In the News
The Register Guard: Campaign spending limits actually help incumbents
By Scott BlackburnAsk yourself: Would politicians be more likely to support laws that make it easier for challengers to campaign against them, or laws that make it harder? Do politicians want more opportunities for their opponents to criticize them, or fewer? Are politicians more likely to support bills that force them to do their jobs, or bills that allow them to keep their jobs regardless of their performance?If you’re like most Oregonians, you probably laughed out loud at the idea that politicians would ever make it easier for citizens to hold them accountable. So when incumbent legislators tell us that imposing contribution limits in Oregon will bring in new politicians and make for better government, should we believe them?Of course not. Research has shown that campaign contribution limits don’t make government better. They don’t stop corruption. And they sure as heck don’t get “money out of politics.”
Wisconsin State Journal: Complaint alleges Scott Walker is already a presidential candidate
By Matthew DeFourBrad Smith, chairman of the anti-regulation Center for Competitive Politics and a former FEC chairman, said he expects it would be hard to muster four votes from the six-member FEC board to investigate the allegations because they would have to assume the subjects of the complaints are candidates, and they have all said they are not.“There’s First Amendment ramifications,” Smith said. He added that as the campaign finance system has been deregulated in recent years by court decisions, “it’s easier to work around the remaining regulations.”
IRS
AP: IRS chief: Processing backlog of tax-exempt groups is gone
By Alan FramWASHINGTON — The IRS has eliminated a huge processing backlog of groups seeking tax-exempt status, the agency’s chief said Tuesday. Tea party organizations’ claims that they were singled out for tough treatment when they applied for that designation were at the heart of a 2013 controversy over the agency.In remarks prepared for delivery at the National Press Club, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said there once was a backlog exceeding 60,000 applications for tax-exempt status. He said that because of new, faster processes including a shorter application form, “The result is that our inventory of applications is now current.”
Wall Street Journal: IRS Keeping Close Eye on Email Security, Chief Says
By John D. McKinnonThe Internal Revenue Service commissioner emailed a document home early on in his tenure, and within a couple of days got “a visitor from IT security,” he said at a press luncheon on Tuesday.The document was testimony that he was still editing, Commissioner John Koskinensaid. The agency – which has strict rules against using personal computer systems for business purposes – quickly installed an official computer in his home for such tasks. Mr. Koskinen “certainly never discussed IRS business” over his personal account, he added at a National Press Club luncheon. “We’re keeping a close watch” on the agency’s 87,000 employees, he added.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Secret, unlimited donations could boost a Jeb Bush run
By Ed O’Keefe and Matea GoldJeb Bush has given his tacit endorsement to a new group that can collect unlimited amounts of money in secret, part of a bold effort by his advisers to create a robust external political operation before he declares his expected White House bid.The nonprofit group, Right to Rise Policy Solutions Inc., was quietly established in Arkansas in February by a friend and former Bush staffer. The group shares the name of two political committees for which Bush has been aggressively raising money — blurring the line that is supposed to separate a campaign from independent groups.While ideological nonprofits have become major players in national politics in recent years, this marks the first time one has been so embedded in the network of a prospective candidate.
More Soft Money Hard Law: Super PACs in the Electoral Process
By Bob BauerThe Super PAC is the leading issue in campaign finance, and this is only superficially because it is new, exotic and, to many who write about it, alarming. It has without question brought to head the fault line running through the contribution-expenditure distinction and expedited the obsolescence of the Buckley framework. And it is forcing the question of whether we should be concerned in campaign finance about corruption or its appearance, or perhaps about something else. And the answer is “something else.”By now it is generally accepted that massive independent expenditures are not much less corrupting, if “corruption” is the issue, than contributions. Nothing fancy is required to reach this conclusion. If a contribution wins the maker an audience with the candidate after the election, then the independent spender can count on a return call or meeting in which she can press her case. There is nothing necessarily questionable about this after-the-fact communication; no need for elaborate, contemporaneous “coordination” when the expenditures are made.
Slate: How the Founder of the Fugees Became a Big-Time Political Donor Without Anyone Knowing
By Michael BeckelIt was less than a month before the 2012 election when a spokesman for Black Men Vote, a political group backed by hip-hop musicians including Common and Pras Michel, publicly announced: “I want a $500,000 donor.”Three days later, his wish was all but granted.That’s when a cool $400,000 landed in the bank account of Black Men Vote, a super PAC whose goal was mobilizing young black men to support President Barack Obama’s re-election.
