CCP
LLCs and Politics at the FEC
Brad Smith and Allen Dickerson
Historically, treating LLC donations as corporate donations has worked in favor of “strict” enforcement of straw donor prohibition rules. By keeping the corporation and the individual separate, the Commission could easily identify violations of the rules prohibiting contributions in the name of another. For example, in United States v. Danielczyk a corporation reimbursed employees who gave to then-Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. But because the money was really coming from the LLC, not the individual “contributors,” and because corporations are barred from contributing to candidates, the violation was clear. In this case, FEC rules regarding LLCs prevented illegal corporate donations. While this is the opposite result from the current debate (whether LLCs can make legal corporate donations to Super PACs), it was more than reasonable to believe that the FEC’s rules regarding how to treat these groups would remain constant, regardless of result…
Given this historic treatment of LLCs, one shouldn’t be surprised by the Republican Commissioners decision to acknowledge that precedent. It is disappointing, however, that the Democratic Commissioners make no effort to grapple with this background. They do not try to distinguish these precedents from the current complaints. Beyond that, they provide no explanation for why, in their mind, no honest person could possibly have concluded that it was legal to do what was alleged here. To the pro-regulation Commissioners this is a case about evading disclosure rules, pure and simple – knowledge of those rules, the intent of the donors, and FEC precedential rulings are irrelevant. But evasion and avoidance are not the same thing. As the Supreme Court has long acknowledged, taking lawful steps to avoid the effects of a law is perfectly legal. The pro-regulation commissioners simply do not consider, let alone address, whether a reasonable person, relying on past FEC precedent, could conclude that a contribution from a closely held corporation would be a considered a contribution by the corporation, not the individual.
Independent Groups
Politico: White House demands Maryland super PAC pull Senate ad
Edward-Isaac Dovere and Kevin Robillard
In an unprecedented and forceful move, President Barack Obama’s administration is slamming a new gun control-themed ad from a super PAC backing Rep. Donna Edwards for Senate in Maryland, calling it “misleading” and demanding it be pulled down.
The White House always avoids hitting Democrats, even in races where Obama has endorsed an opposing candidate. But the ad, written to hit a nerve, hit the wrong nerve in the White House, where gun control is the most emotional issue from the Oval Office on down. Political director David Simas moved immediately on Tuesday to get the ad hitting Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Edwards’ opponent, taken off the air, acting on behalf of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who’s been leading the administration’s gun control push.
Lobbying
American Prospect: Curbing Corporate Lobbyists: Easier Than You Think
Lee Drutman and Christine Mahoney
For a long time, reform advocates have argued without success that the solution to this perceived “corruption” is campaign-finance reform. While we support reforms that would encourage small donors and provide partial public funding, such changes only go so far. Much of the power of corporate lobbyists comes from their ability to deluge overwhelmed congressional offices with information. Staffers often don’t even know who is funding their bosses’ campaigns. They just want to sound like they know what they’re talking about on complex policy issues, and lobbyists are more than happy to help. This is not so much corruption as it is an imbalanced information overload.
It’s time for a new approach, one that tackles this problem of information. We propose a simple solution that leverages technology to make the lobbying process more transparent and accountable, to improve congressional decision-making, and most of all, make the political system more representative.
IRS
Washington Times: IRS must publicize sensitive tea party data obtained in targeting, Obama administration says
Stephen Dinan
Obama administration officials insist they have stopped targeting but say the groups are at fault for following the misguided IRS requests for information. Now, the administration says, there is nothing the tax agency can do but make the information public as the law requires.
On Thursday, a federal appeals court in Washington will be asked to referee the dispute, just one of the legal problems still plaguing the IRS after its 2013 admission that it inappropriately singled out conservative and tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny.
“They asked for things to which they were not entitled,” said Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for True the Vote, one of the tea party nonprofits that got caught up in the targeting scandal. “This is the fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Influence
Yahoo: ‘Scandal’ Stars to Raise Money for Hillary Clinton
Ted Johnson
Members of the cast of “Scandal” — Guillermo Diaz, Tony Goldwyn, Katie Lowes, Jeff Perry and Bellamy Young — will headline a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in Washington on April 27.
According to an invite, tickets for the event start at $250 per person, with those who raise $5,000 designated as a co-host and invited to a cast reception.
Also scheduled to be at the event are Huma Abedin, campaign vice chair, and Jake Sullivan, senior policy adviser.
“Scandal” executive producer Shonda Rhimes appeared in a recent Clinton campaign ad along with star Kerry Washington and the stars of two other of Rhimes’ shows, Ellen Pompeo of “Grey’s Anatomy” and Viola Davis of “How to Get Away With Murder.” The ad was directed by Goldwyn.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: Trump’s grousing over ‘crooked’ system is just sour grapes
Jennifer Rubin
Cruz is playing within the parameters of the rules, fair and square. Sometimes overlooked is how much this is a bottom-up process. Trump and his sycophants portray “elites” as grabbing delegates that should be his. In fact, the army of Cruz volunteers, over a quarter of a million nationwide, is the essence of grass-roots organizing. The volunteers and the delegates are citizen activists, and lobbyists and “secret money” play a minor role. Campaign finance reformers and people like Trump who hate super PACs should understand that this is the alternative to big donors buying candidates.
