In the News
National Review: ‘Deep FEC’ Goes After White House Counsel Don McGahn
By Bradley A. Smith
Last month a 2,500-word hit piece by Nancy Cook was published in Politico magazine with signs of Deep State intervention. Cook’s article explores McGahn’s tenure as a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from 2008 to 2013…
Cook builds her case on anonymous comments from “a former FEC lawyer,” “former FEC official[s],” “longtime staffers,” “former FEC staffer[s],” and “former senior official[s].”The quotes and anecdotes that follow those titles constitute nearly all the article’s negative comments about McGahn’s tenure at the FEC…
Wherever these comments originate, the big clue that Cook and her anonymous sources are unserious is the nature of the attacks made on McGahn. He’s “a one-man wrecking crew,” “not going to be a truth-teller,” a “bomb-throwing enabler” – you get the picture. Yet conspicuously absent is any allegation that McGahn behaved unethically, failed to follow the law, or treated staff, investigative targets, or complainants unfairly. Rather, the sources offer the generic griping of people who did not agree with McGahn on policy and were frustrated by his success at the FEC.
JD Supra: United States Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Ad Disclosure Requirement
By Sara J. Agne, Joy Isaacs, Brett W. Johnson
In its recent four-word decision (“The judgment is affirmed.”) Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a campaign finance law requirement that donors backing certain campaign ads must be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC)…
The Independence Institute (Institute), a Colorado-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, challenged the BCRA’s disclosure requirements by bringing suit against the FEC requesting declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to a radio ad regarding an increase in prison costs that mentioned senators by name. The name-dropping of the senators-one of whom was a candidate in an upcoming general election-in the radio spot triggered the campaign finance requirement under the BCRA that the Institute disclose to the FEC any donors supporting the ad. The Institute sought to keep the names of its donors secret, arguing that the disclosure requirement violated its rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment and that the requirement was overbroad as applied to its radio advertisement since the ad was focused on an issue, sentencing reform, and not on the re-election campaign of any particular senator.
The Courts
IVN News: Breaking: FEC Won’t Appeal Ruling against Debate Commission
By Shawn M. Griffiths
The FEC released a press release Wednesday that it will not appeal a federal judge’s decision against current rules governing the Commission on Presidential Debates in Level the Playing Field v. FEC:
“On February 1, the District Court ordered the Commission to reconsider Plaintiffs’ allegations and evidence, issue a new decision on the two administrative complaints and issue a new decision on the rulemaking petition. The Commission voted on February 22 not to appeal the District Court’s decision.”
The FEC has chosen to comply with Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s order and must issue three new decisions related to the administrative complaints that were previously dismissed by the FEC by April 3.
FEC
Bloomberg BNA: Socialist Workers Exemption From FEC Rules Debated
By Kenneth P. Doyle
A unique, decades-old exemption from campaign finance disclosure rules enjoyed by the Socialist Workers Party would end if the Federal Election Commission approves a draft advisory opinion set to be considered March 9.
A request for an advisory opinion (AO 2016-23) to extend the disclosure exemption was submitted late last year by lawyers for the party, known as the SWP, and its national campaign committee. But, the only draft response released by the FEC, so far, would deny what previously has been almost routine renewal over four decades of the party’s exemption from disclosure rules…
Among the pieces of evidence cited by the FEC draft was the fact that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who has identified himself as a “democratic socialist,” raised over $230 million in campaign contributions during his 2016 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders’s ability to raise so much money “calls into question the SWP’s qualification for a reporting exemption,” the FEC draft said…
The party’s disclosure exemption has been in effect since a key court ruling in 1979-three years after the landmark Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo.
San Francisco Chronicle: How gridlock beat the Californian who tried to fix Washington
By Joe Garofoli
Four years ago, when President Barack Obama asked Ann Ravel to serve on the Federal Election Commission, she was seen as one of the last great hopes to save the agency that is supposed to root out the secretive “dark money” political contributions that can poison our politics.
Instead, Ravel returned home to Los Gatos last week after quitting two months before her term was to end, exhausted by the worst of Washington’s partisanship, beaten by its gridlock…
Yet like the best public servants, she couldn’t keep taking a paycheck without being able to make a difference.
“I’m a public servant. I’ve always been a public servant,” the former chair of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission said this week. “I’m there to do what I’m paid to do, and if I can’t do it I need to find another way to do that.”
Her tenure wasn’t supposed to end this way. Unlike most of the party hacks who get commission slots, Ravel is different: She has a serious history as a regulator.
Lobbying
Washington Post: ‘Big Candy’ is lobbying the Trump administration. It’s also holding events at Trump hotels.
By Amy Brittain and Jonathan O’Connell
As U.S. candymakers descended on South Florida for their industry conference this week, they were scheduled to plot lobbying strategy in the “Ivanka Trump ballroom.” A dessert networking event was planned for the “Donald J. Trump grand patio.” Between meetings, attendees were eligible to enjoy outings on a Trump-owned golf course and massages at a Trump spa.
The National Confectioners Association is doing a lot of business with President Trump’s company…
The group said it booked the venues in 2014 and 2015, long before Trump won the presidency. And a spokesman said the sites were chosen for their locations and amenities, not in any effort to seek political favors.
But the arrangement illustrates a repercussion of Trump’s decision to retain ownership of his business during his time in the White House – that he can become financially intertwined with a special interest that is simultaneously seeking to influence policy decisions by his administration.
