Supreme Court
Sutherland Institute: Potential SCOTUS case could protect supporters of unpopular causes from retribution
By William C. Duncan
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to hear a case that raises similar concerns [to the landmark 1958 decision, NAACP v. Patterson]. It was brought by a conservative legal organization called the Thomas More Law Center. In 2012, the California Attorney General determined it would not accept the Center’s annual 990 report (as it had done for a decade before) unless the Center included confidential donor information.
The Center declined, pointing out valid reasons for doubting that information would be kept confidential. For instance, noting that California places the information online, inviting attempts by hackers to get it – and that, in contrast, the IRS does not post the same information online. In fact, as the Center’s petition points out, the California Registry of Charitable Trusts “negligently posted nearly 1,800 IRS Form 990 Schedule Bs online, including one listing Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California’s supporters.” As the Center notes, “once the State posts donors’ personal information on the internet, it remains public forever and puts donors’ and their families’ privacy at risk.”
FEC
Daily Wire: Bloomberg Campaign’s $18 Million Donation To DNC Sets Dangerous Precedent, Watchdogs Say
By Tim Pearce
A watchdog group has asked federal regulators to close a “loophole” former 2020 presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg used to donate $18 million to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) last month.
Citizens United petitioned the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Wednesday to close the “Bloomberg loophole” that, in effect, allows self-funded political candidates to give money to certain political groups in excess of individual limits placed on donations. The activist group said that the Bloomberg campaign’s donation, almost entirely derived from Bloomberg’s personal wealth, was “more than 500 times greater” than what he could have directly given.
“While Bloomberg’s transfer may fall within the letter of the regulation governing transfers of candidate funds to national political party committees it certainly does not fall within the spirit,” wrote Michael Boos, executive vice president and general counsel of Citizens United…
“[T]here is nothing in the current regulatory framework that would prevent many candidates – whether serious or not – from manipulating the loophole to an even greater degree,” Boos continued. “Wealthy individuals could: declare their candidacy for any federal elected office; contribute untold millions of dollars of his or her own money to the campaign; promptly withdraw his or her candidacy after spending a token sum; and thereafter transfer the balance of the campaign’s funds to the national party committee of his or her choice.”
[Editor’s note: IFS Policy Analyst Alex Baiocco previously discussed this issue in the IFS blog post, “Bloomberg (Again) and DNC Show Why Contribution Limits Should be Eliminated“.]
Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: Joe Biden and the Slow Death of Liberalism
By Barton Swaim
The best evidence that liberals are out of ideas is that they are busy regressing on the ones they had. An obvious example: Liberals since John Stuart Mill have espoused freedom of speech almost as a matter of religious faith, but one now finds astonishingly few people on the left prepared to defend it in a principled way, and quite a few urging governments and corporations to censor unpopular views. Most liberals no longer see much of a problem with campus speech codes. And liberals often seem to believe that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech applies to everything but political speech. Artistic expression, pornography, violent videos, yes; a movie critical of Hillary Clinton-which the government sought to censor in the Citizens United case-no.
Candidates and Campaigns
Intercept: Mike Bloomberg’s Firm That Ran His Presidential Campaign Is Bidding To Take Over Joe Biden’s
By Ryan Grim
The Bloomberg-owned firm Hawkfish, which ran the presidential campaign of Mike Bloomberg, is in serious talks to serve the presidential campaign of Joe Biden, according to sources with knowledge of the ongoing negotiations. Along with Biden’s campaign, the firm is courting a wide swath of other progressive and Democratic organizations, opening up the possibility of Bloomberg gaining significant control over the party’s technology and data infrastructure…
Democratic operatives who’ve been pitched by Hawkfish say that the firm is able to offer extraordinarily low prices by operating at a loss subsidized by Bloomberg, whose wealth dangles as an added benefit that could come with signing the firm. A Hawkfish insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize employment, confirmed that the company is willing to operate at a loss in order to grab control of the party infrastructure, explaining that the firm hopes to offer a fee that would be small enough to entice the Biden campaign while passing muster with federal regulators. (If a firm offers services for less than fair market value, the discount is considered under campaign finance laws to be an in-kind contribution, and thus subject to legal limits depending on the entity collecting the contribution. A presidential campaign can’t accept more than $2,800 from a single individual per election, or any contributions at all from a company.)
