In the News
KJZZ Phoenix: Free Speech Index Ranks 50 States On Political Giving Freedom
By Steve Goldstein
In the post-Citizens United era, money spent on campaigns and elections has grown dramatically.
That has led to some declaring that there shouldn’t be limits on how much an individual or corporation can dole out, while others believe it’s time to react with deeper restrictions.
To clarify how states have responded, the Institute for Free Speech has released its first Free Speech Index, which grades the 50 states on political giving freedom.
David Keating, president of the institute, joined The Show to talk about the new index.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Free Speech Doesn’t “Drown Out” Other Voices
By Joe Albanese
This week, Katrina vanden Heuvel penned an op-ed in The Washington Post alleging that “big and dark money” are “drown[ing] out” the voices of ordinary Americans…
Interestingly, the piece never goes into detail when explaining how exactly “big money” manages to “drown out” others’ voices. It cites examples of Republicans outraising Democrats, but again, Democrats are doing just fine. Even in cases where the GOP is better-funded, progressives ought to take solace in the fact that funding alone does not dictate the outcomes of elections. Does the political spending of some come at the expense of others, by taking up airtime? That is less true than ever. Even if some groups have more resources on hand than others, there are more and cheaper ways of reaching out to the broader public than ever before. What truly matters is finding the most compelling message and the most effective means of delivering it. Money alone doesn’t do the trick…
If we view speech as a zero-sum game, then there is nothing to stop the government from placing concrete limits on all types of speech, under the flawed theory that such regulations actually protect free speech rights for others. In short, the notion that there can be too much speech is completely antithetical to the First Amendment and its role in creating an open marketplace of ideas. It is an idea that should be vigorously challenged.
IRS
Center for Public Integrity: Conservative ‘dark money’ group faces IRS complaint over tax filings
By Lateshia Beachum
Americans for Job Security, a nonprofit trade organization that spent millions of dollars boosting Republican congressional candidates, hasn’t filed its taxes in three years, according to Issue One and the Campaign Legal Center, which filed a formal complaint this morning.
Not filing tax returns is a failure to comply with federal rules governing nonprofits, Issue One Executive Director Meredith McGehee said.
“The IRS should not let this, or any other dark money group, off the hook for failing to follow these simple rules,” she said.
Brendan Fischer, director of federal and Federal Election Commission reform at the Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement that Americans for Job Security “has long deprived the public of information about the sources of its funding as it spent tens of millions of dollars influencing elections.”
The Media
Wall Street Journal: Start Worrying about Facebook
By James Freeman
Much of the media has lately been having fun pretending that a company called Cambridge Analytica, making unauthorized use of personal data from Facebook, played an important role in persuading people to vote for Donald Trump in 2016.
In recent trading sessions, the dubious argument has had real consequences as investors have marked down the value of Facebook and other tech companies by billions of dollars. The thesis among sellers of such stocks is that the Washington swamp will now impose expensive regulation to punish Facebook for allegedly being useful to Mr. Trump. Buyers of the stock figure that Facebook can accommodate new rules and may even benefit if regulation erects barriers to new competitors…
Speaking of costs and benefits, Mr. Zuckerberg makes clear in his Vox interview that Facebook is becoming a more aggressive media gatekeeper: …
“A few months later, there were the German elections. And there, we augmented the playbook again to work directly with the election commission in Germany. If you work with the government in a country, they’ll really actually have a fuller understanding of what is going on and what are all the issues that we would need to focus on.”
The idea of Facebook working with governments around the world to filter news is more frightening than almost any commercial use of user data one can imagine.
