In the News
WGN Radio Chicago: Illinois State Representative Sara Feigenholtz, Professor Melissa Michelson on James Comey, David Keating on Blagojevich and much more
Institute for Free Speech President David Keating discusses the Supreme Court refusing to hear former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s appeal.
The Courts
Global Legal Post: Exxon challenges suit dismissal claiming allegations are political
Exxon Mobil Corp has filed a notice of appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the dismissal last month of its suit against the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts over allegations Exxon misled investors and the public about its knowledge of climate change and the potential effects that climate change may have on Exxon’s business.
Exxon contends the investigations are political, and are being conducted to retaliate against Exxon for its views on climate change, thus violating Exxon’s constitutional rights. The relief requested by Exxon for the two federal courts in Texas and New York to stop state officials from conducting duly-authorized investigations into potential fraud.
Rejecting Exxon’s claim, the district judge in late March stated the it was formed “on the basis of extremely thin allegations and speculative inferences. The factual allegations against the AGs boil down to statements made at a single press conference and a collection of meetings with climate-change activists. Some statements made at the press conference were perhaps hyperbolic, but nothing that was said can fairly be read to constitute declaration of a political vendetta against Exxon.”
Free Speech
National Review: No, Conservatives Shouldn’t Try to Punish Radical Professors for Offensive Speech
By David French
Whatever its content, though, it was free speech. The constitutional analysis here is pretty darn simple. Under relevant law, a public employee enjoys First Amendment protection when she can show her speech “addressed ‘matters of public concern.'” Then, if her speech passes that test, her interest “in commenting upon matters of public concern” must outweigh “the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” …
When Jarrar spoke about Bush’s death, she was absolutely speaking on a matter of public concern. The passing of the former first lady was national news. And so far there is no evidence that Jarrar’s tweetstorm has done anything more than cause the school a public-relations headache. It hasn’t interfered in any meaningful way with the delivery of the relevant “public service”: a college education at Fresno State…
The president of the university, Joseph Castro, should condemn Jarrar’s speech while at the same time unequivocally defending the First Amendment. But unfortunately, Castro has gone another route, announcing that he would open an investigation, and declaring, “This was beyond free speech. This was disrespectful.”
There is, of course, no “respectfulness” caveat in the First Amendment.
Congress
Associated Press: Koch network success in Trump era draws Democratic pushback
By Lisa Mascaro
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and other senators recently fired off letters to the administration asking for a detailed accounting of the network’s role at various government offices including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The senators name more than a dozen individuals working in the administration with ties to the groups. On Monday, the lawmakers will launch a series of Senate floor speeches turning a spotlight on the influence.
“Americans have a right to know if special interests are unduly influencing public policy decisions that have profound implications for public health, the environment, and the economy,” wrote Whitehouse with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; and Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.
FEC
Daily Caller: Dem FEC Commissioner Accepted Foreign Funding To Attend Event In Europe
By Andrew Kerr
Weintraub, the FEC’s only Democratic commissioner, traveled to Lithuania on April 12 to speak at a conference of international experts about best practices surrounding electronic reporting for political campaigns. The event was organized by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) – a division of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe that carries out election observation in participating nation states.
Weintraub’s travel expenses to attend the event were paid for in full by the ODIHR, a foreign group that came under fire during the 2016 U.S. presidential election after sending observers to oversee polling places…
Weintraub’s staff stripped out the fact the ODIHR paid for the commissioner’s trip to Lithuania and sponsored the event from the FEC’s Weekly Digest, a publication providing the public a summary of the federal electoral watchdog’s weekly activities.
The fact the ODIHR paid for Weintraub’s trip to Lithuania was present in the initial draft of the Digest, according to a source close to the FEC. But Weintraub’s staff requested the disclosure be removed after TheDCNF’s Ethan Barton reported her attendance at the international event forced the FEC to cancel a previously scheduled meeting.
Political Parties
Washington Post: Democratic Party sues Russia, Trump campaign and WikiLeaks alleging 2016 campaign conspiracy
By Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Ellen Nakashima
The Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit Friday against the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization alleging a far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump.
The complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and help Trump by hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material found there.
“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement.
“This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency,” he said.
The suit asserts that the Russian hacking campaign – combined with Trump associates’ contacts with Russia and the campaign’s public cheerleading of the hacks – amounted to an illegal conspiracy to interfere in the election and caused serious damage to the Democratic Party.
Tax-Financed Campaigns
The New Republic: “I Am Those People”
By Sarah Jones
Public financing programs aren’t without controversy. During debate on D.C.’s measure, opponents worried that their tax dollars could promote the campaigns of candidates they found objectionable. With open white nationalists running for office in Wisconsin and Illinois, that concern is not far-fetched. But the counter-argument is strong: Public financing, however imperfect, has been shown to increase the democratic participation of marginalized people. In Seattle, where “democracy vouchers” allow residents to donate $100 to the city candidate of their choice, political donations increased significantly in every income bracket under $150,000 per annum, compared to donations in races that did not accept the vouchers. In races that accepted vouchers as a donation, a greater proportion of donors identified as people of color.