Time: How Convention Costs Put Bernie Sanders in a Bind
Zeke J. Miller and Sam Frizell
Sanders has not responded to repeated questions from TIME over several months about whether he would ask the Democratic National Committee to stop raising money from federal lobbyist money or PACs if he is the nominee, as well as whether he would return corporate funds solicited for the convention.
If Sanders did accept such funds to the DNC, it would challenge his own rhetoric. The Sanders campaign circulated a petition to oppose such funding to the DNC shortly after the Party announced its new policy in February, but has not commented on its own campaign contributions or agreed to return DNC funding from lobbyists and corporate PACs.
The Hill: FEC report shows Trump, Clinton have huge spending disparity
Jonathan Swan
Side-by-side, the contrasts between the Trump and Clinton campaign operations are stunning.
Aided by an estimated $2 billion in free airtime from media coverage, Trump’s campaign spent just $33.4 million through the end of February, $24 million of which Trump loaned himself. Clinton’s campaign, on the other hand, spent $129 million through the same period.
During the month of February, Clinton had 783 employees on her payroll, and Trump had 139.
Clinton employs a roster of the biggest names in Democratic politics, including campaign chairman John Podesta; foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan; press liaisons Brian Fallon and Jennifer Palmieri; and President Obama’s longtime chief pollster, Joel Benenson.
Trump, by contrast, employs a team of previously little-known operatives led by his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who has no experience running presidential campaigns and used to work for Americans for Prosperity.
That difference shows up in the bottom line, where Clinton’s spending on her staff during February alone — the most recent figures provided by the FEC — was $2.9 million, nearly as much as Trump has spent on staff since he entered the race in June.
Washington Post: Trump’s own Beltway establishment guy: The curious journey of Don McGahn
Ben Terris
As a possible convention fight looms, Trump has attempted to professionalize his campaign, hiring veteran lobbyist Paul Manafort, who wrangled Gerald Ford’s delegates in 1976. But it’s been years since Manafort lived full time in the District, and he remains a mystery to the K Street set. That makes McGahn the most entrenched Beltway insider in a campaign run by outsiders who owe their careers to Trump — which means McGahn may have the most to lose by appearing in frame with the candidate as he lobs bombs on the nation’s capital.
The chatter among his fellow Republican operatives hit a fever pitch when McGahn made his onstage debut with Trump. “It’s one thing to represent him as a lawyer,” said one, “but why would he lend his visual credibility to Trump in such a way that could damage his reputation for the long term?”
The States
New York Post: Two-faced de Blasio changes tune on campaign-finance system
Yoav Gonen
He’s complaining now about the city’s campaign-finance system, but Mayor de Blasio made sure a decade ago that the system would work — for him.
As a City Council member in 2005, de Blasio sponsored a bill that requires the Campaign Finance Board to treat affiliates of unions as separate entities, allowing each local chapter to donate at the $4,950 maximum rate.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Clock ticking on ethics overhaul
Kurt Erickson
“Candidates get funds for purposes of campaigns, not for running businesses,” Barnes said. “I think it’s a positive change. No single bill is going to be a panacea to all ills in government.”
Thus far, the House and Senate have advanced plans to address the hiring of campaign consultants, the investment of campaign funds and the imposition of a six-month cooling off period before lawmakers can become lobbyists.
In addition, citizen appointees to special commissions would have to disclose more financial information in order to shed more sunlight on whether they are benefiting from their position.
Ann Arbor News: Ann Arbor man vows not to accept campaign donations in bid for state House
Ryan Stanton
Kwasny, who has volunteered locally for the Bernie Sanders campaign, is making campaign finance reform a key focus of his platform…
In contrast to Rabhi, who already has raised several thousand dollars for his campaign, Kwasny said he’s refusing to accept any campaign donations or endorsements, saying Ann Arbor’s seat in the state House isn’t for sale…
He said he won’t engage in massive self-funding of his campaign, either. Rather, he plans to run a low-budget campaign relying heavily on social media and other grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts.
He also vows to run an entirely paperless campaign to be environmentally friendly, so don’t expect to see yard signs or campaign fliers.
Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel: Lawmakers support replenishment of Maine public campaign finance fund
Steve Mistler
The Legislature has given initial approval to a bill to pump money into Maine’s public campaign-finance system, which may be called upon to support the election bids of 262 State House candidates this year.
However, the margin of support in the House isn’t wide enough to overcome an expected veto by Gov. Paul LePage, who fiercely opposes taxpayer funding of political campaigns.
The House voted 81-65 Monday and the Senate voted 26-9 Tuesday to approve the measure, which would quickly provide $500,000 to the Maine Clean Election program before the end of the fiscal year in June and potentially another $500,000 later this year.
Twenty-six of the 65 House Republicans who voted Monday against the early transfer have applied or qualified to run as Clean Election candidates this year. Two of the nine Senate Republicans who voted against the transfer Tuesday also have applied to use public funding in their re-election bids. Democrats have unanimously supported the bill.
