In the News
NPR: SuperPACS Are Back And They Are More Powerful Than Ever
By Peter OverbyPETER OVERBY, BYLINE: Florida Senator Marco Rubio has a super PAC called Conservative Solutions. Well, technically it’s not his. He can’t coordinate his messages or strategy with it. But the super PAC is gearing up right now as Rubio appears to announce his candidacy tonight. Ted Cruz, the Texas Senator, is already officially in the race, and so is a super PAC – excuse me, his super PACs. There are four of them, networked Keep the Promise and Keep the Promise numbers I, II and III. Claims were leaked that they would pull in $31 million the first week. The treasurer for Keep the Promise didn’t respond for interview requests. The network is just one of this year’s developments in super PACs, apparently meant to give donors more control over the activities they’re paying so handsomely for.DAVID KEATING: Maybe certain donors want to talk about some issues, but they don’t want to talk about others.OVERBY: This is David Keating. He’s an advocate of deregulating political campaigns and the president of the Center for Competitive Politics.KEATING: Could be other donors like certain tactics and want to speak through, say, Internet ads as opposed to TV ads, or maybe they want to do positive ads instead of negative ads.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Walker’s past campaign ideas go against present GOP orthodoxy
By Patrick MarleyIn a 1996 news release, Walker announced he would again push for his plan and seek other changes to campaign finance laws. Among the ideas he backed was requiring candidates to raise at least half their money from within their districts.That was a popular idea around the country at the time — and one that was actively being litigated. Today, Bopp said it was “pretty clear” such measures were not permissible. For instance, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998 struck down an Oregon law that required 90% of candidates’ donations to come from within their districts.Walker’s proposal “probably wouldn’t stand up to court scrutiny,” said Smith, of the Center for Competitive Politics. “Even (at the time) it would have had some real difficulties.”
CCP
Coalition Letter in support of “Fair Treatment for All Gifts Act” (H.R. 1104)
The undersigned civil liberties, free expression, and nonprofit advocacy groups and attorneys who represent advocacy organizations have a wide variety of views on the political spectrum.However, we are united in writing to express our strong support of the Fair Treatment for All Gifts Act (H.R. 1104).Application of the gift tax to 501(c)(4) donors raises serious constitutional questions, and threatens to hamstring smaller or start-up citizens’ groups. This bill would lock-in current policy at the Internal Revenue Service that exempts contributors to 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations from the gift tax. We applaud Congress for taking steps to end uncertainty on the question.Nonprofit organizations play a crucial role in American society by allowing citizens to associate and speak with one voice on a wide variety of important public policy issues. The clarity that would be provided by this legislation would help ensure the continued vitality of these important organizations and would help safeguard taxpayers and nonprofit organizations against unfair or biased treatment by the IRS in the future.
Significant Constitutional and Practical Issues with California Assembly Bill 1494
By Matt NeseIf enacted, there is a high likelihood that A.B. 1494 would be found unconstitutional if challenged in court. A defense of the statute would cost the state a great deal of money, and would distract the Attorney General’s office from meritorious legal work. Additionally, courts often award successful plaintiffs legal fees when they must sue state governments to vindicate their constitutional rights. Such awards often amount to several hundred thousand dollars.A.B. 1494 poses grave constitutional problems because it burdens a particular type of speech – independent expenditures – based solely upon their political content. For decades, the Supreme Court has explicitly forbidden government burdens upon First Amendment activity that are based upon a speaker’s identity or message. A.B. 1494 is a particularly egregious example in that it regulates speech based upon both its content and the type of speaker. Moreover, because it only targets some speakers, A.B. 1494 violates not only the First Amendment, but also the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Amendment Recommendations for California Assembly Bill 594
By Matt NeseOn behalf of the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP),[1] I write to inform the Committee’s consideration of Assembly Bill 594. As introduced, the bill offered a much needed, commonsense change to California’s outdated campaign finance system, and represented a modest step towards fostering an environment in which individuals are encouraged to freely express their political beliefs free of burdensome government regulation. Indeed, the changes proposed in the introduced version of A.B. 594 had earned the endorsement of the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s (FPPC) staff.[2]Regrettably, however, A.B. 594 was amended on April 7, 2015 to remove the provisions in the bill that would have increased existing reporting thresholds, both for committee registration requirements and for “major donor” reporting. While CCP takes no position on the largely technical changes in the current iteration of the bill, the recent amendments stripping the bill of these important provisions are a backwards step that fails to take into account the regulatory burdens of government reporting requirements imposed by the State of California. As originally drafted, A.B. 594’s changes to the existing reporting thresholds recognized the real world effects of inflation and would have helped to alleviate the regulatory burdens imposed on Californians and small citizen groups by current law. At the same time, those changes would have made disclosure information more relevant by capturing only significant contributors while simultaneously protecting the privacy of small speakers.Accordingly, CCP recommends that A.B. 594 be amended again to re-incorporate the increased reporting thresholds present in the introduced version of the bill. Additionally, CCP recommends further amending this measure to allow these disclosure thresholds to automatically be adjusted for inflation, as is done with the state’s contribution limits. This minor change would save lawmakers time and energy in the future when the immutable power of inflation forces these limits to be raised again. Such a change would also assure that small political participants in California would not face greater regulatory barriers to their participation simply because of the passage of time.