FEC
Washington Free Beacon: Planned Parenthood Wisconsin Fined for Failing to Report Clinton, Feingold Support
By Joe Schoffstall
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin’s failures to disclose its expenditures were discovered after discrepancies were found in the group’s October 2016 quarterly report. The group had marked $133,305.04 worth of independent expenditures on that report, which covered its finances from July 1 to September 30, 2016. However, $116,898.08 of the $133,305.04 worth of expenditures the group showed in the filing was never submitted in any previous 48-hour reports, a requirement for money put towards independent expenditures…
The commission later sent the group a Request for Additional Information (RFAI), in which Planned Parenthood claimed ignorance to the requirements in its response to the commission…
“This error was due to a misunderstanding of the requirements by filing staff, who mistakenly believed 48-hour reports were not required unless expenditures were made within 20 days of the election,” it continued. “Staff has since been trained on all required reports and how to monitor aggregate amounts so that appropriate 48-hour reports will be made going forward, in addition to required 24-hour reports. Staff has created an internal memo on reporting so that any new staff filing reports will be appropriately trained before filing. This training has been added to a compliance checklist for election related processes.”
Congress
The Hill: Ethics Committee to expand campaign finance investigation of Tennessee Republican
By Juliegrace Brufke
The House Ethics Committee is expanding its probe into Rep. John Duncan Jr.’s (R-Tenn.) potential campaign finance violations.
The decision to conduct a full investigation follows a 90-day review conducted by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) into allegations he misused campaign funds to pay thousands of dollars to friends and family members and accepted improper campaign contributions from his congressional staffers who were later reimbursed.
The nonpartisan ethics watchdog found Duncan “may have converted more than $100,000 from his campaign committee and leadership PAC to personal use.”
The OCE wrote “there is substantial reason to believe” unlawful spending took place since 2008…
In addition to alleged improper spending, the watchdog said thousands of dollars were unaccounted for…
The Office of Congressional Ethics, in a 57-page report that examined his FEC filings over the course of the past decade, cited five separate instances in which Duncan may have accepted contributions from staffers that violate ethics standards, totaling $589.90.
Candidates and Campaigns
CNN: Exclusive: Mueller’s team questioning Russian oligarchs
By Kara Scannell and Shimon Prokupecz
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the US, stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices…
Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and inauguration…
One area under scrutiny, sources say, is investments Russians made in companies or think tanks that have political action committees that donated to the campaign.
Another theory Mueller’s office is pursuing, sources said, is whether wealthy Russians used straw donors — Americans with citizenship — as a vessel through which they could pump money into the campaign and inauguration fund…
Another source added that Mueller’s investigators have asked about a handful of American citizens who were born in former Soviet states and maintain ties with those countries. This person said the inquiry appeared focused on Republican fundraising and how money flows into US politics…
“One could say either money is fungible wherever it [ended] up,” one source familiar with the inquiry said. Or Mueller’s team could take the view that “you made a contribution for a purpose.”
Slate: How to Build a Campaign Finance Case Against Donald Trump and Michael Cohen
By Liam Brennan
On the March 25 episode of 60 Minutes, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission said Donald Trump was in “an enormous legal mess.” The source of that mess, Trevor Potter explained, was the $130,000 payment from Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen to Stephanie “Stormy Daniels” Clifford, which Potter described as “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” Potter went on to argue that the prosecution of John Edwards had been a similar case-an instance in which the federal government brought charges against a politician for failing to disclose a campaign contribution.
The president’s defenders may take solace in the fact that the Department of Justice failed to convict Edwards. But there’s another precedent that Potter didn’t mention: the conviction of former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, which I secured as a federal prosecutor. Taken together, the Edwards and Rowland prosecutions hold important lessons for building a campaign finance case against Trump and his associates.
The States
Governing: The New Fight Over ‘Dark Money’ Campaign Donations
By Alan Greenblatt
Last week, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill blocking local governments from imposing such transparency rules on nonprofit groups. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who has benefited from millions in so-called dark money expenditures, is expected to sign it.
Advocates of campaign finance regulation are not happy…
Critics, however, are concerned that exposing donors will discourage their political participation. Matt Miller, a senior attorney with the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank in Phoenix, says there’s a difference between community foundations and other established nonprofits that want to participate in the political arena and groups that are set up strictly to influence elections.
“These laws are overly broad,” Miller says. “They’re chilling the rights of traditional nonprofits that usually haven’t had to worry about campaign finance laws. You’re casting a broad net over what we would consider legitimate groups to target some bad actors.”
