In the News
Missoulian: Tester’s assault on corporate rights is an assault on people’s rights
By Brad Smith
Seven years after Citizens United, the whole “corporations aren’t people” and therefore shouldn’t have rights bit is getting pretty tiresome. Certainly, our elected officials should be held to a higher standard of debate.
Yes, it’s true that if you’ve never thought about it, the idea that “corporations are people” seems absurd on its face. Corporations are not people, of course. But, for many purposes, it makes perfect sense that the law treats them as such. For example, if the law did not treat corporations as people, they couldn’t be sued. The bigger point, though, is that corporations have rights because people have rights, and people form and own corporations. This is a principle as old as the American Republic, re-emphasized by the Supreme Court as early as 1819 in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. A corporation, the Court noted, “is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” But that didn’t mean that people gave up their rights when they formed a corporation. Rather, the decision emphasized that when people join together to accomplish things, they usually need some form of organization, and shouldn’t have to sacrifice their rights just because they organize.
CCP
By Joe Albanese
As Gallup’s poll shows, the sensationalist rhetoric of activists who want to constrain political speech rights is out-of-touch with mainstream Americans. If voters actually believed “money in politics” is a unique crisis for democracy, they would say so.
This is important because proponents of sweeping new speech regulations – and their cheerleaders in the media – assume that the public is on their side. Gallup’s poll has thrown a bucket of cold water on this argument. Rather than trying to push their agenda with full force, these activists should take pause and re-examine its appeal.
Perhaps if they stopped relying on dishonest euphemisms and simply described their proposals in their own polling, Americans could weigh these issues based on their merits. Of course, making it harder for citizen groups to participate in political debate is rarely a winning argument.
Free Speech
Learn Liberty: Anonymity and doxing in the 1787 ratification debates
By Michael J. Faber
The American founding generation had this crazy idea that ideas mattered more than who espoused them, but politics has a funny way of interfering with even long-standing traditions…
This is the dilemma of free speech and a free press; we either need to facilitate expression, even of unpopular ideas, or we need to stifle ideas that we as a society deem harmful. We cannot have both. Even though anonymous speech may entail a loss of civility, it expands freedom.
The American Founders sided with expanding freedom. The first Congress did the same, in passing what became the First Amendment, and most of the states agreed by ratifying the amendment. Reading the public debates in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and comparing them with our own, it is hard not to conclude that the quality of public discourse has declined sharply. Perhaps the time is ripe for a renewed emphasis on ideas over personalities, if not a return to pseudonymous public writing.
Supreme Court
More Soft Money Hard Law: Contribution Limits and “Standards of Review”
By Bob Bauer
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has scattered few clues about his campaign finance jurisprudence. Commentators have had to make do with his concurrence in Riddle v. Hickenlooper, 742 F. 3d 922 (2014), a case involving a concededly defective Colorado law that discriminated against minor or independent candidates in the structure of contribution limits. Gorsuch’s concurrence could be read to question the more permissive standard of review that the Supreme Court in Buckley established for the defense of contribution limits…
Gorsuch concedes the choice of a strict or other level of review could make a difference: “The various tiers of scrutiny that occupy so much attention in contemporary constitutional litigation-rational basis, strict scrutiny, something(s) in between-may sometimes provide important heuristic help by illuminating the underlying question… ” Hickenlooper at 932…
But the more serious weakness may be the Buckley Court’s reasoning that this is all about speech, when a contribution is also about association.
SCOTUSblog: Judge Gorsuch’s First Amendment jurisprudence
By Tejinder Singh
In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, in 2014, the 10th Circuit struck down a Colorado statute that effectively limited individual campaign contributions to write-in candidates to $200 while permitting donors to give up to $400 to candidates who ran in primaries. The statute had been challenged principally on equal protection grounds, but the First Amendment status of campaign contributions was also front and center. In a concurring opinion, Judge Gorsuch argued that “the act of contributing to political campaigns implicates a ‘basic constitutional freedom,’ one lying ‘at the foundation of a free society’ and enjoying a significant relationship to the right to speak and associate-both expressly protected First Amendment activities.” That language may suggest that Gorsuch is broadly sympathetic to the idea that money in politics is just another form of expression, and would be skeptical of campaign finance limits. On the other hand, Gorsuch cautioned against adopting a level of scrutiny for campaign contribution cases, noting that it wasn’t necessary to do so in order to resolve the case, and that the Supreme Court’s decisions had been unclear about what level of scrutiny applies.
