Independent Groups
Federalist: Trump Proves Super PACs Can’t Buy Elections, But Free Media Can
Daniel Payne
But if Super PACs can’t unduly influence elections—if it’s all just a fever dream in Bernie Sanders’s head—that doesn’t mean our electoral process can’t be wildly skewed due to certain types of campaign expenditures. Donald Trump has proven this hand over fist. How? Because of his overwhelming advantage with “earned media,” or news and commentary coverage focusing on his campaign. During this election season, Trump has received a staggering nearly $2 billion dollars in free media.
Perhaps the most astonishing part of the 2016 campaign season has been the attention the media have lavished on Trump. There seems to be nothing involving Trump that the media will not cover. In January, for instance, CNN aired his veteran’s charity event in its entirety opposite the GOP debates on the same night; in both October and April People magazine ran full-length cover stories on Trump’s family and his candidacy.
Politico: T. Boone Pickens to host event for pro-Trump super PAC
Alex Isenstadt
Oil tycoon Boone Pickens is slated to host a reception for a pro-Donald Trump super PAC at his Texas ranch next month.
Pickens, a prolific giver to Republican candidates and causes who on Wednesday announced his support for Trump, is scheduled to host an event at his North Amarillo, Texas, ranch on the weekend of June 11-13, according to two sources. The event will be sponsored by Great America PAC, a super PAC that is devoted to supporting Trump.
The event is not a fundraiser per se, but rather a reception aimed at cultivating new potential givers to the super PAC.
Free Speech
Boston Herald: Facebook free speech
Editorial Board
And if Facebook has indeed decided that liberal views should be promoted over conservative ones, what does Thune propose that Congress do about it?
Fretting that Facebook is undermining the First Amendment ignores the fact that the website has its own right to free expression. And mercifully, there is no forced conscription to join the site in the first place.
Users who don’t like what Facebook is doing (which it denies doing, by the way) should demand that the website come clean with users about its policies — and change them. Or, they can close their accounts and head on over to a genuine news site.
Political Parties
More Soft Money Hard Law: Undesirable Alternatives
Bob Bauer
The Louisiana Republican Party has enlisted Jim Bopp to mount a challenge to campaign finance restrictions on state political parties and so it is widely assumed that this is a Trojan Horse lawsuit with much wider significance for the survival of McCain-Feingold. And of course if the three-judge court, then eventually the Supreme Court, decide the case a certain way, it could well help doom the 1970’s reforms–if not immediately, then eventually. Rick Hasen, among others, has embraced the doomsday scenario, and the reform community has communicated to the three-judge court just this view of the stakes.
All of this may be true but this case and likely others to follow point to the costs of the bitter, stalemated discussion of campaign finance policy. Louisiana and its lawyers have a reasonable case against the regulatory burdens on state parties: they stress that the dissatisfaction with aspects of these rules is bipartisan. Thoughtful observers have concluded, as Brookings scholars recently did, that reforms are required.
McClatchy: How Congress members opened door to bigger checks for their parties
David Goldstein
No longer are donors bound by the strict contribution limits of just two years ago, when a mere $32,400 was the maximum amount you could annually contribute to either the Democratic or Republican national committee. Under new rules, that amount, which inflation pushed to $33,400, has increased tenfold: to $334,000.
But wait. Among all the party outlets now available for contributions, a single donor over the course of the two-year election cycle can actually give more than $1.6 million.
Supreme Court
CNN: Down a justice, John Roberts looks to find compromise, avoid 4-4 ties
Ariane de Vogue
Since Scalia’s death, Roberts and his colleagues have worked to find common ground or move quickly where possible. The court has already announced that it was deadlocked in an important case concerning public sector unions as well as two others.
It managed a unanimous result in a voting rights case, brought by conservative activists. It issued an order in a voter ID case that reflected a goal for consensus on an issue that might come back as the election heats up. And justices sent a clear signal that they are working overtime trying to find a way forward in a contraceptive mandate case.
Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, gave Roberts early praise for how he’s handled the court and worked to build consensus since Scalia’s death in February.
