In the News
New York Post: Oust the JCOPE bureaucrats for their speech-suppressing power grab
Editorial Board
A spectrum of New York p.r. firms filed suit Tuesday to force the state Joint Commission on Public Ethics to drop its lunatic bid to treat them as lobbyists…
It’s a blatant violation of the First Amendment — no government body has the right to regulate contacts with the press. And even if it weren’t, it’s not the job of unelected bureaucrats to rewrite the law — that’s up to the Legislature.
Mind you, JCOPE made this move at the end of a year that saw Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos each dethroned and convicted of official corruption.
Of course, that was US Attorney Preet Bharara’s good work. JCOPE had nothing to do with it, never mind the words “Public Ethics” in its name. (Indeed, JCOPE’s failed spectacularly to clean up New York politics.) Were the commissioners just bored, or hungry for relevance?
No matter: They’ve proven themselves unfit. Gov. Cuomo and the legislative leaders who appoint JCOPE’s members should get going on replacing these rogues.
Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Tenth Circuit Strikes Disclosure Requirements as to Small Scale Issue Organization
Steven D. Schwinn
The Tenth Circuit agreed. The court applied “exacting scrutiny” and concluded that “the minimal informational interest [in disclosure] cannot justify the associated substantial burdens [of compliance].” The court noted that the small-scale nature of the Coalition had an impact on both sides of the balance. As to the informational interest, “the strength of the public’s interest in issue-committee disclosure depends, in part, on how much money the issue committee has raised or spent,” and the informational interest in the Coalition’s spending (about $3,500) was nothing like the informational interest in a group that spent, say, $10 million. As to the burden, the court noted that a small-scale organization like the Coalition faces greater challenges in compliance than a large-scale outfit.
New York Law Journal: PR Firms Challenge Reporting Requirement
Joel Stashenko
A group of public relations firms that represent politicians have filed a federal suit challenging an expansion of what constitutes lobbying as defined by the state Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE).
The plaintiffs contend that by recently adopting rules requiring public relations firms to disclose outreach activities to news editorial boards as “lobbying,” JCOPE is unlawfully violating their First Amendment rights to speak to the media on matters of public interest.
“The result is that such firms, their clients and members of the press are deterred, chilled and silenced” in violation of their constitutional rights, the group claim in the suit filed Tuesday in the Southern District of New York, The November Group v. New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics.
CCP
Seven Myths about Disclosure Masquerading as “Realities”
Eric Wang
Myth #1: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC was a general endorsement of political donor reporting requirements.
Reality: Advocates of more stringent regulation of political speech often exaggerate the Supreme Court’s endorsement of reporting requirements in Citizens United. In reality, the decision confirmed that the Constitution does not permit comprehensive reporting requirements to be imposed on many political activities, and underscored the need to balance reporting requirements against the burdens they impose on political speech.
Specifically, the Court held that organizations may not be forced to register and report as political committees (“PACs”) simply because they wish to speak about candidates and elections. The Court called PACs “burdensome,” “expensive to administer,” and subject to “onerous restrictions.” Yet, PACs are precisely the one-size-fits-all end-game for activist groups like CLC who seek greater “disclosure”…
Are state parties a solution to political “chaos”?
Luke Wachob
Building the argument for freer parties around a critique of independent groups soothes money-in-politics skeptics, but it could lead to calls for new restrictions on all kinds of political groups if party restrictions are lifted and super PACs continue to play a role in campaigns. The problem of overregulated state parties should not be defined as a problem of political chaos, but as one of insufficient political freedom that in turn leads to reduced participation. After all, when millions of people are free to speak and organize however they want, some chaos is to be expected.
That said, federal regulations restricting state parties should be lifted, as should state and federal contribution limit laws. State parties should be able to support their candidates with coordinated advertising, get-out-the-vote campaigns, and direct outreach to voters informing them of the time and place of elections. Indeed, many Americans likely assume those are parties’ core functions and would be shocked to discover that federal restrictions against such activities exist.
Independent Groups
Center for Responsive Politics: Exiled from Koch orbit, American Future Fund turns to GOP establishment for cash
Robert Maguire
Coordinated or not, AFF’s pattern of ad buys does lend some credence to the idea that the group is at least acting as ground support for the Rubio campaign. AFF has spent more than any other nondisclosing “dark money” group in the election so far, $4.9 million, and often on targets other than Trump. Days before the Iowa caucuses, AFF put $1.5 million into ads attacking Gov John Kasich of Ohio, another GOP White House hopeful, as a supporter of Common Core and a “cheerleader for Medicaid expansion” under the Affordable Care Act.
About two weeks later, in the run-up to the New Hampshire primaries, AFF spent another $1.5 million accusing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for being weak on national security.
Mother Jones: This Group Is Raising Money for Donald Trump. But Where Is It Going?
Russ Choma
A recipient of the email might be forgiven for assuming it comes from an official Trump-approved outfit. The website prominently features the official Trump slogan: “Make America Great Again.” And there may be a problem with that. Trump trademarked that phrase for the purposes of “political campaign services, namely, promoting public awareness of Donald J. Trump as a candidate for public office; providing online information regarding political issues and the 2016 presidential election;” and for “fundraising in the field of politics.” The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Asked about the PAC’s use of the trademarked phrase, Backer, a Virginia-based attorney who has helped set up a number of conservative-oriented PACs that capitalize on current events, said the phrase is a quote from Ronald Reagan.