Business Insider: A major Supreme Court case could affect the way you access Twitter and Facebook
By Rebecca Harrington
The justices heard arguments for Peckingham v. North Carolina on Monday, over a law the state passed preventing sex offenders from using social networking sites.
While the law may seem targeted, constitutional scholars warn it could have chilling effects on many Americans’ First Amendment rights.
David Post, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and retired law professor from Temple University, filed a friend of the court brief with 14 other First Amendment scholars. They argue that the North Carolina law violates the sex offenders’ constitutional right to free speech…
In the oral arguments of the case, some of the justices took issue with excluding this group from social media, which has become such a central part of civil discourse and society.
“Even if the New York Times is not included, the point is that these people are being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information.”
SEC
Washington Post: Progressive groups target Trump nominee for SEC chairman, decrying Wall Street ties
By John Wagner
A coalition of progressive groups plans to announce Monday a campaign to derail President Trump’s nomination of Jay Clayton to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, targeting Clayton’s close connections to Wall Street.
The campaign, which organizers say will include a six-figure digital advertising buy, comes amid broader efforts by Democrats to highlight Trump’s choice of financial industry insiders for key administration positions despite his anti-Wall Street rhetoric as a Republican presidential candidate…
Besides the digital advertising campaign, the coalition has set up a website that describes Clayton as “Wall Street’s bailout attorney” and is planning a “national day of action” to highlight what it sees as his conflicts of interest in taking the SEC position…
As a candidate, Trump lumped Wall Street in with Washington as part of a “corrupt” system he pledged to fight on behalf of everyday Americans. Wall Street scenes were prominently featured in an ad his campaign aired in the closing days of the race.
Independent Groups
CNN: Trump political group ensnarled in drama after launch
By Theodore Schleifer
A major outside group intended to serve as the political muscle behind Donald Trump’s nascent presidency is sputtering and potentially splintering as tension tears the nonprofit further from its biggest donor, multiple sources close to the group told CNN.
America First Policies, a group set up this winter to advocate for the Trump agenda, is treading water at best at a time when other, rival groups are staffing up and pushing them toward the sidelines. If the nonprofit does not regain its footing, several Trump allies fear that it could find itself out-punched politically as several looming policy battles invite a raft of spending from Democratic interest groups.
One group source, granted anonymity to candidly assess the nonprofit’s launch, conceded that “it has been slow.”
A month after a splashy group of senior Trump advisers promised “significant” funding, the group has barely lifted a finger to politically bolster the young administration. And as a pricey fight beckons this month over the future of the Supreme Court, the president remains unpopular and seems almost certain to not have the “surround-sound super structure” that the White House once envisioned.
Politico: GOP Senate nonprofit launches Obamacare repeal radio ads
By Kevin Robillard
A major Republican nonprofit is rolling out radio ads in 10 states, pressuring senators to support the repeal and replacement of Obamacare just as a bill starts working its way through the House of Representatives.
One Nation, which is controlled by allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is airing the ads as the second half of a $3 million ad buy aiming to build support for the politically explosive repeal of the health law. The group has already aired television ads in nine states, and is also spending money on digital, print and direct mail…
The spots are the latest pieces of a broader outside-group effort to marshal Republican momentum to repeal Obamacare. American Action Network, a Republican nonprofit focusing on the House (and One Nation’s rough equivalent on that side of the Capitol) has also spent millions on ads pressuring House members to move forward with Obamacare repeal, and other outside groups have gotten in the advertising game as well.
