In the News
The Libertarian Republic: These People Had Their House Raided By Cops Over Political Speech
By Joe TrotterThe people targeted in these raids are not violent criminals, they were simply speaking their mind about a pressing public issue. But, unfortunately, Chisholm succeeded where the campaign-finance reform community so often fails: he managed, in practice, to shut down legitimate debate and advocacy by wielding government power in ways that directly contradict the First Amendment.The investigation and resulting gag order forced most of the groups targeted by the raids to shut down. After all, it’s hard to find benefactors when you cannot explain to donors why the government is investigating your organization.Chisholm has since been sued by targets of the raid. The case, O’Keefe v. Chisholm, is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. If the Supreme Court takes the case, the targets of Mr. Chisholm’s abuse of power may finally be granted real justice.
More Soft Money Hard Law: The State of Contribution Limits in a World of Super PACs
By Bob BauerYet the Holmes Court is certain that it is being conned, and repeatedly citing Buckley v. Valeo, it is determined to hold the line: the limit is $2700 per election, at least for some candidates, and that is that. It is unimpressed that candidates fortunate to lack meaningful or any primary opposition may routinely collect $5400 for the general election, having only to manage the timing, and that both the candidates and the contributor are well aware that this is this the amount being given for the one election. It puts no weight on the Supreme Court’s assertion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that “Congress’s selection of a $5,200 base limit indicates its belief that contributions of that amount or less do not create a cognizable risk of corruption.” 134 S. Ct 1434, 1452. Here the HolmesCourt’s concern is to keep up appearances: that the per election structure allocates limits to specific elections within the election cycle, that it does not favor incumbents, and that it bears a relationship to the prevent of corruption.No one would reasonably argue that the prospects for viable contribution limits stand or fall on the issue presented in Holmes. But the credibility of the campaign finance laws is on the brink of ruin, and it cannot help to decline to examine the 1974 structure in the light of experience and contemporary political realities. To do so is not a “veiled” attack on the contribution limits, as the Holmes Court suggests, but an example of what may be necessary to save them. The candidates convinced that the 1974 system no longer works will feel compelled to consider, or they will learn to love, the alternatives.
Wisconsin
Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Goes to the Supremes
EditorialWisconsin’s attempt to criminalize political speech is destined to become a case study on the use of election law to silence political opponents. Whether it is a cautionary tale or a blueprint for nationwide imitation is now up to the Supreme Court.On Friday the Justices will consider whether to hear O’Keefe v. Chisholm, a Section 1983 civil-rights lawsuit brought by Wisconsin Club for Growth director Eric O’Keefe against Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and other prosecutors. The suit charges the prosecutors with a multi-year campaign to silence and intimidate conservative groups whose political speech they don’t like.The Supreme Court has made great strides in restoring First Amendment protections, and the Wisconsin case will test whether citizens can seek federal recourse when they are targeted and investigated for exercising those rights.
Amending the First Amendment
RNLA: Hillary Clinton: The Woman with the Plan—to have a Plan
By Paul JosseyThus on Clinton’s first official campaign day in Iowa she sent (some) progressive hearts aflutter: “We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccounted money out of it, once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment.” Ms. Clinton has yet to flush out the details of how her proposed 28th Amendment will cleanse our politics of the evil greenback. But rest assured its coming, as she declared to the Washington Post, “We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan.” Whatever the plan is, it hasn’t yet made talking-point status on her website.Nevertheless the putative plan raises several issues and even more questions once it arrives from People for the American Way or whatever reformer shop likely tasked with creating it. For instance, “unaccountable” money would presumably not include the bucket loads her Foundation received from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. Nor would it count against the $2.5 billion she is planning on raising, or the $300 million others will pour into friendly Super PACs. It probably doesn’t include the millions that dark-money consortiumDemocracy Alliance will provide to Clinton-votarist David Brock’ s buffet of ‘watchdog’ and ‘accountability’ organizations that will defend her and provide opposition research. And it most likely won’t include reversing the ten-fold political party cap increases her general counsel negotiated in ‘Crominbus’ late last year. What the amendment would do, however, would make it harder for Ms. Clinton’s opponents to challenge her. As with so much of government processes, excessive rules and limits on political speech favor those with the means to get around them: the powerful, the incumbent, the connected.
Gyrocopters & Campaign Finance
Washington Post: Mr. Hughes goes to Washington
By Kathleen ParkerSetting aside for now the debate about security, let’s turn our attention to his proclaimed mission of shining a light on our corrupt campaign finance system and his urgent plea for reform.We tried that, Mr. Hughes, and it created an even bigger mess. Today’s salient political adage goes like this: Behind every successful politician is a billionaire — or several.Most everyone running for president — that would be Hillary Clinton and perhaps 19 others — will likely be asked about this travesty, but Clinton already has made transparency a key issue in her campaign. What rich cake. The former secretary of state who purged her private server of 30,000 “personal” e-mails — and who is otherwise known as one of the least transparent politicians in American history — promises campaign transparency.This tells us two things: Transparency polled well in focus groups; Clinton is adept in the art of political jujitsu.
