Supreme Court
Bloomberg: Schumer Says Gorsuch Avoided His Questions ‘Like the Plague’
By Laura Litvan
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that his concerns about Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch deepened after they met privately…
“The judge today avoided answering questions like the plague,” Schumer told reporters. He said he also asked for Gorsuch’s views on the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United campaign-finance decision and the Constitution’s emoluments clause that bars officeholders like Trump from accepting gifts from foreign states.
Schumer said he still has “serious, serious questions” about Gorsuch, but hasn’t decided how he’ll vote. Senate Democrats will continue to insist that Gorsuch receive support of at least 60 lawmakers to advance to a confirmation vote, he added.
Schumer is navigating a confirmation that is likely to splinter his party and could lead to a showdown with Republicans over Senate rules. Trump has called on Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear” and end filibusters on high court nominees if Democrats utilize one now.
CBS News: Dianne Feinstein impressed by SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch
By Associated Press
The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee says she is impressed with President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein met with Judge Neil Gorsuch on Monday. She said Tuesday that “he’s a very caring person and he’s obviously legally very smart.”
She added: “I think we are dealing with someone who is impressive, so we’ll see.”
She stopped short of saying she would vote for him, noting it’s a lifetime appointment and Gorsuch is only 49. Last week, Feinstein had said she wanted to take time to consider his record.
“We need time to do our work so that we can make a decision and make remarks that will stand the test of time, and not be cheap shots, or bad or rushed,” Feinstein said last week.
Independent Groups
Pillar of Law: How CREW Chair Norm Eisen Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nordstrom Corporation
By Stephen Klein
To understand the particularly rank opportunism here, look back to Eisen and the regulation lobby’s applause (indeed, spearheading) for efforts to overturn Citizens United. Again, Eisen couldn’t care less about Nordstrom, but his past efforts have shown such disdain for corporations that he once couldn’t care less what any member of the government-until, that is, Donald Trump-inflicted upon them…
The quick pivot of the campaign regulation lobby after the November election was bewildering, even to those of us who watch the watchdogs. Somehow, many so-called campaign finance reformers have managed to become even more unserious about anything other than theatrics. Watchdogs serve no purpose if they bark at every tweet and, in light of President Trump’s behavior here, they’re barking at their own reflection: retaliation, along with enemies lists, government inquisitions and censorship were forgiven, or even the tools of reform, as late as November of 2016. Rather than reassess the dangers of these in light of who now sits in the White House, reformers will, at best, pretend there are other distinctions.
Disclosure
The Hill: Corporate America should get on board with political accountability
By Bruce Freed and Charles Kolb
President Trump made “draining the swamp” a centerpiece of his campaign, yet in his inaugural address, he said nothing about campaign finance reform. A growing number of America’s leading companies are choosing transparency for their political spending, and they apply board oversight, too…
These aren’t abstract concerns. They’re concrete. The presidential election cycle in 2016 broke political spending records, nearing $7 billion, up from $6.3 billion in the 2012 cycle. Driving much of the record costs were outside groups, including “dark money” groups not required to disclose their donors…
It’s not enough to condemn our existing campaign finance system as “broken,” as Trump has done. We supported a proposal for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to require disclosure of corporate spending on politics, but that proposal is six feet under now.
Transparency and accountability policies for corporations that open their checkbooks to influence elections are gaining mainstream support from U.S. businesses, but there’s still a long way to go.
Trump Administration
Chicago Tribune: Senators question Todd Ricketts’ campaign fundraising ahead of confirmation hearing
By Katherine Skiba
The senators, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, wanted to know more about the potential for conflict of interest through his involvement with the groups.
One group is Future45, a super political action committee that by the end of 2016 had spent nearly $25 million against unsuccessful White House candidate Hillary Clinton…
The other organization is the 45Committee, a “dark money” group that does not list donors but spends money to advocate for the election or defeat of candidates, though not in coordination with the candidate or their campaign…
The senators said they needed to understand Todd Ricketts’ leadership roles with the two groups to evaluate possible conflicts of interest and whether he would need to recuse himself from certain matters at the department.
The senators also asked Todd Ricketts for all donations in the past five years that he or his family has made to politically active nonprofits known as 501(c)(4) groups.
