In the News          

SCOTUSblog: Thursday round-up

By Edith Roberts

In an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Bradley Smith urges the court to grant review in a campaign finance case challenging restrictions on contributions to state and local political parties, arguing that it “makes no sense to send state and local parties to the back of the bus when it comes to political campaigns.”

The Courts         

New York Times: Senate Custom Could Trip Up G.O.P.’s March to Reshape Courts

By Carl Hulse

The 10 judicial nominations that the White House forwarded to the Senate this week are just the first in what could be an assembly line of judicial candidates headed to lifetime appointments…

Democrats still have power to draw out the process and require Republican leaders to use hour upon hour of floor time to win final votes on Trump nominees. What they no longer have is the ability to block judges by requiring a supermajority of 60 votes because of changes made in 2013 when Democrats, frustrated at a Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s nominees, exercised the nuclear option and set the new threshold at a simple majority…

Democrats do have one remaining weapon – the obscure “blue slip” – and that bit of Senate arcana is likely to loom large in the coming judicial fights. For the past century, the custom of the Judiciary Committee has been not to move forward on a judicial nomination unless home-state senators acquiesce by returning a blue-tinted form agreeing to do so – hence the term blue slip…

But it could create a problem for Mr. Trump, since some of his new nominees hail from states represented by two Democratic senators who could withhold blue-slip approval.

Congress       

New Hampshire Union Leader: Public financing of elections

By Rep. Carol Shea-Porter

The vast amount of money in our politics is deeply troubling, and citizens of all political stripes rightly believe that we should do something to fix the status quo in Washington.

On a recent trip to New Hampshire, former Vice President Joe Biden called attention to this problem and said that we need small-donor public financing in order to fix our broken campaign finance system. I agree. And that’s why I cosponsored the Government by the People Act, which would allow small donors to make a real difference in congressional elections.

The bill would free candidates from dialing for private dollars. It would reduce the undue influence of wealthy donors and well-connected Washington insiders. And it would help return us to a government of, by and for the people.

A majority of voters in New Hampshire and around the country want us to tackle the problem of big money in politics, and this bill would be a big step in the right direction.

Donors    

CRP: The power of one

By Doug Weber

[W]hy, after never having cracked the Center for Responsive Politics’ 50 top-giving industries and interest groups, have environmental interests suddenly shot into seventh place in the 2014 and 2016 election cycles?

The answer is one Supreme Court decision plus one man. The decision, of course, is Citizens United, the 2010 ruling that allows corporations, unions and individuals to spend unlimited amounts to advocate for a candidate’s election or defeat as long as that spending isn’t coordinated with the candidate.

The man is Tom Steyer…

Post Citizens United, the top donors’ share of contributions jumps from a fraction of a percent in 2008 to close to one-fifth of contributions in the 2016 cycle. Furthermore, these individual donors have much more control of their money than they did in the soft money era: Rather than simply handing it over to the Democratic or Republican parties, they can direct it to groups benefiting particular candidates. In the second decade of the 21st century, the biggest individual donors have assumed a far greater role in elections than we’ve seen in generations.

Independent Groups     

Media Matters: Megadonor Super PAC Parrots Media Spin To Attack Georgia’s Jon Ossoff For Out-Of-State Donations

By Julie Alderman

The Congressional Leadership Fund released an attack ad on May 9 targeting Ossoff, who is running to fill the vacant seat in Georgia’s 6th congressional district…

The ad echoes similar smears made by both President Donald Trump, who slammed Ossoff for raising “major outside money,” and media figures who adopted Trump’s spin and glossed over Ossoff’s primary victory by highlighting his out-of-state donations.

But the Congressional Leadership Fund itself takes millions of dollars from major right-wing campaign donors like the Adelson family as well as dark money groups like the American Action Network. The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) pointed out that the American Action Network, an “out of state dark money” nonprofit, “contributed $3.5 million to its ‘sister’ super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund.” The PAC used over $2.5 million of that money, according to CREW, in an attempt to defeat Ossoff…

In addition, despite the portrait painted by the misleading ad, many of the donations in the race overall have come from outside of Georgia and have primarily gone toward opposing Ossoff.