Kochs Obsession
Politico: Secret Koch memo outlines plans for 2016
By Kenneth P. VogelThe documents detail plans to beef up the network’s state-of-the-art data system, and pay hundreds of staff embedded in local communities across the country in preparation for get-out-the-vote efforts that are unprecedented from a third-party group.The plan comes with a $125 million 2015 budget for Americans for Prosperity, the most robust arm in the network of small-government advocacy groups helmed by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. That’s the most the group has ever spent in a non-election year and the documents call the plan “beyond the biggest, boldest, broadest effort AFP has ever undertaken.” It calls for the creation of new chapters in Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota and Utah — continuing a move by the group to invest in deep red states where it can focus on pushing aggressive reforms to scale back union power and government regulation, rather than winning or protecting GOP majorities.That mission sets AFP and the Koch network apart from the GOP — a distinction to which the briefing documents allude, noting “foes of economic liberty still sit on both sides of the aisle.” In fact, there’s been rising competition between the two as they have jockeyed for major donors this year, according to sources in conservative finance circles. (The Republican National Committee rejected any suggestion of tension with the Koch network, with RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh saying “Both organizations are receiving tremendous support from the Republican donor base as we all prepare to do everything we can do ensure we take back the White House in 2016.”)
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Wall Street Journal: Campaign Finance Reform, An Enduring Election Promise
By Byron TauVowing to fix the country’s campaign finance system is a perennial campaign trail promise, especially for Democrats. But finding ways to reduce the amount of money in politics has bedeviled every presidential administration since Bill Clinton’s.Mr. Clinton promised campaign finance changes early in his first term. Barack Obama ran against big money in politics in 2008, even though he became the first candidate to refuse public financing in the general election since the system was introduced in the 1970s. Mrs. Clinton advocated expanding publicly-financed campaigns during her first run for office.This election cycle, it’s no different. Mrs. Clinton has made decrying the nation’s campaign finance system as broken a theme of her early stump speeches. Speaking at the New Hampshire Democratic Party headquarters on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton said disclosing finances is not enough. “What good does it do to disclose if somebody’s about to spend $100 million to promote their own interests and to defeat candidates who would stand up against them,” she said.
Salon: “You are on 24/7″: The promise — and peril — of campaigning in the age of social media
By Elias IsquithWhen Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (or, more often, one of his flacks) is trying to persuade a reporter or party activist that, as a presidential candidate, he’ll appeal to young voters who traditionally shun the GOP, he often cites his familiarity with social media. At times, in fact, it seems as if Paul and his team think the senator’s ability to use the phrase “social media” without evident discomfort will be enough to make millennials swoon. (My favorite example is when Paul tried to make his joining Snapchat a big event.)But here’s the thing about social media and politics that Paul either ignores or doesn’t understand: Every candidate is doing it. Indeed, as is shown by “Controlling the Message: New Media in American Political Campaigns,” a new edited collection from the University of Texas at Arlington’s Victoria Farrar-Myers and Boise State University’s Justin Vaughn, social media has already become an integral part of every serious U.S. political campaign. If you’re running for office, the question no longer is whether you use social media; the question is, do you use it well?
The Iowa Republican: Braley’s $177,000 Bailout Courtesy of Tom Steyer
By Craig RobinsonBillionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer has bailed former Congressman Bruce Braley out of the remaining debt from his failed 2014 U.S. Senate campaign.On February 18, 2015, NextGen Climate Action Committee, a Washinton D.C. political group funded by Steyer, purchased a list from the Braley campaign for $177,817.60. The massive infusion of funds by Steyer allowed Braley to pay off all of his campaign debts, which eventually will allow Braley to close down his campaign.
NY Times: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company
By Jo Becker and Mike McIntireAs the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
State and Local
Arizona –– Arizona Daily Star: Court upholds campaign finance reporting requirement
By Howard FischerLawyers for these groups have said they are free to hide their donors’ identities because they are simply “educating” voters about the issues and candidates, and aren’t advocating for anyone’s election or defeat.But the appellate court said — and the Supreme Court agreed — any commercial or mailer must be examined in its entirety, including its timing, to determine its real purpose.Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who pursued the case against the committee, said Tuesday’s ruling is a significant victory for voters. He pointed out the commercial in question never explained the source of its funding was a group backing Felecia Rotellini, Horne’s Democrat foe.
Kansas –– The Wichita Eagle: Kansas to new political group: Fix your ‘stupid’ name
By Dion LeflerLed by a Wichita television personality, the new PAC filed to organize under the name “It’s Time to Fix Stupid.”What they got back was a letter from the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission saying: “The name of your political action committee, It’s time to fix stupid, must be changed or expanded upon to more clearly reflect your interest.”“This just seems ridiculous,” said KCTU-TV news director R.J. Dickens, the chairman and treasurer of the PAC. He said the name is directly reflective of what the group wants to do.It bought a website, itstimetofixstupid.com, and plans to use it to hold a “Stupid Tuesday” primary in August to identify what are deemed to be the stupidest legislators in the Kansas Statehouse and to direct campaign donations to those legislators’ opponents. Nominations are already being accepted at the website.
Montana –– Great Falls Tribune: Dark money ban becomes law
By Kristen InbodyBullock, who as attorney general unsuccessfully defended the act at the U.S. Supreme Court, said the new Montana Disclose Act puts the state at the forefront of fair, transparent elections despite the wave of “anti-democratic decisions” from the court allowing “unlimited secret money” to flood elections.