The Media
Washington Examiner: No, Soros isn’t bankrolling these GOP candidates. Knock it off.
By T. Becket Adams
Let’s clear this up from the get-go: Billionaire Democratic donor George Soros is not quietly bankrolling major GOP legislators, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Marco Rubio.
Rather, private individuals who work at hedge funds that are connected to Soros have donated their own cash to Republican candidates, according to publicly available data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
These data do not show that Soros, his foundation or his company have ever donated to these Republican candidates. His company couldn’t donate to them anyway, as the law bars contributions from companies to federal candidates.
But you wouldn’t know that from reading WND, Breitbart News, the Drudge Report or from listening to talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.
WND was the first to circulate this ridiculous story, and they did so in an article titled, “12 top Republicans backed by Soros in 2016.”
Wall Street Journal: Who’s Afraid of Student Journalists?
By John J. Miller
In a 1,000-word statement released last month, the AAUP bemoaned “new efforts by private groups to monitor the conduct of faculty members,” which it likened to “witch hunts.” Then it named names: Professor Watchlist, Campus Reform and the College Fix…
Although careful to mention First Amendment rights, its statement focuses on the rotten things that can happen when pesky students exercise free speech: They enable “stalkers and cyberbullies,” “threats of physical violence” and even “death threats.”
This is backward. Students who challenge their teachers are neither harassers nor censors. They’re journalists and whistleblowers, who find the one-sided politics of their professors to be newsworthy. In the name of academic freedom, the AAUP wants to pressure them into silence.
The States
Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Lawmakers right to repeal IM 22
By Ben Lee
It wasn’t until after IM 22 was passed that its consequences became evident. It contained unconstitutional provisions which caused a South Dakota judge to issue an injunction, placing the entire reform process in limbo until the problems were addressed. IM 22 would have misused tax dollars and threatened our free speech rights, if implemented…
Under IM 22, anyone who donates more than $100 to a nonprofit organization that engages in issue advocacy would have their personal information put into a government database. That’s right – if you donate to a local teachers’ union or a police association that participates in civic engagement, your name, address and the causes you support, will become publicly accessible.
We don’t release other personal information to the public – who we vote for is private, our medical records are private, and the causes we support should remain private, too. Having such data readily available will only open the door to intimidation and discrimination by those who disagree with our beliefs.
Citizens have the right to ask for transparency and hold government accountable, but elected officials have no authority to invade our privacy.
Fairfield Citizen: State GOP to fight proposed $100K cap on national party aid
By Neil Vigdor
Republicans are mobilizing against a proposal to cap the amount of financial aid the national parties can give to their state political organizations each year at $100,000 in Connecticut.
They say the ceiling – part of a campaign finance reform package introduced by the state Elections Enforcement Commission – illegally infringes on the ability of the GOP to invest precious resources in the state.
State GOP Chairman J.R. Romano said Wednesday that he referred the matter to the Republican National Committee for potential legal action.
“I think it’s borderline unconstitutional,” Romano said. “You’re talking about the freedom of association.”
National parties can give unlimited sums of money to their state counterparts under the current law in Connecticut. But election watchdogs, seeking to stem the tide of political contributions from mega-donors and special interests, have proposed a first-ever cap.
KUAR News Arkansas: Electronic Campaign Finance Filing Bill Clears House Committee
By Chris Hickey
Republican Rep. Jana Della Rosa’s bill, HB1427, mandates that Arkansas legislative, judicial and state constitutional office candidates utilize a new system now being installed by the Secretary of State’s office. In the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs, the lawmaker from Rogers argued that switching from the current mostly paper-based system to an electronic one makes campaign finance reports more searchable and thus more transparent…
Republican Rep. Charlotte Douglas of Alma also pushed back on the notion that a new system would be better.
“I don’t see a public outcry at the grassroots level,” Douglas remarked. “I’m not having any mail on this. I’d never had anybody say we’d like for you guys to be more transparent in your filing.”
Douglas closed her statement with a rhetorical question.
“It’s a question of where really this is being driven from. If it’s not grassroots Arkansas, who are we really making this easier for?”
