In the News
Belleville News-Democrat: Trouble with money in politics may be when you try to keep it out
By Editorial Board
[T]he Institute for Free Speech created an index to measure how much each state restricts campaign donations and thus restricts political speech. Illinois ranked 29th with a C-minus, mainly for restrictions on individual giving to political parties and political action committees.
Ranking all 50 states allows a look at whether state and federal campaign donation rules help or hurt incumbents, lead to better government and fight corruption…
Part of the problem with Illinois’ political giving is that it gives unlimited donation rights to a party or to a candidate’s relative but not to Joe Average, the study found. Illinois is unique in removing contribution limits when an independent group dumps big bucks into a campaign or when you are facing a rich person funding their own campaign.
Not an issue when billionaires clash.
So how are we doing? We are taxed more than any other state while still being nearly bankrupt, have an Illinois House Speaker who holds a national record for being entrenched and 60 percent of the state legislative races were uncontested in 2016.
Limiting the cash that buys you the ability to spread a dissenting message may be part of our problem.
The Courts
U.S. News & World Report: Iowa Man Wins Lawsuit Over Calling His Hometown Stinky
By David Pitt, AP
An Iowa man threatened by city officials with legal action for saying on a website that his hometown smelled like “rancid dog food” won a free-speech lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge prohibited the city from further threats and awarded him damages.
Josh Harms, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, filed suit in U.S. District Court earlier this month asking a judge to block Sibley officials from suing him.
City officials said they’d sue if he didn’t stop criticizing the town’s odor problem from Iowa Drying and Processing, which makes a high-protein animal food supplement from pig blood.
The company moved to a vacant building in Sibley in 2013 and Harms began publishing his protest website in 2015. In December, the city’s attorney Daniel DeKoter sent Harms a letter saying Harms was hurting the community with his website and threated a lawsuit if he didn’t stop.
Judge Leonard Strand approved on Thursday a permanent injunction agreed to by the city and Harms…
The city also agreed to pay Harms $6,500 in damages and $20,000 in legal fees, issue a written apology and hold First Amendment training for city staff.
Wall Street Journal: Federal Judge Dismisses Exxon Lawsuit Against Climate-Change Probes
By Maria Armental
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit that Exxon Mobil Corp. had filed to stop government investigations into the company’s assertions about climate change.
In a strongly worded opinion, Manhattan U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni on Thursday dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the complaint cannot be refiled.
“Exxon’s allegations that the [state attorneys general] are pursuing bad faith investigations in order to violate Exxon’s constitutional rights are implausible and therefore must be dismissed for failure to state a claim,” she wrote.
In 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed Exxon Mobil, seeking documents about the company’s research on and response to climate change over several decades. About six months later, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a similar demand…
Exxon, in a civil complaint initially filed in Texas, had asked federal courts to stop the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general from investigating whether the oil giant misled investors and the public by playing down the impact of global warming, saying the investigations were politically motivated and sought to “silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.”
Internet Speech Regulation
USA Today: Facebook aim to fight election manipulation misses a big problem, critics say
By Jessica Guynn
After being gamed by Russian operatives during the 2016 presidential election, Facebook says it’s focused on paid ads run by federal candidates or political committees, not on combating negative appeals from Russian operatives on hot-button social issues.
Many of the ads linked to Russian operatives did not call for people to vote for a specific candidate. Instead, Russians, posing as Americans, spread divisive messages to stir up voters and public outrage. Federal law bars foreign interests from making campaign contributions or interfering with U.S. elections.
Rep. Robin Kelly, a Democrat from Illinois and a ranking member of Congress’ IT oversight subcommittee, says she’s pleased Facebook is taking steps to improve disclosure on candidate ads, but says the company is missing a “major vulnerability” on social issue ads…
“The 2016 elections did not feature a problem with candidate ads. The problems were coming from foreign interference in American elections,” UC Irvine law professor and election expert Rick Hasen said. “To say they are not going to target that now indicates they are far from coming up with solutions to the main problem.”…
Though Facebook is pledging to bring “unprecedented” transparency over political messaging, executives refused to say if Facebook supports proposed federal legislation to regulate political ads on the social network and disclose the identities of those who buy them.
