In the News
Weekly Standard: The New Assault on Privacy
By James Piereson
On February 27 the Supreme Court turned down an appeal in a case from Colorado that would have decided whether nonprofit organizations that run issue advertisements during election campaigns can be compelled to disclose the names and addresses of their donors…
In the Colorado case, the Independence Institute, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, proposed to run a series of “issue advertisements” during the 2014 Senate campaign urging the state’s two senators to support a federal bill to reform guidelines for criminal sentences. The proposed ads addressed only this narrow issue and did not endorse or oppose any candidate for election. Nevertheless, under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act of 2002, the organization would have been required to make public its list of donors because the ads, though they were focused narrowly on issues, mentioned the name of a senator on the ballot within 60 days of the election…
According to the Center for Competitive Politics, more than 95 percent of all funds spent on election campaigns are subject to donor disclosure.
Pew Charitable Trusts: Lawmakers Look to Curb Foreign Influence in State Elections
By Rebecca Beitsch
The high court ruled that corporations and unions are associations of U.S. citizens with a First Amendment right to political expression.
Hoping to take the decision a step further, proponents of bills under consideration in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Washington state would bar political spending by businesses in which non-U.S. citizens have a significant ownership stake…
But critics say having some foreign ties – especially minimal ones – should not disqualify corporations from participating in the political process.
“Corporations have a right to speak about politics. It’s a strange calculus that says we’re going to sacrifice the rights of the 95 percent American ownership for the 5 percent foreign ownership,” said Allen Dickerson with the Center for Competitive Politics, a First Amendment group that supports the Citizens United decision…
“How much of this is an attempt to prevent indirectly what we can’t do directly, which is prevent businesses from speaking? I understand there are people who don’t like Citizens United, but it’s the law,” Dickerson said.
Supreme Court
ABA Journal: ABA rates Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch ‘well qualified’
By Lorelei Laird
The American Bar Association has rated Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, “well qualified.”
The rating came Thursday from the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, whose purpose is to evaluate the qualifications of nominees to federal judgeships. The committee’s goal is to provide impartial, nonpartisan evaluations based on judicial temperament, competence and integrity, according to its own “backgrounder” document.
An ABA press release says the review was based on hundreds of interviews with people who know Gorsuch’s work and qualifications. Teams of law professors and Supreme Court advocates reviewed the judge’s writings-he currently sits on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals-for clarity, quality, analytical prowess and knowledge of the law.
The “well qualified” rating-the highest the Standing Committee gives-was reported to the White House, the Department of Justice, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the nominee himself.
FEC
More Soft Money Hard Law: The FEC and the Draining of Swamps
By Bob Bauer
The Trump “populist” reform perspective has limited room for campaign finance regulation, much more for the lobbying restrictions set forth in the Executive Order issued on January 28. Lobbying controls slide neatly into a narrative about a government that needs to be purged of insidious “establishment” interests working against the national will. By contrast, the FEC and federal regulation of campaign finance are seen in this narrative to represent that very establishment: it is a host to those interests.
In recent years, the critics of the agency, including Republican Commissioners, have selected the supposed slapping of controls on the Internet as the prime example what the agency, if unchecked, would do. The government through the FEC would somehow try to micromanage, with the aim of narrowing, the most open of all channels for political speech. This is a sort of populist critique. But it leads to the conclusion that President Trump’s and his party’s policy toward the FEC will be more of the same: expect nothing from it, want nothing from it, do nothing with it. As they see things, the FEC is the swamp-but it is for the most part already drained.
Politico: Will Donald Trump Upend the FEC?
By Taylor Gee
But if bipartisanship at the FEC has struggled in recent years, it might be as good as dead under a Trump administration. Analysts worry that President Donald Trump, who was never fond of Washington traditions anyway, is poised to throw out the custom that would let Senate Democrats choose Ravel’s replacement in order to appoint a conservative-minded independent instead. That would give one party a de facto majority for the first time in the agency’s history. POLITICO Magazine asked Ravel whether she fears that by resigning, she’s handing Republicans the keys to the commission, and if there is any hope of restoring bipartisanship to the agency that shapes this country’s elections. Here’s what she had to say…
Ravel: I think it is a possibility that the president would appoint an independent, but I am not fearful of the outcome of that. The reason that I am not fearful is that nothing will change. With just three votes, Republicans can block any regulatory action, which appears to be their goal. With a fourth vote, they’ll just use their majority to continue stymieing action.
SEC
Wall Street Journal: SEC Chair Nominee Clayton’s Ethics Report Reveals Range of Possible Conflicts
By Dave Michaels
President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission faces a range of possible conflicts of interest due to the long list of banks and public companies he has represented as one of Wall Street’s top lawyers…
Under SEC ethics rules, Mr. Clayton likely wouldn’t be able to participate in agency business-such as enforcement cases-that directly involves his former clients…
Mr. Clayton’s connections to Wall Street aren’t uncommon for an incoming SEC chairman, but some Senate Democrats are still likely to question his ties to banks such as Goldman Sachs, where his wife, Gretchen Butler Clayton, works as a financial adviser. Ms. Clayton plans to resign if her husband is confirmed by the Senate, a person familiar with the matter has said.
