Presidential Race
Guardian: Sanders and Cruz won Wisconsin. That’s unlikely to change the race overall
Matt Laslo
Usually after a hard-fought primary battle, candidates stick around the state to watch the results roll in and thank their supporters. That wasn’t the case for poor old Wisconsin, which is likely because after Tuesday’s primary, the race for the White House became a lot more uncertain.
The Republican Party looks to be headed for its first contested convention in decades, while the internal Democratic Party debate over whether to take a progressive turn will continue to rage on – possibly until their own convention this summer.
The Media
FiveThirtyEight: Wisconsin’s Local Media Aren’t As Trump-Obsessed As National Outlets
Joshua Darr
National political reporters may find it difficult to escape the continuous and deafening Trump news cycle on cable news and Twitter, and it is easy for the national media to assume that voters are experiencing the same campaign that they are. This analysis shows that local media seem to be covering Trump as they would other candidates, and are staying true to their primary purpose: reporting on local events of interest. Over the past two weeks, Wisconsinites most often saw Trump in their news when he was in the state. By leaving Wisconsin on March 31 and April 1, Trump lost some of his momentum in the local media at precisely the time when the state’s voters were more likely to turn to local coverage.
Citizens United
Reuters: Corporations may be progressive, but that still doesn’t make them people
Richard L. Hasen
Conservatives were quick to pounce on liberals who cheered the corporations that objected to a Georgia bill that would have allowed some forms of discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) community. It could well have been corporate pressure that convinced Georgia Governor Nathan Deal to veto the bill.
What hypocrites, conservatives charged, for liberals to applaud this corporate political activity, which benefitted the progressive side, and condemn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money independent of candidates to influence their election.
In fact, corporations before Citizens United had an important role to play in the U.S. political system — and they continue to play that role. Thoughtful critics of Citizens United don’t contend that corporations should have no political rights. Rather, they claim, corporations should be able to take political stands but not to turn their immense wealth into disproportionate political influence.
Democracy Now: Could Citizens United Help Foreign Billionaires Buy This Election? An FEC Commissioner Speaks Out
Amy Goodman
ELLEN WEINTRAUB: Well, here’s the problem, Amy. I think that when Citizens United was handed down, a lot of people were somewhat taken aback by the notion of corporations having political opinions that they would need to express. But the court didn’t actually find that corporations are people like human beings, sentient beings with opinions of their own. And obviously corporations don’t get to vote. There are a lot of ways that corporations are different from human beings. What the court said, though, was that when human beings form together in corporations, when they gather together and use that legal framework, they don’t lose any of their constitutional rights.
Independent Groups
USA Today: Big donors can save democracy from Donald Trump
Al Hoffman
Political donors can, despite the stigma, do some admirable things. They help hire eager younger staffers who are passionate about politics. They pay for mailers that remind people to vote. Donors make it possible for candidates to hire intelligent scholars who work on policy and ideas, allowing campaigns to harness the best minds America has to offer.
But can’t all this be done with small dollar donations? Isn’t it nobler to take in $5 million from a million donors rather than $5 million from 5 donors?
Perhaps. There’s incredible virtue in the college student or retiree or construction worker who is willing to invest in our political process. But Americans also need to take a tough look at how these funds are solicited. And they must ask themselves where their donations go.
The mechanics aren’t pretty. Shaking millions of people by the ankles for five dollar donations is expensive. In the GOP field in particular, the small donor industry is something of a self-licking ice cream cone.
Politico: Do Reporters Know They’re Giving Money to Sanders and Clinton?
James Varney
The donations occur through the 700,000-member Communications Workers of America—the umbrella union for guild journalists at the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and other papers, as well as for many TV and communications workers. The CWA has been one of Bernie Sanders’ biggest contributors throughout his Washington career, records show. In December, following a vote by its members, the union endorsed the avowed socialist in his contest with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination…
While this coverage does not necessarily translate into bias, “it’s a real problem for those who cover politics,” said Fred Brown, a co-chair of the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics committee.
“I felt it only confirmed the impression the public has about the media, that they were unbelievably liberal,” Brown said.
Daily Iowan: Stopping shady money in politics
Editorial Board
Of course, a successful campaign requires media exposure, and unfortunately airtime is not cheap. Does that mean candidates are entitled to or justified in accepting the plethora of corporate cash thrusted their way? No.
What is needed is the swift iron-fisted hammer of sanctions upon those behind the ghostly LLCs attempting to orchestrate the 2016 election and an exposure of exactly who is behind each of these “pop-ups” and, subsequently, which politicians have been exchanging policy for cash behind their constituents’ backs.
