CCP
Super PACs Aren’t So Super Compared to the Media
Luke Wachob
Putting a dollar value on “free” or “earned” media can help put in perspective the supposedly tsunami-like sums of money spent by candidates and independent super PACs on the campaign trail. The New York Times recently did just that, and found that the value of media coverage exceeds candidate and super PAC spending on paid advertising for every major current (or former) presidential candidate in the 2016 race.
Discussions of money-in-politics rarely take into account the value of media coverage, perhaps because news organizations are (rightly) not required to report their spending to the Federal Election Commission. Yet media corporations do many of the same things political committees do, such as spend money on public communications that discuss, criticize, laud, or even endorse particular candidates for office.
Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: Don’t Bork Judge Garland
James Taranto
In 1987 and 1991, as in 2016, the president’s party did not control the Senate. Bork and Thomas were both rightly thought to be considerably more conservative than the justices they were nominated to replace, Lewis Powell and Thurgood Marshall respectively. Today once again the court’s balance is at stake: The Times’s Alicia Parlapiano and Margot Sanger-Katz acknowledge that Garland “would make the justice at the center of the court more liberal than at any point in nearly 50 years.”
Thus if Senate Republicans were to follow the Democrats’ Bork-Thomas precedent, they would go all out to humiliate him at the confirmation hearings and probably vote him down on the floor. (Democrats tried this in 2005, too, with Judge Samuel Alito, to no avail as the GOP held the majority then.) Garland is by all accounts a decent and honorable man; he does not deserve such treatment any more than Bork or Thomas did.
The Atlantic: The Nomination of Merrick Garland is a Victory for Judicial Restraint
Jeffrey Rosen
Although Garland felt compelled, along with all of his colleagues, to extend the logic of Citizens United to super PACs, he also takes seriously the goal of eliminating corruption. He wrote the opinion in NAM v. Taylor, which upheld a lobbying disclosure statute against a First Amendment challenge. “Transparency in government, no less than transparency in choosing government, remains a vital national interest in a democracy,” Garland concluded. (Louis Brandeis, who insisted that “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” would have approved.) In 2015, Garland wrote the opinion in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld a ban on federal campaign contributions to candidates, parties, or PACs by government contractors during contract negotiations. Emphasizing the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption, Garland wrote that, “the interest supporting the statute are ones that the Supreme Court has long approved—indeed, endorsed—as legitimate and important grounds for restricting campaign contributions and certain associational freedoms.”
Election Law Blog: Judge Merrick Garland: A Moderate Liberal on Election Law Issues, With Questions About Boldness
Rick Hasen
The harder question is what a Justice Garland would do, if faced on the Supreme Court with the opportunity to overturn Citizens United. On the merits, I have little doubt he would have been in the dissent in the original Citizens United case. But the question is one of stare decisis (respect for precedent) now. Would he be willing to overturn such a case, just a few years after the controversial ruling? My guess is that his would be a struggle for him, less about the merits of the case and more about the proper role of the Justice (particularly if he becomes the new swing Justice) on a Court that is ideologically and politically divided.
BillMoyers.com: Merrick Garland Could Mean a New Chapter in the Fight to Reverse Citizens United
John Light
There is one very important case on Garland’s record, however, that gives reformers pause: SpeechNow vs. FEC, a decision that, along with Citizens United, made possible the current proliferation of super PACs. Citizens United did away with limits on how much third party groups could spend, so long as they didn’t coordinate with campaigns. SpeechNow allowed donors to give as much as they wanted to political action committees — again, so long as those groups didn’t coordinate with campaigns. The decisions, both decided in 2010, were two sides of the same coin. Garland joined the unanimous decision on SpeechNow written by Judge David B. Sentelle.
But Garland’s decision on SpeechNow does not necessarily indicate how he would vote on a case seeking to reverse Citizens United, should one reach the bench, reformers believe. “We personally think that there’s a lot of daylight between Citizens United and SpeechNow,” said Greytak.
Presidential Race
Politico: Ryan huddles with GOP donors
Isaac Arnsdorf, Kenneth Vogel and Jake Sherman
But many of the two dozen or so donors in attendance ― including Singer and Chicago Cubs co-owner Todd Ricketts ― have given millions to super PACs devoted to attacking Trump or supporting his now-vanquished rivals, including Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush. Now, however, it’s becoming increasingly likely that efforts to derail Trump by defeating him in primaries and caucuses are futile.
Thus, talk was expected in GOP finance circles to turn to whether there might be other viable avenues for stopping the anti-establishment billionaire real-estate showman, such as a convention fight, or whether his nomination is a fait accompli, and donors should instead focus their spending on protecting Republicans in other races.
Sunlight Foundation: Hillary Clinton campaign totals 13 fundraisers in foreign countries
Drew Doggett
Clinton’s campaign has held eight total fundraisers in London, including two in March. And her offshore fundraising operation has so far reached Munich with one fundraiser; Durban, South Africa with one fundraiser; and Mexico City with two fundraisers. It is worth noting, that to the best of our knowledge Clinton herself, won’t be attending any of these fundraising parties.
Donors at these events presumably are U.S. citizens who currently live in the countries where the events are held. However, it is also worth nothing [sic] that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) permits U.S. permanent residents (as well as U.S. citizens) to donate to presidential campaigns.
Buzzfeed: Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli Newspaper Keeps Featuring Donald Trump
Rosie Gray
Israel Hayom, the Israeli newspaper owned by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, has featured Donald Trump three times on its cover in the last week…
Not only has Israel Hayom repeatedly highlighted Trump, but Adelson himself has publicly accepted the idea of Trump as the nominee. Earlier this week, Israeli reporter Tal Schneider reported that Adelson, regarding Trump’s candidacy at an gala honoring Rudy Giuliani in February, responded, “Why not?”
“Trump is a businessman. I am a businessman. He employs a lot of people. I employed 50,000 people. Why not?” Adelson reportedly said.
The States
ABC News: Facing Criticism, NYC Mayor to Shutter Nonprofit Group
Jonathan Lemire, Associated Press
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Thursday he has begun shutting down the nonprofit group that was advancing his political agenda, a move that comes just weeks after a government watchdog called for a probe into its actions.
His group, dubbed the Campaign for One New York, was not bound by city campaign finance laws and could accept unlimited contributions from donors. It used that money to promote some of de Blasio’s signature policy initiatives, including universal pre-K and a rezoning plan that would aid in his effort to build more affordable housing.
The rezoning plan is expected to be approved in a City Council vote next week, which de Blasio said is triggering the group’s closure.
“The work is done,” de Blasio said Thursday.
Philly.com: Wolf calls for new good-government changes
Angela Couloumbis
Wolf wants the legislature to tackle five specific changes: ban officials from accepting gifts; require them to detail all sources of outside income, including how much they earn; place limits, for the first time, on individual and PAC contributions to campaigns; require applicants for state contracts to disclose all political contributions; and beef up State Department staffing to oversee compliance with campaign finance and lobbying rules.
Agreeing on the most far-reaching proposals – Pennsylvania is one of the few states that has no caps on the size of political donations – at a time when Wolf and the legislature remain locked in a historic budget impasse seems unlikely.
Washington Times: Embattled lawmaker calls dark-money trial a ‘lynching’
Matt Volz, Associated Press
A Bozeman legislator accused of taking illegal corporate contributions said Montana’s campaign regulator is out to destroy his political future by rushing into a “lynching” of a civil trial.
Republican Rep. Art Wittich has filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court that would put on hold his March 28 trial if it is accepted. Last week, Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl asked the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, calling it a frivolous attempt to delay that makes a mockery of the justice system.
