FEC
Washington Post: Republicans on FEC suggest they may scrutinize mystery corporate donors
Matea Gold
The three Republican appointees on the divided Federal Election Commission have indicated that political donors who give through private companies solely to shield their identities can be sanctioned, signaling that the agency may scrutinize a rash of “pop-up” corporations giving large sums to super PACs…
Lee Goodman, one of the Republican commissioners, said in an interview that contributors seeking to mask themselves through a privately held company or limited liability corporation (LLC) should think twice.
“Six commissioners have now taken the position that closely held LLCs can violate the law under certain circumstances when they make contributions to super PACs,” he said. “Now everyone should be on notice.”
“If you funnel money through an LLC entity for the purpose of making a political contribution and avoiding disclosure of yourself, that is an abuse of the LLC vehicle,” Goodman added.
Free Speech
National Review: The war on free speech on campus and beyond
Kevin Williamson
The First Amendment was expressly designed to protect political speech, the right to criticize one’s government and its actions. The Supreme Court blessedly has reminded such aspiring Torquemadas as Senator John McCain and President Barack Obama of this from time to time, the most famous recent example being in the Citizens United decision. Among the fiercest critics of Citizens United is Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is no surprise: At question in the case was whether the federal government, acting under the guise of “campaign finance” regulation, could censor a movie about Mrs. Clinton — a film that cast her in a poor light and hence constituted “electioneering” subject to federal regulation. Mrs. Clinton is unsure of her own mind on many subjects, but she is quite positive in her belief that Mrs. Clinton should have a very strong say in writing the rules under which Mrs. Clinton may be criticized and under which unwanted and untimely criticism may be a federal crime.
Independent Groups
The Hill: Anti-Trump groups hope a Cruz win in Wisconsin will invigorate donors
Jonathan Swan
Conservative groups are banking on a Ted Cruz victory in Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary to halt Donald Trump’s momentum and convince increasingly dubious millionaires to keep funding the “Never Trump” movement.
“We really see it as a game changer,” said Doug Sachtleben, communications director at the Club for Growth, one of the three main conservative groups dropping millions on attack ads against Trump.
While Republican operatives running anti-Trump groups insist publicly that there are no “make or break” states, there is a growing private consensus that a Cruz victory in Wisconsin would be crucial to convince wealthy conservatives who dislike Trump that their money is not being spent in vain.
Dangers of Disclosure
Washington Post: Why Hillary Clinton is justifiably annoyed by criticism of her Big Oil fundraising
Philip Bump
An activist from Greenpeace approached Clinton to ask if the candidate would “reject fossil-fuel money in the future” in her campaign. Clinton, incensed, replied that her contributions came from employees of oil companies — not the companies themselves — and that she was “so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me.”…
So let’s unpack the question from that Greenpeace activist. The suggestion appears to be that this 0.15 percent of all Clinton fundraising — a percentage that, again, consists of contributions from employees of oil and gas companies regardless of job title — somehow influences Clinton’s behavior. The activist didn’t connect the dots, but the implication is that this 0.15 percent makes Clinton more susceptible to the lures of the oil industry than does Sanders’s 0.04 percent.
Politico: Sanders campaign: Clinton owes us an apology for ‘lying’ remark
Nolan D. McCaskill
“I think she probably owes the senator an apology for that because the senator is not lying about her record,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told MSNBC. “He’s talking about her record. He’s talking about her practices. She obviously doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it lying because you don’t like it.”
Following a campaign event in New York, Clinton angrily wagged her finger at Eva Resnick-Day, a Greenpeace activist, as she rejected the notion that she accepts money from oil and gas companies. “I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me,” she said.
In a statement released by the campaign following his MSNBC appearance, Weaver said it was “disappointing” that Clinton has accused them of something “that just isn’t true,” citing evidence from a Greenpeace report that says she accepts donations from industry lobbyists and bundlers.
Washington Post: Clinton lashes out at Sanders for ‘lying’ about her. Here’s how to settle this.
Greg Sargent
In some ways, the Clinton campaign has a legitimate beef with the ways the Sanders campaign has been less than forthright about what it is alleging about her and her campaign contributions. Sanders has repeatedly stopped short of claiming outright that Clinton’s economic policy positions are directly influenced by Wall Street money — that she has been corrupted by that money — while clearly trying to leave the impression out there that this is what he’s saying.
Lacking further clarification, Sanders’s suggestion about her oil and gas money seems similar to that. The Sanders camp can clarify whether it is talking merely about contributions from workers in these industries, or whether it is talking about contributions from companies to the pro-Clinton Super PAC. And whichever it is, does Sanders think the money is directly influencing her positions on climate change and clean energy?
Shareholder Activism
Acton Institute: Religious Shareholders Stump for Union Super PACs
Bruce Edward Walker
Joining the anti-Citizens United religious shareholders are public-sector unions, riding high after the eight-justice Supreme Court split evenly this week on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The split decision ensures that public-sector unions may continue to collect compulsory union dues. Any honest guesses as to how this money will be spent must include political activity.