According to Demos, 27 states, counties, and cities now implement public financing of some kind. Public financing doesn’t necessarily keep big donors or outside money from influencing a race. But it does make it easier for low-income people to participate in the democratic process by supporting candidates who represent their interests. Candidates who opted into Seattle’s program ran on strong, progressive platforms that supported the city’s $15 minimum wage and brought attention to the city’s housing crisis.
Independent Groups
HuffPost: 13 Billboards Call Out How Much Money Politicians Got From The NRA
By Sarah Ruiz-Grossman
On Friday, grassroots gun reform group Survivors Empowered launched a campaign called “30 Billboards Outside Cowardly Incumbents,” inspired by the movie “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” The group bought ad space on 13 billboards in nine states, from California to Iowa to Alabama, and are fundraising for 17 more. Each sign lists the name of a local member of Congress and how much money they’ve received from the gun lobby group.
The campaign is meant to highlight the influence of the gun lobby on lawmakers and put pressure on members of Congress to cut ties with the NRA and pass gun control legislation…
The billboards were placed in congressional districts of politicians who had received what the group deemed “substantial” financial support from the NRA. The contribution figures listed on the billboards were from gun reform group Everytown for Gun Safety and represented the total donations the NRA had made to the politicians over their careers.
Candidates and Campaigns
WTSP 10 News Tampa Bay: ‘Zombie Campaigns’ reform ways after 10Investigates series
By Noah Pransky
After a joint 10Investigates/Tampa Bay Times investigation exposed 100 former Congressmembers exploiting a loophole in campaign finance law that allowed them to keep spending campaign donations for years after they left office and stopped campaigning, new campaign filings suggest some campaigns have changed their ways.
Detroit Metro Times: These Democrat women outraised all Michigan Congressional candidates in Q1
By Violet Ikonomova
Three Democrat women running for U.S. House seats raised the most money of any Congressional candidates in the state last quarter, according to campaign finance reports filed with the federal government by this week’s deadline.
The news comes after Michigan Democrats endorsed female candidates for two of the top three state-level offices at a convention last weekend, and as the party’s lone female candidate for governor leads in polls and endorsements.
The money for the Congressional candidates came from across the country and Michigan…
In the 13th District race, where about 10 people have indicated they will run, Tlaib has outraised her closest opponent by a roughly 5-1 margin.
“The motivation for people across the country to support me as a Muslim and a progressive has been, ‘If we want to send a message to Trump and his supporters, it’s to send you to Congress,'” says Tlaib.
The States
VT Digger: House committee debates limiting corporate influence in Vermont politics
By Elizabeth Gribkoff
Introduced in 2017 by Sen. Anthony Pollina, P-Washington, and approved by the Senate in March, S.120 amends Vermont’s campaign finance laws to eliminate direct contributions from corporations and partnerships to political candidates or parties. The bill would rewrite Vermont campaign laws to ensure “only an individual, a political committee, or a political party may make a contribution to a candidate or a political party.” …
In its current form, S.120 leaves intact existing limitations on single-source campaign contributions, which are $1,000 for state representatives and local officials, $1,500 for state senators and $4,000 for state officials like the governor and state treasurer. The state also set campaign spending limits in 1997, but the the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the limits unconstitutional in 2006…
Winters said public financing of political campaigns is the secretary of state-endorsed answer for reducing the reach of corporate money in campaigns. In Vermont, only candidates running for governor and lieutenant governor can seek public financing. The committee asked Winters for more information about public campaign finance programs in other states, such as Maine and Connecticut…
The committee will also take testimony on H.828, a bill sponsored by committee members Gannon and Townsend that would strengthen disclosure rules, requiring candidates, individuals and other organizations who pay for social media ads to identify themselves.
Missoula Current: Complaint against Montana’s ‘dark money prosecutor’ dismissed
By John Adams/Montana Free Press
Allegations that a high-profile state-appointed attorney broke some of the same campaign practices laws he was hired to prosecute have been dropped.
Deputy Commissioner of Political Practices Kirsten Madsen, in a 19-page order issued Friday, dismissed a complaint filed late last year against Billings attorney Gene Jarussi by Republican political consultant Jake Eaton.
Since his appointment by former Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl in 2015, Jarussi has served as a state special attorney general in charge of prosecuting a series of high-profile lawsuits against candidates and political groups accused of illegal campaign activities.
In a complaint filed in November 2017, Jake Eaton, a consultant with the Billings-based Political Company, accused Jarussi and his wife, Karen, of illegally coordinating with Billings Democratic Rep. Jessica Karjala’s 2016 re-election campaign. Eaton claimed the Jarussis facilitated “electioneering communication” that benefited Karjala’s campaign while Karen Jarussi was “acting as a paid agent” of Karjala’s campaign.