“When the objective isn’t money but control, $18 million is incredibly cheap to become the center of gravity for all Democratic political information, which we would be if both Biden and [House Democrats] have to come through us,” the source said, referring to the amount of money the Bloomberg campaign transferred to the Democratic Party last month, in a reversal of his earlier pledge to create a Super PAC in support of the party’s nominee. “And in the current environment, the public sees this as generosity.”
New York Times: How the Virus Crisis Could Help a Red-State Democrat Stay in Office
By Trip Gabriel
Dave Carney, a Republican strategist in New Hampshire, predicted 2020 would be a good year for incumbents up and down the ballot nationally because challengers will have a tough time breaking through to voters who are deeply concerned about their health and jobs, especially if there is a second wave of infections in the fall.
“It’s going to be hard to defeat an incumbent based on normal red and blue teams,” he said.
That may be good news for vulnerable Republican senators and Democrats in the House, who have shifted from traditional campaigning to Zooming town halls with health experts and intense constituent service around small-business loans and unemployment benefits.
Washington Post: For House incumbents, campaigning during a pandemic means providing help
By Paul Kane
The race for control of the U.S. House has become a frozen-in-time moment where incumbents and challengers alike are relegated to their homes unsure of how their campaigns will unfold.
Instead of the normal early jockeying, lawmakers have devoted almost all their energy to constituent-service operations, trying to help local hospitals and businesses through the health and economic crises…
Fundraising has come to a near standstill for congressional candidates, something that might help Democratic incumbents, including nearly three dozen of whom had banked more than $1 million by last fall.
Traditional events to raise campaign cash, like dinners with 50 or so supporters on fundraising swings through Washington, are prohibited under health guidelines by federal and local officials…
Some Republican challengers have turned to their own version of constituent services during this paralyzed state of their campaigns.
The States
Detroit News: After lawsuit, Whitmer clarifies protesting allowed under stay-home order
By Beth LeBlanc
A week after police ticketed a man protesting outside a Detroit abortion clinic, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer clarified her stay-home order to exempt those engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment.
Andrew Belanger filed a federal lawsuit against Whitmer and the Detroit Police Department shortly after the citation. Belanger would consider the goals of the lawsuit “accomplished” if the city agreed to dismiss the citation, said Robert Muise, a lawyer for Belanger…
On April 3, Whitmer’s office said the governor had carefully considered the orders and was “confident that these actions are lawful and necessary to protect the health and safety of Michiganders during this unprecedented public health emergency.”
But on Tuesday her office clarified online that “persons may engage in expressive activities” so long as they adhered to social distancing measures.
The Tuesday addendum “made clear what was always the case: that the constitutional protections remain in place and the governor is fully committed to protecting them,” Whitmer spokeswoman Tiffany Brown said Friday…
Belanger was cited by Detroit police officer while “preaching, holding a pro-life sign and practicing social distancing” outside the Scotsdale Women’s Center in Detroit on March 31, according to the lawsuit.
FlaPol: Campaign reports confirm Margaret Good violated state election law again
By Jacob Ogles
Campaign expense reports reveal a state political committee financed a coronavirus town hall for Rep. Margaret Good in March.
New Day Florida, an electioneering committee, spent $1,500 for the event, which was promoted by Good on her official social media.
That’s a problem because the committee can only legally spend money influencing state elections. It can’t conduct social welfare efforts, and it can’t support a federal campaign. But Good announced last year she’s running for Congress against U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan.
It’s final validation of missteps with multiple coronavirus response activities conducted by Good, apparently in service of her statehouse duties.
It’s not illegal for a state campaign or electioneering committee to promote a state candidate’s work in office if they are running for state office. But Good made clear she’s not running for another term in the state House.
Other congressional candidates, including her opponent, in contrast, funded public service style campaign materials on the coronavirus pandemic with federal campaign accounts.