The Media            

International Business Times: Conservative Group Pushes Companies To Stop Advertising On News Outlets Critical Of Trump

By Lydia O’Neal

The National Center for Public Policy Research, a 35-year-old conservative think tank, announced Wednesday that it would be questioning Ford Motor Co. executives at an annual company shareholder meeting Thursday about where the company chooses to advertise. Ford had earlier rejected an NCPPR shareholder proposal asking specifically for a review of Ford’s advertising on outlets such as Politico, the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNBC…

The company dismissed the NCPPR’s “buzz words” and assertions that advertising on the news networks and publications amounted to “indirect political spending,” according to the shareholder proposal documents. In response to NCPPR’s worries that advertisements on the news channels and websites produced a market risk for the company in the form of potential lost sales among Trump’s supporters, the company cited its own recent Sustainability Report, which said “we always reserve the right to speak with our own voice and make our own stance clear.”

“We value discussion and input from our shareholders, which is why we treat all shareholder proposals equally,” a Ford spokesperson said in a statement. “This proposal violates the [Security and Exchange Commission’s] rules related to what is appropriate for shareholders to vote on, which is why it has been excluded.”

ABA Journal: Persistent journalist arrested while questioning HHS secretary; ACLU sees ‘dark day for democracy’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

A journalist was arrested in a hallway at the West Virginia Capitol on Tuesday while he repeatedly questioned Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price about a change to the federal healthcare law.

The journalist, Dan Heyman of Public News Service, was charged with willful disruption of state government processes, a misdemeanor, and released on $5,000 bail…

The complaint said West Virginia Capitol Police arrested Heyman because he was “aggressively breaching the Secret Service agents” and “causing a disturbance by yelling questions” at Price and presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway…

Heyman said he was wearing a press badge and no police officer told him he was in the wrong place. In Heyman’s estimation, police “decided I was just too persistent in asking this question and trying to do my job and so they arrested me.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia released a series of statements about the incident, including this one: “Today was a dark day for democracy. But the rule of law will prevail. The First Amendment will prevail. The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia stands ready to fight any attempt by the government to infringe upon our First Amendment rights.”

The States

Courthouse News Service: Judge Strikes Parts of Missouri Campaign Finance Law 

By Dionne Cordell-Whitney

A federal judge overturned portions of Missouri’s new campaign finance law, including bans on heavily regulated industries contributing to political action committees and contributions between PACs.

Free and Fair Election Fund and Missouri Electric Cooperatives sued Missouri and the state ethics commission, the entity in charge of enforcing campaign finance laws, last year in Western Missouri federal court.

The lawsuit was in response to an amendment of Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution…

The amendment limited individual campaign contributions to candidates to $2,600 per election, prohibited candidate committees from contributing to another candidate committee, and prevented certain corporations and unions from contributing to campaign committees, except contributions made through an established “continuing committee.”

On Friday, Senior U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith ruled that the $2,600 limit can stay in place, but the other regulations must go.

Tacoma News Tribune: Election fund leftovers are ripe for abuse 

By Editorial Board

When politicians win campaigns, there’s often a surplus of treasure in the war chests. The state’s Public Disclosure Commission estimates that elected officials transfer on average $65,000 of post-election funds into individual accounts.

Campaign finance rules dictate how these funds can be used: Officials can hold the extra money for future campaigns, donate it to political parties or charitable causes, reimburse themselves for lost wages or cover expenses related to official business. They can even return the money back to donors, though that’s a rarity according to the PDC…

The trouble is, no one’s keeping a close eye on how these funds are being spent. The PDC is the lead watchdog for such things, but by its own admission, doesn’t have the staff to audit for potential abuses.

Formal investigations by the commission are almost always prompted by outside sources during election season…

We wonder what political donors make of all this.

Gotham Gazette: Government Watchdogs Push ‘Clean Contracting’ Reform in Albany 

By Rachel Silberstein

A coalition of budget and transparency watchdog groups are calling on the Legislature to pass, and for Governor Cuomo to sign, comprehensive “clean contracting” legislation in response to the bid-rigging scandal that rocked the state Capitol last year…

The organizations — including Reinvent Albany, New York Public Interest Group, Citizens Union, League of Women Voters, Fiscal Policy Institute, Common Cause, and Citizens Budget Commission — are also urging state leaders to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest by exploring options to limit campaign contributions from anyone seeking a state contract. Nineteen states and New York City — but not the state — already have these anti-pay-to-play laws in place…

Cuomo’s former aides, associates, and donors are set to go on trial late this year.

Another spokesperson for the governor, Rich Azzopardi, sent Gotham Gazette a statement attacking the watchdog groups. “This is the same crew who preaches transparency for others and then sues to overturn state law and keep their benefactors secret. If we need a crash course on hypocrisy we know who to ask,” he said.