Independent Groups
Scientific American: Why You Can’t Learn about Money behind a Pro-Science Political Group
By David S. Rauf
Adav Noti, a former associate general counsel at the FEC, says it would be better if the group backing science candidates as well as other politically active nonprofits disclosed its donors. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re nefarious,” he says. “There are nonprofits who legitimately engage in some electoral activities that are ancillary to their primary goals, and they don’t disclose their donors because it’s not required-and for the most part that’s not particularly problematic,” says Noti, who is currently the director of trial litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based organization pushing for more disclosure of money in politics…
Michael Fried, a professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of California, Irvine, says he’s been donating to 314 Action since it started. Fried is listed a donor to the group’s PAC, but he says he recently gave his biggest contribution-$10,000-to the nonprofit for an education program. “I’m not an oil guru. I’m not an asset advisor. I am a well-paid professor,” Fried says. He says he donates to 314 Action because he believes in the group’s mission and “they have gone from nothing to something in a very short time without getting a big head.”
Washington Post: Cambridge Analytica’s work for Trump campaign, Bolton super PAC prompts complaint to DOJ
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
Government watchdog groups on Thursday called for an investigation into whether President Trump’s campaign and a super PAC controlled by his new national security adviser conspired with an embattled political data firm to violate elections laws.
In complaints filed Thursday with the Justice Department, the watchdog groups allege that the firm, Cambridge Analytica, violated a law barring foreign nationals from participating in U.S. elections. And they accuse the Trump campaign and John Bolton Super PAC of knowing their actions were improper when they worked with the firm…
In their complaint, Democracy 21 and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also named SCL Elections, a company affiliated with Cambridge Analytica. The complaint raises questions that may become relevant to Bolton’s role as national security adviser and the security clearance he may receive in the role, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said in an interview.
FEC
10News WTSP Tampa Bay: FEC may change rules on ‘Zombie Campaigns’
By Noah Pransky
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is now accepting public comment on potential rule changes related to a 10News WTSP/Tampa Bay Times/TEGNA joint investigation, “Zombie Campaigns,” ahead of a possible federal hearing on the topic…
The FEC will accept comments through May 21, 2018. The action comes after Washington-based watchdog Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a petition calling for stricter rules on how former lawmakers spend leftover campaign money, citing the 10News/Times/TEGNA investigation…
The CLC’s petition to the FEC said, “the appearance or reality of dozens of former officeholders using their campaign accounts as slush funds, or to continue paying for expenses that may have been permissible during their time in office but ceased to be so after they left office.” …
The CLC asks the FEC to clarify that such spending is not allowed. Following the public comment period, the commission will consider the petition and either take action or publicly explain why they are not.
SEC
Wall Street Journal: The Morning Risk Report: Will SEC Rule Curb Corporate Political Spending Disclosure?
By Mara Lemos Stein
A provision in the latest U.S. government spending bill bars the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from mandating corporate disclosure of political spending but it won’t stop the trend of increased transparency around the issue, said two advocates for more transparent corporate governance.
Resolutions seeking reports on a company’s political contributions and lobbying spending are ranked one and two on this year’s top 10 list of proxy topics of discussion, according to ISS Analytics.
Congress is “telling the political spending disclosure tide not to come in when disclosure is becoming the norm by company action,” said Bruce Freed, president and founder of the Center for Political Accountability, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization that advocates greater disclosure of such spending…
An SEC rule remains desirable even though investors will continue to push for greater transparency and many companies will meet that demand, said Mr. Freed. “An SEC rule is needed to make corporate political disclosure uniform and universal,” he said. “It’s only a matter of time before that happens.”
Trump Administration
The Week: ICE’s tyrannical campaign to silence dissent
By Shikha Dalmia
In a bid to stifle the backlash against its harsh enforcement policies, federal agents are now targeting high-profile immigration activists in addition to the immigrants themselves. This is an affront to the First Amendment…
In the last 14 months, the American Civil Liberties Union along with various immigration groups has documented about two-dozen instances around the country where Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have detained immigrant activists…
As if all this is not bad enough, the administration is going after not just immigrants, but Americans sticking up for immigrants as well.
Last December, it fined volunteers of No More Deaths, a humanitarian group in Tucson, Arizona, for leaving water bowls in the Sonora desert to reduce dehydration deaths of migrants. Providing such relief is not illegal, so the government slapped them with charges of entering a wildlife refuge without a permit and operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area.
The administration’s campaign of harassment and intimidation to stifle the immigrants’ rights movement shows that it is prepared to trash the First Amendment, do an end run around the courts, and manufacture charges against anyone – immigrant and citizen alike – in the name of catching lawbreakers.
The States
Oregon Public Broadcasting: Reformers Want To Fast-Track A Battle Over Oregon’s Campaign Finance Laws
By Dirk VanderHart
Earlier this month, a Multnomah County judge slapped down new campaign finance rules that limit campaign contributions to $500. County voters approved the new rules, which also cap how much can be spent independently to help a candidate’s chances…
Judge Eric Bloch ruled March 6 that the Multnomah County rules ran afoul of Oregon protections on free speech.