Independent Groups
Heartland Institute: In Defense of Private Civic Engagement: Why the Assault on ‘Dark Money’ Threatens Free Speech – and How to Stop the Assault
By Nick DraniasBeing able to speak freely and donate money anonymously has a long and distinguished history in the U.S. The Declaration of Independence, the campaigns for approval of the U.S. Constitution and the end of slavery, and the modern civil rights movement all relied for their success on the right to keep private the identities of persons expressing their opinions or financing unpopular causes.Today, that right is under attack by groups on the Left using Alinskyite tactics and campaign finance laws to silence and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them. The right to participate anonymously in debates over matters of public policy is more important than ever.In a new Heartland Policy Study, “In Defense of Private Civic Engagement: Why the Assault on ‘Dark Money’ Threatens Free Speech – and How to Stop the Assault,” constitutional scholar Nick Dranias notes, “private civic engagement serves a critically important purpose in keeping the marketplace of ideas focused on the message, not the messenger. It also protects the messenger from retaliation when speaking truth to power.”
The Federalist: Inside The Dark-Money Consortium Backing Hillary Clinton
By Paul JosseyRevelations then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had “home brewed” her official emails caught even the most cynical political operatives off guard. The audacious disclosure-evasion plan impugned her already shaky performance at State and produced another black eye for the self-professed “mosttransparentadministration in history.” One can only imagine how her newly announced presidential campaign will evade discussing this and other Clinton-style shenanigans. Yet Clinton-backed dark ops designed to shield the public from larger political goals is nothing new. For a decade, a secret cabal of ultra-wealthy leftists, high-level Democrat officeholders, and progressive operatives—many with deep Clinton ties—has plotted to reshape American society at ritzy, clandestine biannual meetings.The Democracy Alliance—“the DA,” as their contributing members, or “partners,” know it—has to date delivered more than $500 million in undisclosed cash to an array of political, agitprop, and partisan policy shops to sway public opinion and boost progressive candidates. The DA strives to keep its activities secret. It staffs its invitation-only confabs with private security who, along with attendees, receivespictures of reporters who might poke around. No one speaks to the press, and enterprising journalists who get too close are physically escorted out.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Bloomberg: Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Win the Fundraising Expectations Game
By Julie Bykowicz and Jennifer Epstein“The standards she will be judged on are so high and ridiculous,” Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist close to the Clintons, said in an interview. “The expectations are sky high and they’re based on fiction.”In one respect, the low-balling is understandable: Clinton has always been measured against her own star power. In 2007, when she filed her first fundraising report as a presidential candidate, a Chicago Tribune article called the $26 million total “staggering,” then added that it “fell short of the sky-high expectations that had developed for Clinton.”Her aides emphasize that in this campaign—unlike in 2008—Clinton first will ask donors to contribute only for the primary and to hold off on general election donations. Under federal regulations, individuals can give up to $5,400 for Clinton’s 2016 campaign, $2,700 earmarked for the primary and $2,700 for the general. During her first presidential race, Clinton asked donors to max out for the cycle up front. That approach left her with a tantalizing amount of cash she wasn’t legally able to use in what became a brutal primary fight with Obama.
NY Times: Marco Rubio Announces 2016 Presidential Bid
By Ashley Parker and Alan RappeportMr. Rubio made his announcement Monday evening during a speech here in which he presented himself as the embodiment of generational change who can unite the Republican Party’s factions and offer economic solutions for the 21st century.
Politico: Hillary Clinton embraces small donors in early fundraising
By Anna Palmer and Tarini PartiMoney won’t buy a title in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.The former secretary of state isn’t naming a finance chair in her latest bid for the White House, according to several sources close to her campaign. The move is part of a larger strategy of trying to maintain a nimble campaign structure and avoid the mistakes of her 2008 bid when she was criticized for building out a massive and overpaid staff.The effort goes beyond just titles for big donors and bundlers. A campaign document distributed internally Monday emphasized that Clinton will have a “flat fundraising structure” and a “merit-based finance organization.” She is also trying to make even small-dollar donors feel like they are part of the inner circle, including them in the kickoff finance team conference calls.
FEC
CPI: Rapper Pras Michel hit with campaign finance complaint
By Michael BeckelCampaign finance watchdogs have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against hip-hop musician Pras Michel — one of the founders of the Fugees — and a politically active company under his control.In the new complaint, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 argue that Pras violated the law by giving money to a super PAC through his company without disclosing that he was the source of the funds. Federal law prohibits making political donations in someone else’s name, which the groups argue was the effect of the corporate contribution.As the Center for Public Integrity recently reported, Pras’s company, SPM 2012 Holdings LLC, donated $875,000 in 2012 to Black Men Vote — a super PAC that supported the re-election of President Barack Obama in the battleground states of Ohio and Virginia.
State and Local
Maine –– Sun Journal: Bills seeks to tax PAC-to-PAC transfers in Maine
By Scott ThistleAUGUSTA — The top Republican in the state Senate is offering a bill that would charge political action committees in Maine a fee for transferring large amounts of money between one another.The bill, LD 1192, offered by state Senate President Mike Thibodeau, R-Winterport, is the latest in a list of about a dozen bills that are taking aim at Maine’s campaign finance and Clean Election Act.Thibodeau’s measure would require PACs that transfer more than $25,000 between them to pay a 25 percent transfer fee that would be used to help fund the state’s Clean Election system.