A coalition of liberal groups, including Public Citizen and Our Revolution, has launched an effort to oppose Mr. Clayton’s confirmation. Our Revolution was founded by former staffers and volunteers for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Congress
West Fargo Pioneer: Heitkamp joins Montana senator on bill for campaign finance transparency
By Sydney Mook
U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., has signed onto a bill introduced by Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., which promotes transparency in campaign financing.
“Everybody’s entitled to speak, but why if you have more money does your voice get to be louder than everybody else’s?” she said.
The SUN (Sunlight for Unaccountable Nonprofits) Act would allow the public to know when donors spend more than $5,000 on tax-exempt groups that engage in electioneering and would have no impact on nonprofits that don’t engage in election activities…
Heitkamp said that in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the Buckley v. Valeo case that “money is speech, and it’s protected.” She said that Democrats have been trying to get the case overturned for years, and she believes Buckley v. Valeo was “wrongly decided.” That case led to Citizens United, she said.
“The problem with where we are right now … is you don’t know who gave the money,” Heitkamp said. “So it’s a way to launder political money to a (501(c)(4)) and no one can know. At a minimum the voters of our state have a right to know who’s financing campaigns-that’s why we have disclosures, that’s why we have campaign finance reporting.”
Independent Groups
BuzzFeed News: Democratic Super PAC Launches Anti-“Trumpcare” Campaign In Key States
By Ruby Cramer
For Democrats, the new Republican health care plan poses an early strategic question: how to take on Donald Trump in a traditional policy arena, crafting a response that not only undermines his appeal, but broadens their own.
On Thursday, the party’s leading super PAC, Priorities USA, will test one approach with a six-figure digital ad campaign depicting the bill as a betrayal of working Americans and a boon to the 1%, according to an official with the group.
This ad buy is the PAC’s second and largest of the Trump presidency, reaching voters in nine states, including Alaska and Maine, where Republican U.S. senators such as Maine’s Susan Collins could be decisive in defeating the bill…
This is Priorities USA’s first policy-focused ad buy since the election, when officials and donors aligned with group, led by longtime Democratic operative Guy Cecil, started to reimagine their mission under a Trump presidency. Now, what began largely as a vehicle for TV ads, first to support for Barack Obama in 2012, then Hillary Clinton in 2016, has widened the scope of its portfolio, working on projects ranging from voting law to studying the critical Obama-turned-Trump voter.
Roll Call: TV Ads Tell Conservatives to Vote With Trump on Health Care
By Simone Pathé
A Republican issue advocacy group with close ties to House leadership is running half a million dollars in TV ads to pressure Freedom Caucus members to vote with President Donald Trump on the Republicans’ health care plan.
American Action Network is running spots in 30 districts on Fox News beginning Thursday for two weeks. It’s the first time an outside group is invoking the president’s support for the health care plan in its paid advertising for the bill.
Each ad starts the same way, contrasting the 2010 health care law and the new GOP proposal for repeal and replacement…
American Action Network has now spent $8.5 million on advertising campaigns for a GOP health care plan.
The States
Portland Tribune: Bills give scrutiny to small donors, provide public campaign financing
By Pamplin Media Group
Small donors underwent big scrutiny last week in the state capital.
In Oregon, a campaign donor must give a total of $100 in a calendar year to an individual candidate or committee before his or her name and address become publicly available in a database of campaign finance transactions.
One proposal lawmakers are considering would eliminate that limit, making the provenance of all donations public. Another would create a publicly-funded donation-matching system intended to incentivize small donor participation.
Both were heard by the House Committee on Rules Feb. 28.
Under the public finance proposal, sponsored by Rep. Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis), eligible candidates for office who agree to only take small donations would receive six times the amount of each contribution from state government – though the total contribution per candidate would be capped.
The proposal to remove the $100 limit before records of a donation’s origin becomes public is sponsored by Rep. Julie Parrish (R-Tualatin), who says the change would promote transparency.
Los Angeles Times: New appointments bring changes to California’s political watchdog agency
By Patrick McGreevy
The agency that oversees enforcement of California’s campaign finance and ethics laws is being remade by new appointments, including the selection Thursday of a former lobbyist for the state’s influential firefighters union.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla selected Brian Hatch, a longtime leader of the California Professional Firefighters, to fill a vacancy on the Fair Political Practices Commission. The appointment comes a week after state Controller Betty Yee named ethics and elections attorney Allison Hayward to the panel…
The commission enforces state laws involving campaign finances, conflicts of interest, lobbying and government ethics.
Bismarck Tribune: Senate to consider prohibition on foreign campaign contributions
By Blair Emerson
A bill that would place in state statute a similar prohibition that exists in federal law regarding foreign campaign contributions was heard by a Senate committee on Thursday.
Rep. Corey Mock, D-Grand Forks, presented House Bill 1234 – which is co-sponsored by all four of North Dakota’s legislative leaders – to the Senate Government and Veterans Affairs Committee.
The bill was created in response to a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission in 2015 against three individuals, two of whom were running for office in North Dakota, who had accepted foreign campaign donations from citizens in Canada and the United Kingdom, Mock said…
Mock said the contributions had been reported, and that perhaps the candidates had accepted them unknowingly. The FEC investigated and ultimately dismissed the allegations. The commission also reported that the campaign contributions in question had been returned.