Now, with an appeal of that ruling assured, reformers who supported the changes want to fast-track a final decision. In a little-used move, they plan to ask the Oregon Court of Appeals to pass the matter directly to the Oregon Supreme Court, rather than hearing the case itself…
[S]upporters of the campaign limits want to use the county rules as a springboard for statewide change.
While pushing the rules during the 2016 campaign, supporters of the new limits acknowledged that they might be deemed unconstitutional – largely due to a sweeping 1997 Oregon Supreme Court ruling that swatted aside contribution limits. The goal, the campaign reformers said, was to get the state’s highest court to reconsider that decision.
Indianapolis Star: Judge grills county attorney in free-speech case over sign ordinance
By Chris Sikich
County council candidate Rick Sharp and his attorney, Tim Stoesz, are asking for an injunction to stop enforcing the county’s sign ordinance, saying it is violating political free speech.
The county commissioners voted unanimously Feb. 12 to enact a $500 fine for placing signs in the unincorporated areas they control, largely targeting the right of way along roads…
Hughes questioned Howard about how candidates, real-estate agents, builders and others could learn specifically where they can and can’t place signs, especially in cases where it’s unclear whether the county or one of the cities has jurisdiction…
The judge questioned whether the ordinance would limit political speech.
“When we don’t know where the county right of way is,” Hughes said, “your ordinance has a pretty chilling effect on political speech that is perfectly permitted.” …
Howard said the prosecutor’s office doesn’t have to charge offenders but can determine to do so on a case-by-case basis.
“That makes this even more politically suspect – ‘I like this candidate. I’m going to charge another,'” Hughes said.
Albany Times Union: Appeal to end ‘LLC loophole’ is rejected
By Chris Bragg
In a 4-1 decision Thursday, an appellate court in Albany upheld a lower court ruling dismissing a lawsuit to close the controversial “LLC loophole” …
In the majority opinion, Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry of the Third Judicial Department wrote that the petitioners in the case – New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice and six current or former political candidates – lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.
In addition, she wrote that closing the “LLC loophole,” which allows each limited liability company owned by a person to give up to $150,000 annually in New York elections, was a matter for the Legislature, not the courts…
“Essentially, petitioners ask this Court to direct respondent to rescind its 1996 opinion on the LLC Loophole and replace it with one that would provide what they assert to be a superior application of public policy,” Garry wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by two others. “We may not grant this request without violating the vital principle of the separation of powers.” …
The respondent in the lawsuit was the state Board of Elections.
New York Times: Cuomo, in Writing, Reinterprets Fund-Raising Ban on Appointees
By Shane Goldmacher and Brian M. Rosenthal
Andrew M. Cuomo has rewritten the disclaimer language on his campaign website that describes which of his appointees are banned from donating to his campaign, potentially opening the door for more appointees to contribute.
The new language follows a report by The New York Times last month that showed Mr. Cuomo had raised about $890,000 from his appointees to more than a dozen state boards and commissions. These contributions came despite an executive order Mr. Cuomo signed on his first day in office that was designed to block donations by most appointees.
In response to the story, Mr. Cuomo’s office offered two interpretations of the directive that significantly narrowed the number of appointees who would be barred from donating. The governor’s office first said that it applied only to board members who could be fired by the governor. The administration later added that, in order to come under the ban, individuals also had to hold positions that required them to file financial disclosure reports.
Neither of those caveats appeared on Mr. Cuomo’s own website – until recently…
But government watchdogs said putting the new language on the website was even worse than the reinterpretation itself, because it may make some appointees more likely to donate.
Spokesman-Review (Eye on Boise): Interim committees start meeting today; campaign finance panel reviewing bill
By Betsy Z. Russell
SB 1337 is a refined version of HB 573, which was introduced by the Senate State Affairs Committee and had an informational hearing before that panel on March 16.
Overall, the measure requires more frequent and more detailed campaign finance reporting, extends reporting requirements to local elections, and requires entities doing independent campaign expenditures and out-of-state entities donating large sums to Idaho PACs or candidates to identify the source of the money…
The major differences between SB 1337 and HB 573 are a narrowed definition of “electioneering communication” to just paid communications; removal of a proposed requirement that those doing independent expenditures and electioneering communications disclose top donors and state who is responsible for or authorized the communication; requiring monthly reports for four months before each election rather than year-round, and also monthly while an initiative or referenda petition is being circulated; setting maximum fines at $1,000 vs. $2,500; removing a clause requiring disclosure of boards of directors for out-of-state political committees that contribute more than $1,000; and changing the definition of the point of an expenditure from when it was obligated or contracted, to when the communication reaches potential voters or when a good or service is delivered.
