In the News
Event: Phoenix: Dark Money Debate: Is Anonymous Political Speech Protected By The First Amendment?
Anonymous political speech has been a cherished principle since the earliest days of the American republic. The ability to speak anonymously—and to privately support others who speak on your behalf—has played a central role in historical milestones from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s.Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizen United, there has been a new outcry from some critics that the public deserves to know who seeks to influence elections by giving money to private political groups. Describing anonymous giving as “dark money,” these critics want new laws that compel independent groups to give the names and addresses of their donors to the government.On Tuesday, April 28, four legal experts will debate whether this campaign against anonymous giving benefits or harms free speech and democratic participation. Starting at 7 p.m., the debate will held before a live audience at the Cronkite journalism school on Arizona State University’s downtown Phoenix campus. The debate also will be broadcast on the Internet.Debaters: Kurt Altman, national policy adviser and general counsel, Goldwater Institute; Allen Dickerson, Legal Director, Center for Competitive Politics; Tom Irvine, legal expert on election law, ASU Alumni Law Group; Daniel Barr, First Amendment expert, Perkins Coie law firm
Amending the First Amendment
Bloomberg: The Worst Idea in American Politics
By Jonathan BernsteinIt is hard to imagine anything more irresponsible than the campaign by Republican state legislators (and Republican-aligned lobbyists) to hold a national Constitutional Convention just so they can attach a balanced-budget amendment. They have a number of states on board already (the exact figure is up for debate), and may need as few as seven more to unleash chaos.It turns out that Democratic state legislators can be just as reckless. Some of them want a Constitutional Convention, too, their goal being to overturn Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance. Maryland is apparently poised to become the fifth state to issue that call.Why are these efforts so terrifying?
Independent Groups
Pillar of Law: Inevitable Censorship in Democracy21’s Proposed “Anti-Coordination” Law
By Stephen KleinReturning to D21’s recent brief with Campaign Legal, the most shocking part of the anti-coordination crusade is that the overbreadth of such anti-coordination provisions is already apparent: the extensive, Kafkaesqueinquisition (complete with pre-dawn raids by police) already happened in Wisconsin and the case now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. By filing a brief in support of the case’s prosecutors, D21 and Campaign Legal implicitly support extensive, organized-crime style investigations into political activity. Brendan Fischer, an attorney at the Wisconsin-based “reform” group Center for Media and Democracy explicitly supported the raids with a nothing-to-see-here dismissal: “there is no evidence that the tactics used in the search were improper in the context of a criminal investigation.” One would think there is a difference between investigating crimes like drug trafficking, kidnapping, murder, racketeering, and investigating improper political engagement by Johnny and Sandra, but blindness to such nuance seems more and more to be a crux of reform. Red tape is enough of a burden on political engagement that I believe it amounts to its own form of censorship. Regardless, the lengths to which campaign finance investigations now go to ensure the red tape is properly navigated is an undeniable chill on free speech, especially when the law captures conduct like Johnny’s.
More Soft Money Hard Law: Oversimplifying Corruption and the Power of Disgust
By Bob BauerWhat the editorial has to say about Super PAC independent expenditures could be asserted about any independent expenditure. The culprit, if there is one to be found, is Buckley v. Valeo: Citizens United followed its reasoning, perhaps more faithfully than some would like, but the 1976 Court rejected limits on expenditures made without the request or suggestion of, or in consultation with, a candidate. Super PACs are sophisticated consumers now of what the Court offered then. The product for sale remains largely the same. Individuals giving to a Super PAC can go into business for themselves, spending independently without a PAC as go-between. And as Michael Gilbert and Brian Barnes argue, anti-coordination rules won’t operate to limit the quid pro quo corruption believed to follow from unlimited independent spending.
NY Times: Network of ‘Super PACs’ Says That It Has Raised $31 Million for Ted Cruz Bid
By Nicholas ConfessoreA network of new “super PACs” said Wednesday that it had raised $31 million to support Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, a sum that could upend expectations in the race for the Republican nomination and rewrite the political rule book for outside spending.The groups, four super PACs sharing variations of the name Keep the Promise, were established and secured commitments with virtually no warning over the course of several days beginning Monday.Dathan Voelter, an Austin, Tex., lawyer and friend of Mr. Cruz who is serving as treasurer for three of the super PACs, said the four organizations would operate in tandem, all seeking to help elect the Texas senator as president. Most of the contributions have already arrived, he said, and the remainder will be collected by the four groups by the end of the week.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Politico: Moroccan cash flows to Clinton Foundation
By Kenneth P. Vogel and Josh GersteinThe Clinton Foundation is accepting a major donation from a Moroccan government-owned company to hold a high-profile conference next month in Marrakech with the king of Morocco — an event likely to reignite concerns about the foundation’s acceptance of foreign money just as Hillary Clinton prepares to announce her presidential candidacy.Clinton had been scheduled to appear at the meeting in Marrakech, dubbed the Clinton Global Initiative Middle East and Africa Meeting, on May 5-7. But an official with the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation told POLITICO it’s “unlikely” the former secretary of state will join her husband, Bill. He is still expected at the event, as is Moroccan King Mohammed VI.The event is being funded largely by a contribution of at least $1 million from OCP, a phosphate exporter owned by Morocco’s constitutional monarchy, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the event.
Wall Street Journal: Rand Paul Sprints to $1 Million Fundraising Mark
By Rebecca BallhausLittle more than a day into his presidential campaign, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paulhas already raised over $1 million through his website, where the latest contributions are continuously tallied.The quick march to $1 million shows off the grass-roots enthusiasm for Mr. Paul, and puts him about on par with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is targeting many of the same donor circles as Mr. Paul. Mr. Cruz raised $1 million in the 26 hours after his presidential campaign announcement last month, a campaign spokesman said, and raised $4 million in the eight days after.In his campaign, Mr. Paul is expected to rely heavily on the strong network of supporters who backed his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, in his presidential campaigns. He’s also using similar tactics to his father, who was a very successful fundraiser for a longshot candidate.
State and Local
Wisconsin –– Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson sues to keep her job for four more years
By Patrick MarleyAbrahamson, the longest-serving justice in Wisconsin history, filed her lawsuit in federal court in Madison. In it, she contends she should be able to remain chief justice until her term on the court ends in July 2019.If Abrahamson is demoted, “the term of the current, elected chief justice will be disrupted, her constitutionally protected interest in the office of chief justice will be impaired, the votes of her supporters will be diluted and the results of the 2009 election undone long after-the-fact, while the Wisconsin court system’s leadership will become unsettled,” her attorney wrote in the federal lawsuit.In her last race, Abrahamson campaigned as “Wisconsin’s chief” and won a new 10-year stint on the court. Her lawsuit said she would not have sought re-election in 2009 if there had been a question about whether she could remain chief justice.
