In the News
AP: Super PACs rise in influence in 2016 campaign
By Ken Thomas and Steve PeoplesCounters David Keating of the right-leaning Center for Competitive Politics, “I think this is overblown. The line has been drawn: It’s the First Amendment. So if people want to speak, let them.”The primary benefit for campaigns of the super PACs is that they can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for and against candidates, with only a few rules holding them back.Among the rules is a ban on campaigns and super PACs working together. They cannot discuss political strategy or share key information such as internal polling. While candidates can attend super PAC events, they cannot technically ask for the unlimited donations that make the groups such a powerful force.“Most of these super PACs that are going to be spending millions of dollars, I think they have a good understanding of what the law is,” Keating said.
Non Profit Times: Nonprofit Must Disclose Donors, Says Court
By Mark HrywnaCCP will review the 29-page opinion, issued May 1, and could pursue it to the Supreme Court. “The ruling asks us to make an impossible choice: either retroactively disclose donors to the Attorney General or cease asking Californians to support our work to defend free speech,” President David Keating said in a statement. “Ultimately, the Supreme Court may need to reaffirm its longstanding view that people can join groups without reporting their activity to the government, especially for educational purposes, unless the state can provide a specific and powerful reason for insisting otherwise. It gave no such reason in its briefs,” he said.
CCP
It’s Not How Much You Give That Annoys Them, It’s What You Think
By Luke WachobIn an article titled, “How to Push Back Against Billionaire Donors,” Atlantic contributor Peter Beinart urges reporters to “do whatever it takes, consistent with journalistic ethics and the law,” to “scare away” donors to Super PACs. Hang on, it gets worse. He then points to the boycotting of hoteliers Matt Weiderpass and Ian Reisner as “a great example of what such reporting [on political donors] can achieve.”Who are these billionaire oligarchs hiding in the shadows, you ask? Well, Weiderpass has contributed a total of roughly $10,000 to political causes since 2008, according to Open Secrets. Reisner has contributed less than $20,000in total dating back to 1998.The Koch brothers, they ain’t.But a close reading of the article reveals that Beinart is not actually concerned with the money, despite the title of the article, and his bluster about “a cultural guerrilla war” against “oligarchy.” In fact, he never once mentions Weiderpass’s and Reisner’s donation histories, or the political influence they supposedly purchased. Instead, he singles them out for retribution because they “held an event for Ted Cruz” – a candidate to whom neither of them has contributed.
Constitutional and Practical Issues with Texas House Bill 37
By Matt NeseCCP writes to emphasize the high likelihood that H.B. 37 – if enacted – will be challenged in court, and likely invalidated as unconstitutional. Defending the law will cost the state a great deal of money. Further, it will distract at least two divisions of the Attorney General’s Office – the General Litigation Division and the Office of Solicitor General – from meritorious legal work. Moreover, federal law provides for legal fees when plaintiffs must sue state governments to vindicate their constitutional rights. Such awards often amount to several hundred thousand dollars.Thus, H.B. 37, as substituted by the House State Affairs Committee, merits this body’s serious attention before it becomes law. In particular, the measure suffers from problems similar to those that plagued 2013’s S.B. 346, which were criticized in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal,[1] and which Governor Perry vetoed (in large part due to its unconstitutional intrusions upon Texans’ fundamental First Amendment freedoms).[2]
Independent Groups
National Review: Defining ‘Corruption’ Corruptly
By Kevin D. WilliamsonIf, for example, a Democratic bag-man had offered American insurance companies a few dozen pallets of hundred-dollar bills in exchange for their supporting the so-called Affordable Care Act, that would seem to us obvious corruption, and it would indeed meet the quid pro quo criterion. But if the Democrats write the law in such a way as to ensure not millions but billions of dollars worth of benefits for those same insurance companies to buy their support—which is, in fact, what happened—can we call that a crime? The difference between corruption and political compromise is not always obvious, and it need not be obvious if we take a mature view of the limitations of public institutions and understand that we are not governed by philosopher-kings. Human beings do not cease to be self-interested after winning an election, being appointed to public office, or securing a job in a government bureaucracy.The Clinton-Koch comparison, though useful as Professor Lessig presents it, is defective in that the standards we apply to the secretary of the state probably should not be the standards we apply to private citizens who are attempting to influence public policy and making no secret of the fact.With that in mind, the question presented by independent expenditures and the like is not: “What is corruption?” or even “What is legally actionable corruption?” It is: “What ought to be understood as legally actionable corruption in the context of private citizens spending money for the purpose of adding their voices and views to the political discourse?” (Let us keep in mind that the specific question in Citizens United was whether it should be a federal offense to show a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton without government permission.) The Supreme Court keeps repeating the same answer: So long as we have a First Amendment, the line of demarcation is quid pro quo bribery, not ickiness. The question of whether Mrs. Clinton has behaved in a corrupt fashion (short version: yes) is separate from the question of whether Mrs. Clinton has behaved in a criminal fashion (short answer: You’d need an honest DOJ to find out; good luck with that).