The glaring expenditure came to light less than two weeks after the campaign scrambled to explain away a different effort attributed to New Day Florida.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Pandemic could lessen Georgia legislators’ incumbency advantage
By James Salzer
The Georgia General Assembly decided about 30 years ago that letting members of the House and Senate raise campaign money during legislative sessions wasn’t a good idea. It looked unseemly if, for instance, lobbyists give a lawmaker a check at the same time they are asking for his or her vote on legislation or funding in the budget. So they banned it.
For years lawmakers and their PACs got around the limits by hosting fundraisers up to the Sunday before the session started because, under the law, they didn’t have to report who donated to them until after the session was over. That too was changed, and now they must report those January, pre-session contributions each February. That gives the public some idea of who is trying to influence lawmakers before most of the big votes occur during the session.
In writing those laws, legislators never contemplated a global pandemic that would force a suspension of a legislative session, preventing them from raising money for additional months and giving an advantage to their opponents. Politicians typically don’t like to give challengers an inch.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Ethics panel to consider current ban on Georgia lawmakers raising money during CV suspension
By James Salzer
Georgia’s ethics commission may next week consider allowing state lawmakers to raise campaign money while the 2020 General Assembly session is suspended due to the coronavirus, something that has so-far been outlawed.
That could be a blow to candidates challenging more than three dozen incumbents in the June Republican and Democratic primaries. Currently, those challengers can raise campaign money while the incumbents can’t.
The commission is set to meet Tuesday to discuss two advisory opinions on the campaign fundraising ban for incumbents, but they are also likely to discuss whether to keep the ban in place.
The meeting was called the day after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the ban may put incumbents in the fairly unusual position of being outspent by challengers in the primaries.
One of the advisory opinions essentially restates that the ban is in effect, the other that incumbents can use their own money to pay campaign expenses during the suspension and then be reimbursed after the session officially ends.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Kemp urged to suspend Georgia’s anti-mask law to fight coronavirus
By Greg Bluestein
Gov. Brian Kemp is facing calls to suspend a little-known state law adopted nearly 70 years ago to combat the Ku Klux Klan to clear the way for more Georgians to wear protective masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus…
Kemp said through a spokeswoman that he is considering his options. Using emergency powers he recently extended, he has the power to suspend state laws if deemed necessary to stem the outbreak…
Similar anti-mask laws have been adopted by about a dozen states, most aimed at weakening the KKK in the middle of the 20th century. Georgia’s version was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 1990 after a Klansman donned a hood on the Lawrenceville Square, citing his First Amendment rights.
Over the years, Georgia’s anti-mask law has mostly been used to target KKK demonstrations, though it has also been employed to arrest demonstrators objecting to white power groups. Authorities cited the law in the 2018 arrests of several demonstrators who gathered in Newnan to protest a neo-Nazi rally.
In a strange turn, it was also invoked ahead of a press conference in 2017 at the Gold Dome, when supporters of then-Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle threatened to hire performers in circus masks to interrupt a rival’s event. The clowns never showed up.
AZ Central: If grocery clerks are essential to state operations, why isn’t Arizona’s Legislature?
By Laurie Roberts
The coronavirus has left Arizona voters unable to exercise their constitutional right to make laws by citizen initiative.
The campaign to Outlaw Dirty Money, for example, was on track to qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot, giving voters the chance to at long last require the disclosure of the major “dark money” donors who anonymously are trying to buy Arizona’s elections.
It’s a wildly popular idea, with 91% of voters in Tempe and 85% of voters in Phoenix approving local dark money ordinances in 2018.
One hundred percent of Arizona voters ought to have the same opportunity.
The novel coronavirus, however, has stopped the movement in its tracks, leaving Outlaw Dirty Money roughly 80,000 short of the 356,467 signatures it needs…
And the clock is ticking. Petitions are due July 2…
Six of this year’s initiative campaigns have petitioned the courts to allow for online petition gathering but that’s a long shot.
The Legislature can – and should – protect our rights by passing emergency legislation allowing for initiatives to collect signatures the same way that state and legislative candidates already can collect them.
Online.