One thing remains undeniable, and that is the implicit voting power of the democratic citizens and their ability to vote those taking shady money out of office.
Observer: In the Craziest of Election Years, One Artist Formed a Super PAC to Fund Art
Guelda Voien
For his latest project, Mr. Thomas’ has formed his own Super PAC, called For Freedoms (more on the name later) with two collaborators, he told the Observer. The PAC will engage artists, who will make work that will later be published as advertisements (PACs must disburse funds contributed to them in election activities, though that is loosely defined) and eventually displayed in an exhibition at Jack Shainman Gallery’s 24th Street location, opening June 7…
The impetus for the work, also named For Freedoms, was Mr. Thomas’ feeling that so many conversations are dumbed down in our current culture, including those in the realm of politics as well as art, he said.
FEC
American Prospect: Republican FEC Commissioners Say They Will Crack Down on Shadowy LLCs. But Do They Mean It?
Justin Miller
“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.”
But watchdogs with LLC complaints pending before the FEC greeted that comment with skepticism. Some even think last week’s GOP statement explaining the commission’s inaction after the 2012 election could give immunity to all past LLC contributors…
In fact, Ryan sees the potential for last week’s Republican statement of explanation to open up further loopholes in the law. Campaign-finance lawyers could begin to advise clients who want to make anonymous contributions to use other vehicles on which the FEC also has failed to give clear guidance
San Diego Union-Tribune: FEC questions Duncan Hunter’s video game charges
Morgan Cook
The Federal Election Commission is questioning Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, for his use of campaign funds to pay for video games on 68 separate occasions — something the congressman is attributing to a mistake by his son, followed by several unauthorized charges.
Hunter listed the $1,302 of Steam Games expenses on his campaign finance disclosure for 2015 year-end, with the notation “personal expense — to be paid back.”…
Hunter’s spokesman, Joe Kasper, said the congressman’s teenage son used his father’s credit card for one game, and then several unauthorized charges resulted after the father tried to close access to the website.
Shareholder Activism
Wall Street Journal: Investors Push for Fuller Picture of Corporate Political Contributions
Mara Lemos Stein and Maxwell Murphy
Investors, however, are demanding a fuller picture of companies’ political giving and lobbying efforts.
More than 100 resolutions on the subject have been, or could be, presented to the largest U.S. companies, according to ISS Voting Analytics. That figure is based on proposals filed as of Monday, plus a tally of proponents who say they plan to propose similar ones
“Disclosure, board oversight and robust compliance are intertwined and an integral part of enterprise risk management of political spending,” said Bruce Freed, president and founder of the CPA, which advocates greater disclosure of such spending.
Political Parties
Vox: What do parties do? Donald Trump’s candidacy is a good test case.
Julia Azari
The party’s halting and controversial embrace of his candidacy tells us something about the ubiquity of parties and about the limits of their capacity to shape events. But if we treat Trump as primarily a candidate unfettered by party, his candidacy presents the closest thing to a “natural experiment” that we are likely to see — and it’s a good test of our theories about what parties are and what they do.
First, parties provide core principles that constrain the positions candidates can take. Many of the recent objections to Trump from mainstream Republicans — often accompanied by Cruz endorsements — have focused on Trump’s inattention to conservative principles. This is a really important point of distinction between two candidates who otherwise have defied the preferences of the party establishment.
Candidates and Campaigns
FiveThirtyEight: The GOP’s Wacky Delegate Rules Are Helping Trump
David Wasserman
If Ted Cruz wins by a huge margin in Milwaukee’s suburbs, as expected tonight, he’ll get all three delegates from Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District, which cast 257,017 votes for Mitt Romney in the 2012 general election. But in two weeks, Donald Trump could capture just as many delegates by winning a majority of the vote in New York’s heavily Latino, Bronx-based 15th Congressional District, which cast only 5,315 votes for Romney four years ago.
Three weeks ago, Trump won three times as many delegates — nine — at the Northern Mariana Islands convention, which drew just 471 participants.
Welcome to Trump’s “rotten boroughs,” the curious places where mere handfuls of voters (relatively speaking) are keeping him in the hunt for the 1,237 delegates required to clinch the GOP nomination. And the quirks of the Republican National Committee’s delegate math — the ones once considered a safeguard against an upsetting of the party order by an insurgent like Trump — will take on a more pronounced role as the GOP contest enters its late stages.