Washington Post: Jeb Bush leans on nonprofit group as he prepares likely presidential run
By Ed O’Keefe and Matea GoldA nonprofit group allied with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is playing a more expansive role in his current political operation than previously known, housing several top policy advisers expected to join his eventual campaign, according to people familiar with the structure.At least four people with expertise on energy issues, foreign affairs and communications are working with Right to Rise Policy Solutions, a nonprofit advocacy group that can accept secret, unlimited donations from individuals and corporations.Bush’s reliance on the nonprofit as he prepares for a likely presidential bid puts him on untested legal ground, cloaking who is paying the salaries of his expected advisers. But a polarized Federal Election Commission is unlikely to scrutinize the maneuver, campaign finance experts said.
Star Tribune: Teachers union case could reshape labor law
By Charles LaneHer clever, and convincing, argument is that, unlike labor negotiations in the private sector, bargaining in the public sector inherently touches on policy issues: Wages, benefits and work rules unavoidably affect taxes, spending and governmental efficiency.In this context, mandatory dues amount to “compelled subsidization” of a union’s “public advocacy,” as Friedrichs’ petition to the Supreme Court puts it, which a partial opt-out cannot remedy. And that violates Friedrichs’ First Amendment right to free association and expression, in that it makes her underwrite the propagation of policy views she does not necessarily support.Now you see why this could be a blockbuster. A victory for Friedrichs would stop the automatic flow of members’ money to public-sector unions in 26 mostly blue states whose laws currently allow it. And that could very well include unions representing the police.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Bloomberg: Democrats Eased Way for GOP Mega-Donors
By Jeanne CummingsMore than half of Senate Democrats voted with Republicans in December to increase fundraising limits for the political parties. The change was tucked in the 1,599th page of a 1,603-page budget deal. Given how aggressively Republicans are taking advantage of the new rules, and how little they seem to be benefiting Democrats, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid may regret his support.The Republican National Committee raised almost $26 million in the first quarter of 2015, $10 million more than the Democratic National Committee — even though the DNC has President Barack Obama headlining fundraising events. The RNC owes its advantage to huge donations, which were formally prohibited.More than two dozen Republican contributors have donated amounts in excess of the previous cap of $32,400 for each federal party committee — the RNC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Federal Election Commission reports show that from January through March, 26 big donors poured a combined $4.7 million into those three Republican Party committees.
Breitbart: Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC Money Grab Makes Fools of ‘Citizens United’-Hating Dems
By Lee StranahanClinton’s full-court-press fundraising on behalf of her Super-PAC is also a complete repudiation of Democrat complaints about the flood of dirty money supposedly unleashed by the Citizens United decision. Attacking this case with sky-is-falling alarms about the purchase of democracy by shadowy special interests has been a rallying cry for nearly every Democrat with access to a microphone for years. The attacks are generally as false as they are virulent.The liberal attacks on Citizens United generally focus on “corporate personhood”— an issue settled long before the CU decision — while failing to mention that if the Supreme Court had decided the other way, it would have led to massive First Amendment and freedom of speech issues.What kind of speech issues? Well, how about book banning? Not just for big scary corporations (like book publishers) but for labor unions as well.