Kochs
USA Today: Koch donors step into public view
By Fredreka Schouten“We are proud to associate with the Kochs,” wrote the group, which included John Saeman, an investment firm founder. “The American Dream is simply too far out of reach for far too many people. Yet rather than help address the crisis, politicians from both parties have spent the past half-century making things worse.“We’re working with the Kochs, Freedom Partners and others to reverse this trend,” they wrote.Freedom Partners, a non-profit that does not have to disclose its donors’ names, sits at the center of the Koch’s expansive operation and distributes funds to other aligned organizations. Recipients of money raised through the Koch network range from foundations and research organizations to the grass-roots-focused Americans for Prosperity advocacy group and the Libre Initiative, an organization focused on Latino outreach.
Corporate Governance
Josh Blackman: Could Indiana Block Corporations From Using Corporate Money To Criticize RFRA?
I have absolutely no problem with these socially-conscience corporations expressing their views on laws, and seeking legislative change. I think these activities are, and should be protected by the First Amendment. But, not everyone agrees. If we take seriously the meme that “corporations are not people,” Indiana, or any other state, could pass a law that prohibits corporations from spending any corporate funds to criticize the government. If you wish to petition for a redress of grievances, the law would state, do so in your individual capacity. You cannot do so with any corporate funds. Corporations are not people!Think of Citizens United–the government sough to block a group from releasing a movie during the election season if it was paid for by corporate funds! You are welcome to direct, produce, edit, and market the movie by yourself–just like Tim Cook could have written the op-ed with his personal resources.Corporations are a group of people who assemble to achieve a common goal. Some of these goals may implicate criticizing government or candidates. Apple, and Citizens United alike, should be afforded First Amendment rights.
Bloomberg: Look Up in the Sky! Caped SEC Chief Urged to Curb Campaign Cash
By Dave MichaelsHoly campaign-finance reform, Batman.Foes of money in politics say there’s only one superhero with power to stop unlimited campaign donations by U.S. corporations, and she’s missing in action. This is a job, they say, for Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White.A series of advertisements to be plastered all over a Washington subway station portrays White in a cape and tights. Monsters representing big business are shown pummeling the Capitol and White House with money. The ads, which were paid for by groups including the non-profit Public Citizen, ask: “Have you seen Mary Jo White?”
FEC
CLC: FEC Complaints Against Presidential Hopefuls Show Widespread Violations, Total Disregard for Campaign Finance Law: They Must Take the American People for Fools
“These 2016 presidential contenders must take the American people for fools—flying repeatedly to Iowa and New Hampshire to meet with party leaders and voters, hiring campaign staff, and raising millions of dollars from deep-pocketed mega donors, all the while denying that they are even ‘testing the waters’ of a presidential campaign,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “But federal campaign finance law is no joke and the candidate contribution limits kick in as soon as a person begins raising and spending money to determine whether they’re going to run for office. Bush, O’Malley, Santorum and Walker appear to be violating federal law.”
Washington Post: Delaying your candidacy doesn’t mean you can avoid campaign finance rules
By Ann M. RavelThe news lately is full of reports that some politicians are going to great lengths to avoid being labeled candidates for president in 2016. Some reports have even suggested that these “un-candidates” can more or less do as they please, raising unlimited sums and coordinating with super PACs and other outside spending groups. This view is simply not accurate: Politicians cannot avoid campaign finance laws merely by not calling themselves candidates.The rules are clear: Individuals who are, as the Federal Election Commission puts it, “testing the waters” — considering whether to become candidates — are not in an anything-goes zone. Quite the contrary, they are subject to the same fundraising limits as declared candidates, and they cannot establish and coordinate future support with outside groups.The testing-the-waters rules were conceived as a limited postponement of the reporting requirements, to afford potential candidates some space to determine whether their candidacy was viable. Many individuals reasonably want time to see if they have a chance to win. They may take steps such as commissioning a poll or calling potential supporters — both legitimate testing-the-waters activities. If they decide a candidacy would not be viable, they can walk away.
CPI: New complaints against 2016 hopefuls may be resolved this decade — or not
By Dave LevinthalIndeed, the FEC, which exists largely to regulate and enforce campaign finance laws, sometimes takes longer to rule on complaints than it took the United States to win World War II.Its fellow governmental agency NASA sent its Cassini-Huygens space probe flying past the planet Jupiter (after first swinging it around Venus) in shorter order than the FEC has resolved matters pending against some presidential candidates.