Congress
CRP: Van Hollen led Congress in contributions from lobbyists
By Niv Sultan
A knack for raising money has helped propel Van Hollen’s steady ascent, which in turn has attracted more donors – many of whom are lobbyists. They like him so much that, in the 2016 election cycle, Van Hollen was the top congressional recipient of campaign contributions from federally-registered lobbyists.
In fact, the median member of the 100 congressional candidates who received the most lobbyist money in the 2016 cycle got less than one-seventh of Van Hollen’s haul…
Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, wrote in an email that Van Hollen “has long nurtured a close working relationship with lawyers and law firms,” and that “[v]ery frequently these same lawyers are also registered lobbyists.”…
Caleb Burns, a partner at Wiley Rein, put forth a straightforward hypothesis.
“The answer might be as simple as geography,” he said. “It’s certainly possible that the fact that Chris Van Hollen’s congressional district bordered Washington, D.C. is a real built-in advantage for him from a fundraising perspective, especially when that fundraising is geared toward Washington, D.C. lobbyists and law firms.”
Trump Administration
Washington Post: Watchdogs ask U.S. attorney to investigate Trump over foreign business deals
By Tom Hamburger
A trio of watchdog groups has asked the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York to investigate whether President Trump has received payments or other benefits from foreign governments through his business interests in violation of an obscure clause in the U.S. Constitution.
The request, sent by letter Wednesday morning to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, is a novel strategy by ethics critics who have been pressing Trump to comply with the Constitution’s “emoluments clause,” which prohibits top officials from receiving payments or favors from foreign governments. Trump’s business empire stretches across the globe. The letter was sent six weeks after one of the groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court making a similar claim.
Trump has said he addressed ethics concerns by turning over management of his business to his adult sons, who’ve said they have separated the family business from their relationship with their father and the U.S. government.
The States
Sioux Falls Kelo AM-FM: More IM 22 replacement puzzle pieces placed
By Mark Russo
The South Dakota House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved at least two replacement pieces for the repealed Initiated Measure 22.
Lawmakers voted 60-3 to create a Government Accountability Board to keep an eye on public officials. An ethics commission was part of IM 22.
Lawmakers also approved, 59-3, limits on the cost of gifts lobbyists may give to elected officials – no more than $100 annually. It was an amended bill from the State Senate that allowed the limit to rise with the inflation rate and removed any limits on meals and entertainment.
House Speaker Mark Mickelson urged his colleagues to move the bill to the Governor and then next year work on food and beverage limits…
Speaker Mickelson has said that the Legislature won’t get IM 22 replacment done 100 percent this session, but most of it will be approved.
KSFY Sioux Falls: Race against the clock in Pierre to get bills passed and budget approved
By Vanessa Gomez
House Bill 1076 was passed earlier this week by the House and Senate. It will create a government accountability board, which is similar to an ethics commission that IM 22 included.
Senator Billie Sutton from Burke said that bill was a win for voters but there are still some other bills that need to be looked at Thursday in conference committee.
Senator Sutton is keeping an eye on Senate Bill 54, which focuses on limiting campaign contributions. But the way it is right now, he doesn’t believe it gives voters what they want.
Another bill that is in conference committee Thursday that Senator Jim Bolin from Canton is keeping an eye on is Senate Bill 151. This legislation looks into the ethics of public officials and how investigations of misconduct are able to start.
Senate Bill 171 will also be in conference committee Thursday to hopefully get some changes made to it to get it passed. If this bill is passed, then an accountability task force would be formed to study campaign finance over the summer. Some legislators believe the issue of IM 22 getting repealed will be put to rest if these bills are passed. Others say parts of these bills don’t address all of the issues.
Asheville Citizen-Times: Campaign money didn’t bring votes – but it bought suits
By Mark Barrett
Money can’t always win enough votes – or at least last year cash didn’t buy a seat representing part of Western North Carolina in the state legislature.
The candidate who spent less won almost half of all contested 2016 General Assembly races in the region, according to a Citizen-Times review of campaign finance records filed with the State Board of Elections.
The winner of four of the nine state House and Senate races with more than one candidate spent less than the opposing candidate. And of the five races won by the candidates who spent more, two featured token opposition. The losing candidate in those races reported nothing spent in one race and only $325 in the other.
“There’s a popular belief that more money equals more probability of victory,” but it isn’t necessarily so, said Christopher Cooper, a professor of political science at Western Carolina University. “You have to raise enough money to be competitive, but you don’t necessarily have to raise more” to win.
Roanoke Times: Del. Sam Rasoul declines PAC, lobbyist money
By Carmen Forman
Del. Sam Rasoul said Wednesday he no longer will accept special interest PAC or lobbyist campaign contributions or any donations of more than $5,000 from individuals or businesses…
The Roanoke Democrat has previously accepted more than $60,000 in campaign donations from health care, beer, wine, telecommunications, education associations and other special interest groups…
At the end of 2016, Rasoul had about $110,000 in the bank, some of which came from PACs and special interest groups. Rasoul will keep that money. The solution isn’t perfect, but is a step forward when it comes to campaign finance reform, Rasoul said.
No Democratic or Republican challengers have emerged to oppose Rasoul in this year’s election, which means he won’t have to spend much on campaigning for re-election in the fall.
