reporting spending on issues-based advertising, even when it benefits or counters a candidate for elected office.