Lobbying and Ethics
Washington Post: Amid gridlock in D.C., influence industry expands rapidly in the states
By Reid WilsonLobbyists aren’t having much luck on a gridlocked Capitol Hill — so more and more, they’re opening their wallets in state capitols around the country. Not keeping pace with the surge, say watchdog groups: the disclosure laws that are supposed to keep the influence industry in check.Battles in legislatures between rival energy companies; powerful medical interests like doctors, hospitals and insurers; and even environmentalists and plastic bag manufacturers have fueled huge growth in lobbying spending at the state level, even as spending has plateaued — and even waned — at the federal level.A Washington Post review of lobbying spending in states shows professional advocates reported spending at least $2.2 billion on activity aimed at influencing state legislators in 28 states where data was available during the 2013-2014 biennium — with virtually every state seeing dramatic growth over the last decade.
FEC
RNLA: FEC dysfunction a California dream
By Paul JosseyAs the saying goes you can’t swing a dead cat around Washington, DC without hitting someone—a journalist,reformer, professor, or Chairwoman—complaining about the Federal Election Commission’s dysfunction. (One particularly uninformed reporter stated the Commission had come to a “complete halt.”). The rhetoric about supposed paralysis has heated up of late with Chairwoman Ann Ravel stating the Commission she leads is, despite her best efforts, beyond repair. Henceforth she will take her fight to the people, or at least the sympathetic organs of the New York Times and Washington Post to demonstrate the Commission’s Republican intransigence.Her umbrage stems mostly from some disagreements on highly controversial topics like political committee status. Republican refusals to investigate four conservative nonprofits including Crossroads GPS has convinced her “there isn’t going to be any real enforcement,” at the Commission. And “the problem” is three Republican commissioners voting as a bloc to ensure important matters are “swept under the rug.”
State and Local
Minnesota –– Post Bulletin: Drazkowski leads charge to get rid of campaign refund program
By Heather J. CarlsonST. PAUL — Less than two years after the return of the state’s Political Contribution Refund program, a Mazeppa Republican wants it scrapped.A bill sponsored by Rep. Steve Drazkowski to ax the program is part of the GOP-led House’s tax bill. The southeastern Minnesota lawmaker has his own name for the refund program — “the political welfare program.”“I just sincerely don’t believe the people of our state believe that a priority in the use of their tax money should be providing welfare, subsidies for politicians. And that is exactly what it is,” Drazkowski said.
Connecticut –– CT Post: Campaign finance reform bill languishes
The initiative to bring greater transparency to expenditures by political action committees and nonprofit advocacy groups has state Democrats and Republicans accusing each other of undermining Connecticut’s clean-elections program.“It’s such a roller-coaster ride,” said Joshua Foley, a staff attorney for the commission. “We’re told that it’s dead one day, and then it’s not the next.”The legislation would create a new designation in the state’s campaign finance law known as “coordinated spenders,” who would be prohibited from making independent campaign expenditures through super PACs and 527 groups. The ban would apply to family members and former employees of candidates, as well as any affiliated political organizations created by candidates.
New York –– NY Times: Dean Skelos, New York Senate Leader, Vacates Post
By Thomas Kaplan and Susanne CraigALBANY — The capital was thrown into familiar tumult on Monday as yet another of the state’s leaders fell from grace: Dean G. Skelos, the majority leader of the New York State Senate, stepped down from his leadership post.The announcement followed a week of escalating pressure on Senator Skelos, who sought to stay on as the chamber’s leader despite his arrest last week on federal corruption charges. To succeed him, Republicans selected John J. Flanagan, who, like Mr. Skelos, is from Long Island.“It was the right decision to step aside,” Mr. Skelos said, adding, “I was a distraction.”
New York –– AP: NY legislators put off votes on closing donation loophole
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — The New York Assembly has put off voting on legislation to close the campaign finance loophole for limited liability companies until later in the week.Meanwhile, a key Senate committee expected to consider the measure canceled its Monday session, though staff say it could meet this week.At issue is closing the campaign finance loophole that treats LLCs like individuals who can give up to $150,000 annually while mask identities of those who establish them.
Florida –– Miami Herald: Rep. Daphne Campbell hits fundraising snag
Campbell said she received the checks on March 2, and had no time to deposit them. Because the next day was session, she was forced to hold on to them, she said.“You can’t deposit the money if you’re in session,” Campbell said. “All five checks were given to me on Monday night before session. I couldn’t do anything with them.”She said she waited until session ended, which in the House meant April 28 because it broke early. Two days later, she was able to deposit the money. She said she didn’t know if that meant she was in violation.