Candidates and Campaigns
Associated Press: AP Interview: Trump down to 5 or 6 choices for VP
Julie Pace and Jill Colvin
He also effectively ruled out for the first time the option of taking public financing for his campaign, money that would have saved him the time-consuming task of raising vast sums but would have dramatically limited the amount he would have been able to raise.
“I think I’ve ruled it out, I think so,” said Trump. “I don’t like the idea of taking taxpayer money to run a campaign. I think it’s inappropriate.”
Trump stunned the political world at every turn during the Republican primary season, prioritizing large rallies over intimate voter interactions in early voting states and operating with a slim campaign operation. Even as he brings in new staff for the general election campaign, he says his emphasis will continue to be on raucous rallies to put him in front of thousands of voters and generate free media coverage.
“My best investment is my rallies,” Trump said. “The people go home, they tell their friends they loved it. It’s been good.”
Wall Street Journal: Bernie Sanders’s Longevity on Campaign Trail Surprises the Senate
Kristina Peterson
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) said he had expected Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton to blunt Mr. Sanders’s momentum much earlier in the process. Instead, Mr. Sanders has continued winning recent contests, including Indiana last week and the West Virginia primary Tuesday night, though Mrs. Clinton holds a commanding lead in delegates.
“My gosh, at his age, to be able to be as energetic as he is, that’s terrific,” the 82-year-old Mr. Hatch said of the 74-year-old Mr. Sanders. “I don’t agree with him. I think he’s basically a Socialist, but I give him a lot of credit.”
Fortune: Here’s What Bernie Sanders Is Doing With All that Money He’s Raised
Daniel Gross
So by relying on small donors, Sanders is, in some ways, turning the dynamics on its head. He’s created in his own economic engine that can power the campaign as long as he sees fit. But take a deep dive into the data, and you’ll see– irony alert – in this age of rampant inequality, the Sanders campaign has managed to redistribute well over $150 million from the have-lesses to the have-mores.
Put another way, several of the biggest concentrations of economic power known to mankind were the largest beneficiaries of the Sanders campaign’s spending.
KTAR Phoenix: John McCain: Arizona’s sellout senator is the godfather of dark money
Darin Damme
An investigation into the various PACs supporting McCain brought to light some stunning conclusions.
First, the vast majority of McCain campaign donations are not from the Arizonans he represents but from people and corporations outside of Arizona with a vested interest in McCain’s continued support and votes for their interests.
Second, several of the PACs supporting McCain are blatantly violating the very federal election laws McCain wrote.
When the issue of dark money first came up several years ago, The Arizona Republic blasted McCain saying, “Blame McCain-Feingold, not Citizens, for dark money” in its story explaining the negative effect McCain’s campaign finance reform law had on American elections.
The States
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Campaign contribution limit proposal defeated in Missouri Senate
Jack Suntrup
While senators debated a proposal that would rein in lobbyist freebies, state Sen. David Pearce, R-Warrensburg, proposed two amendments: one that would cap campaign contributions and another that would require disclosure of who cuts big checks to shadowy 501(c)(4) groups.
But soon after Pearce brought up each amendment, state Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake Saint Louis and the assistant majority floor leader, raised points of order, saying the topics didn’t match the subject of the bill, which deals with lobbyist expenditures.
Billings Gazette: Group asks judge to strike state campaign finance laws
Associated Press
Attorneys for Montanans for Community Development will ask U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen during a hearing in Missoula to rule without a trial that the state’s rules governing campaigns are unconstitutional.
Attorneys for the state also are asking Christensen to rule in their favor without a trial. They argue that Montana’s campaign finance laws are constitutionally sound and there is no selective enforcement by the commissioner’s office.
ABC 27: Amid new corruption, questions about Pa. campaign finance laws
Dennis Owens
Giving campaign contributions is perfectly legal. Wanting specific legislation is perfectly legal. But getting a lawmaker to write specific legislation in return for a campaign contribution is illegal.
So, Pennsylvanians are to believe that all of the people and companies that funnel money to elected officials want nothing in return?
“There’s concern about how people perceive what’s going on here,” admits Senator Jay Costa (D-Allegheny). “But I can say to you unequivocally, Dennis, that that’s not the way we operate here. We do not introduce legislation or pass legislation for the benefit of people who make campaign contributions.”