Supreme Court
Time: Watch Clinton Describe Her Ideal Supreme Court Justice
Tessa Berenson
Clinton then spoke more specifically about what qualifications she would look for in a justice.
“Obviously you look for people who are not only qualified on paper, but have a heart, have life experience, understand what these decisions mean in the lives of Americans,” she said. “Clearly I would look for people who believe that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and that Citizens United needs to be overturned as quickly as possible.”
Shareholder Activism
Fortune: Corporate Political Donations and Lobbying Are Still Trapped in a Murky, Dark Cloud
Eleanor Bloxham
Over the past few months, behind the scenes, tens of thousands of people have been writing to mutual fund company Vanguard telling the investment manager that it’s time it supported transparency by corporations about their political donations. Vanguard acts on behalf of its mutual fund clients when it casts votes on disclosure proposals listed on corporate proxies.
Political Parties
Bloomberg: The Party Goes to Bat for Kasich in Ohio
Margaret Newkirk and Mark Niquette
Having the party’s backing gives Kasich a host of advantages. His surrogates are descending on official functions for the GOP faithful in a party-coordinated effort, “reaching literally thousands of surefire Republican primary voters,” says Matt Borges, the state GOP chairman. The events included 14 Lincoln Day dinners held around the state in early March, the signature local Republican party event of the primary season. “We had a Kasich surrogate at every single one of them,” says Borges. No other campaign showed.
The States
New York Daily News: Assembly Democrats introduce bill to increase public disclosure requirements for groups who lobby in New York
Kenneth Lovett
The Assembly Democrats’ bill is the first of what officials say will be part of an overall reform package to be unveiled in coming days.
Currently, groups, including noncharitable, nonprofit organizations, that spend more than $50,000, at least 3% of which is devoted to lobbying in New York, are required to disclose the identities of donors who gave them more than $5,000.
Under the Assembly Democrats’ bill, which is sponsored by Assemblyman Matthew Titone (D-Staten Island), the amounts would be significantly lowered.
The bill, officials said, would require organizations registered to lobby in New York and that spend more than $5,000 to disclose the names of all donors who gave them more than $1,000. They would also have to disclose the exact amount donated and how the funding was used.
Bangor Daily News: Lawmakers try to figure out how to fund Clean Election expansion
Mal Leary
The citizen-initiated proposal, which expands taxpayer funding in races for the Legislature and for governor, was approved at the ballot box in November 2015 but left open where the additional $3 million needed to fund it would come from.
The Legislature is considering its options, including the closure of tax loopholes.
Washington Post: Delaware lawmakers eye campaign finance legislation
Associated Press
The bill to be considered Thursday raises the maximum allowable contribution from a political party to a candidate for state House from $3,000 to $5,000, equal to the maximum for Senate candidates. It also raises the maximum amount an individual can contribute to a political party in an election cycle from $20,000 to $30,000.
The bill also establishes quarterly campaign finance reporting periods, similar to federal reporting requirements.
WAMC Albany: Reform Groups Feud With Cuomo Over Open Leader’s Meeting
Karen DeWitt
“This is a well trod path of secretive negotiations on ethic with an unsatisfying resolution,” said Horner. “Let’s try openness.”
The groups are seeking major changes, in the wake of the arrest and conviction of the two majority party legislative leaders, including banning or strictly limiting outside income, and closing loopholes in the campaign finance system that allow for unlimited contributions in some cases.
Arizona Republic: Elections director keeps bill details from Democrats
Mary Jo Pitzl
He had told Senate Democrats he would share a major amendment to Senate Bill 1516 with them before it came up for a floor debate Tuesday. But, he told The Arizona Republic, he changed his mind when the state Democratic Party used a media account of the bill to do some fundraising last weekend.
And when the attorney for the Senate Democrats inquired about the whereabouts of the amendment the night before the debate, Spencer reiterated his pique in an emailed reply and attached the offending fundraising pitch.
“(Y)ou’ll have to take that up with the Senate,” Spencer wrote. “Unfortunately, the partisan attacks this weekend have foreclosed any concessions I’m able to offer at this point.”
Arizona Republic: Why is Arizona’s elections director playing politics?
Laurie Roberts
Spencer is a Republican elections lawyer, tapped by Secretary of State Michele Reagan to be Arizona’s elections director.
He’s spent close to a year working on a plan to reform Arizona’s campaign-finance laws. The result is Sen. Adam Driggs’ Senate Bill 1516, 54 pages of changes. Among them: a plan to make it easier for dark-money groups to spend even more money than they do now, and an assurance that never will they have to disclose who is bankrolling their political campaigns.
Alaska Dispatch News: Legislature pursues more big cuts to campaign finance regulators
Alex DeMarban
She said if the latest round of cuts is accepted by the Legislature, it will be harder for APOC to regulate fundraising and spending by candidates and campaigns during busy state elections this summer and fall. The agency also enforces disclosure requirements for lobbyists, a job handled by one employee in Juneau, as well as disclosure requirements for public officials.