For its part, religious shareholder activists As You Sow continue to hold up their end of the bargain, openly working with unions to squelch opposition voices. Although AYS proxy resolutions on corporate political activity have fallen from a record high of 139 in 2014 to 98 resolutions thus far this season, readers may rest assured, as AYS warns in its 2016 ProxyPreview.
Influence
Politico: Watchdog group alleges Trump illegally promised position to Carson
Nick Gass
A political accountability group backed by Hillary Clinton supporters this week filed a complaint to the Justice Department alleging that Donald Trump illegally promised Ben Carson a position in his administration in exchange for his endorsement, according to a document provided to POLITICO on Thursday.
“It has recently come to light that Mr. Donald Trump may have willfully offered Dr. Ben Carson an appointment to his administration should he become president in return for supporting his candidacy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 599,” wrote Brad Woodhouse, the head of the David Brock-backed American Democracy Legal Fund.
Candidates and Campaigns
CNN: Could RNC delegates be bought? Legally, maybe
Tal Kopan and Gregory Krieg
This summer’s Republican National Convention is shaping up to be an all-out brawl for every delegate’s vote — and legally, that could mean plying some of them with gifts, experts say.
There are federal and state laws prohibiting bribery of elected officials — and restrictions on campaigns themselves — but there isn’t much on the books governing what private citizens serving as delegates at their parties’ conventions can take in exchange for their votes on a nominating ballot. And in a fight between Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and perhaps an alternative not currently in the race, every delegate vote will matter.
“I think the legal term is s*** show,” said Ken Gross, an election law specialist at Skadden and former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission. “I think it’s going to be a circus, to say the least.”
The States
Montana Public Radio: Jury: Wittich Guilty Of Campaign Finance Violations
John S. Adams
It took a jury of six men and six women four hours Friday to find Bozeman Republican lawmaker Art Wittich illegally coordinated with non-profit third-party political groups during his 2010 primary election campaign.
Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl, the state elections enforcer who brought the civil lawsuit against Wittich for violations of campaign finances laws, told reporters after the trial that the jury’s decision will have lasting impacts on Montana elections.
“We’re in a different culture now,” Motl said. “A jury of peers is saying that they understand that one candidate’s election has an impact on all of the people of this state, and on all the other candidates that are running…”
Town Hall: Calling on Publius to Stop the Madness
Ken Blackwell
Amazingly, a Republican state Senator, Kurt Schaefer, is leading an effort to require 501 (c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups to disclose their donors. His sweeping amendments to a Senate bill would require all these groups to name their contributors (and expenditures) if anyone who makes spending decisions for the group is a candidate, a candidate’s spouse or – and get this – “has a contract or is employed by a candidate.” Recently, the Wall Street Journal criticized the work of Senator Schaefer, asserting these speech restrictions would have the effect of a c4, like the National Rile Association, to disclose all their donors, if one of their consultants works for a political candidate in Missouri, even if the group is not active in the state.
USA Today: Plan would require politicians to wear their donors’ logos
Fredreka Schouten
A California businessman has an unusual proposal: Require state lawmakers to wear the emblems of their top donors.
The plan, by San Diego Republican John Cox, would mandate that all California legislators display the names of their largest financial backers on their clothing — much in the way a NASCAR driver’s jacket is emblazoned with sponsors’ logos.
As unorthodox as his plan seems, Cox says his paid signature-gatherers already are closing in on 250,000 signatures in an effort to place the “California is not for sale” measure on the November ballot. They are aiming to collect 500,000 by the end of April to ensure they end up with roughly 366,000 valid signatures required.
Alaska Dispatch News: Yes, I was influenced by campaign money
Charles Wohlforth
I was the only sitting politician who would step up and state the obvious. I wrote an affidavit saying it was impossible to dissect my own motivations when facing major campaign contributors as I voted on complex issues hardly anyone else cared about.
I wrote to the court that “I also have become disillusioned with a process in which campaign money often seems to mean more to decisions than debate, deliberation and the public good. In this environment, the efforts of a single person making a great effort not to be improperly influenced by campaign contributions sometimes seems pointless to me.”…
The Republican group challenging the law this time is using the new standards created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case and other rulings. Now the state may need to prove actual corruption or the appearance of it in specific actions to keep the limits at $500 instead of $1,000, and to maintain limits on out-of-state contributions and other rules.
KING5 Seattle: ‘Democracy credits’ initiative in the works
Natalie Brand
The initiative proposes repealing the non-resident sales tax exemption to generate $60 million per biennium. The majority would fund the “democracy credits;” $10 million would go to the Public Disclosure Commission to increase enforcement of campaign finance laws.
The measure also seeks to expand disclosure requirements and tighten restrictions on lobbyists, including their ability to contribute to campaigns. It would also force a three-year “cooling off period” before an elected official could become a paid lobbyist.
“Both political parties are concerned essentially about the influence of dark money. Each side is maybe more concerned with the dark money that helps the other side out, but both sides are concerned about it,” said Republican political consultant Alex Hays, a co-sponsor of the initiative.