The Hill: Senate Majority PAC names Schumer ally as new leader
By Megan R. Wilson
J.B. Poersch, a confidant of Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), has been tapped to lead Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC that fundraises to help Democrats win control of the Senate.
Poersch has been acting as a strategist for the group while managing the political division of public affairs giant SKDKnickerbocker in Washington.
Now, as the super PAC’s president, Poersch faces an uphill battle against Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections…
“Senate Majority PAC has helped elect Democrats to the Senate for six years,” Poersch said Monday morning in the statement announcing his appointment.
“This mission is more important than ever if Democrats are going to have necessary numbers to fight the Trump agenda,” he continued. “We need a comprehensive [independent expenditure] effort that includes television, digital and grassroots effort to combat the GOP’s ‘dark money’ cash advantage.”
Donors
Roll Call: Top K Street Campaign Donors Already Writing Checks for 2018
By Kate Ackley
The top federal lobbyists who typically donate to campaigns have been increasing their total contributions in recent cycles, fueled largely by bigger limits. The 25 biggest lobbyist donors, alone, gave $5.3 million in the 2016 cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and political money.
A presidential contest typically attracts more political donors, but the 2016 cycle also featured several competitive Senate races with majority control on the line.
The giving to campaigns by the 25 biggest lobbyist donors last year compares with $4.3 million in 2014, $3.6 million in 2012 and $3.1 million in 2010. The Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission helped pave the way for super PACs, which can raise an unlimited amount of money from wealthy individuals and unions.
And in another case, McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014, the high court rolled back aggregate limits on donations to federal candidates.
The States
Gotham Gazette: Cuomo Contradicts Bharara on Prosecutors & Government Oversight
By Rachel Silberstein
At a rare cabinet meeting at the Capitol, Governor Andrew Cuomo told reporters on February 28 that prosecutors already provide sufficient independent oversight over the state’s economic development programs…
With these remarks, Cuomo positioned himself in stark opposition to Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who has said repeatedly that the power of prosecutors is limited and that it’s up to political leadership to do more to police itself…
While Cuomo has overseen annual passage of new government ethics measures in Albany, they have virtually unanimously been seen as small steps, insufficient to adequately break the pattern of corruption and alter the culture that has made New York state government a national laughing stock. Cuomo continues to call for new measures, including more essential reforms that many say would help prevent corruption, not just punish it, but there is widespread doubt about how much Cuomo really wants to see them passed. The governor has been conspicuously quiet in terms of any effort to put public pressure on legislators to pass measures like public campaign financing, strict limits on electeds’ outside income, pay-to-play restrictions, and more.
South Dakota Public Broadcasting: House Committee Shapes State Task Force To Look At Campaign Finance Limits Only
By Lee Strubinger
A house committee has minimized the role of a proposed government accountability task force. Senate Bill 171 now establishes a panel to focus solely on campaign finance limits.
During the same meeting, legislators are also reverting a heavily amended campaign finance law back to its original language.
The original Government Accountability Task Force had three main objectives: review lobbyist restrictions, consider ethics reform, and evaluate campaign finance…
A bill backed by the Secretary of State’s office seeks to clean up language surrounding campaign finance limits. State Senators amended Senate Bill 54 several times, but the House committee reverted the bill to its original language…
The House State Affairs committee supports both Senate Bill 171 and Senate Bill 54. But lawmakers aren’t likely done discussing the merits of the bills. That’s because the last round of changes eliminated a restriction so campaign funds wouldn’t be for personal use.
Spectrum News Kentucky: Campaign finance increase legislation heads to full House
By Nick Storm
Legislation increasing the contributions into political campaigns and political party’s cleared a House committee down party lines on Monday.
Senate Bill 75, sponsored by Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, cleared the House standing committee on elections, constitutional amendments and intergovernmental affairs with an 8 to 4 vote…
The legislation would double the contribution limits from $1,000 to $2,000 to a campaign. If passed and signed into law, contributions to a political party or a campaign caucus committee will double from $2,500 to $5,000.
Thayer also said the bill would give individuals more of a voice after the rise of Super PAC spending following the Citizens United decision.
