Supreme Court  

Los Angeles Times: Gorsuch dissents as Supreme Court upholds ban on big-money gifts to parties 

By David G. Savage

New Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined Clarence Thomas in dissent Monday when the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a Republican Party lawyer seeking to strike down limits on big-money contributions to political parties.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld limits set in the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002.

The dissent by Gorsuch is his first and most significant decision since joining the court last month, and it puts him squarely on the side of conservatives and Republican lawyers who believe that limits on political money are unconstitutional…

The Indiana attorney who spearheaded the Citizens United case went back to court seeking to void the limits on giving to parties. And he cited the impact of Citizens United.

“A grave inequity exists in American politics,” attorney James Bopp Jr. told the court in an appeal on behalf of the Republican Party of Louisiana. “While behemoth super PACs and 501c(4) nonprofit corporations receive unlimited donations… state and local parties can do nothing similar.”

Roll Call: Supreme Court Affirms Ban on ‘Soft Money’ in Campaigns

By Kate Ackley

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the so-called soft money ban on state and local parties, prompting opponents of the restriction to turn their pleas for repeal to Congress…

“I’m disappointed in the decision, but it’s not that big of a surprise,” said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member who manages the Election Law Reform Initiative at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It’s now pretty clear that the court is just not going to get into this part of McCain-Feingold and if the parties want these provisions to change, they’re going to have to go to Congress.” 

On Capitol Hill, von Spakovsky’s side will meet intense resistance from Democrats, even as those who favor campaign finance deregulation have a pivotal ally in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who led the legal challenge to the McCain-Feingold law. They also have an ally in White House Counsel Donald McGahn, a former Federal Election Commission member.  

Election Law Blog: #SCOTUS Declines Soft Money Case; Thomas and Gorsuch Would Vote to Hear

By Rick Hasen

This is a surprise to me. Because this case came up on appeal from a three judge court, I thought it was pretty likely the Court would take the case. A decision to affirm means the lower court got it right on the bottom line, even if the reasoning was incorrect…

In one sense, this is a victory for campaign finance reformers, because the soft money ban lives for another day. This also means that the Court does not use this case as an opportunity to call other campaign contribution limits into question-so that’s a good thing from reformers’ point of view.

On the other hand, we now have a situation where political parties (especially state and local political parties, the subject of Bopp’s petition) are limited in what they can do, while Super PACs and non-disclosing 501c4s can operate without limit, and in the case of c4s, without adequate disclosure. This further weakens the political parties, which many political scientists and election law scholars leads to further polarization and political dysfunction.

More Soft Money Hard Law: The Supreme Court and the Political Parties

By Bob Bauer

The Court may have no appetite at the moment for a major campaign finance case. Or, having chipped away at McCain-Feingold, the Justices may not be inclined to demolish its centerpiece. After all, if the parties are hurting, then Congress, its membership filled with party members and candidates, is perfectly free to take stock of their needs and do away with a legal impediment if necessary.

There is one other possibility. If the Justices are concerned with the condition of parties, and they’re relying on general commentary outside the court for their assessment, they would not have too much reason to worry. They would read that parties have found a way to adapt to McCain-Feingold. Various experts are telling them about energetic online fundraising and about more dramatic innovations, like the establishment of super PACs functioning as “shadow parties.” On this account, the parties are not in crisis. They are thriving. The furniture is being rearranged and renovations are ever in progress, but the basic party structure remains healthy.

This is a paradox of the reform battles of recent years: how the erosion in the Buckley regulatory framework might persuade the Court to leave alone whatever is still standing.

Huffington Post: Neil Gorsuch Shows His Hand On Money In Politics As Court Turns Down Big Case

By Paul Blumenthal

Newly minted Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch showed his hand Monday on where he will likely stand on cases that would increase the amount of power held by large political donors.

As the Supreme Court declined to hear a major campaign finance case that could have led to the lifting of campaign contribution limits to political parties, Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas in an unwritten dissent. That means Gorsuch and Thomas wanted the court to hear the case, and likely wanted to vote to overturn yet another limit on big money in politics…

Gorsuch’s decision to join Thomas, a noted opponent of campaign finance restriction with a written record opposed to all campaign contribution limits and some disclosure rules, suggests that he, too, will be an outspoken critic of restrictions on money in politics. 

The Courts  

Bloomberg BNA: FEC Should Disclose Information on Group’s Funders, Court Told  

By Kenneth P. Doyle

The Federal Election Commission could remedy a long-running enforcement case at no cost simply by releasing information already known to the agency about who funded a now-defunct conservative nonprofit group, the liberal watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics is Washington (CREW) argued in recently filed court papers (CREW v. FEC, D.C. Cir. No. 17-5049, order 5/18/17).

CREW is pursuing a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking disclosure of funding for the nonprofit Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity. The mysterious entity, known as CHGO, spent millions of dollars from an undisclosed donor or donors on ads opposing House Democrats in the 2010 elections. CHGO then ceased operating after the election and the FEC began investigating it.

The appeals court May 18 ordered a briefing schedule for the case, calling for all written briefs to be submitted by Aug. 10. The D.C. Circuit hasn’t yet named the three-judge panel that will consider the case nor scheduled oral argument.

FEC

Politico: FEC member urges escalated Trump-Russia inquiry  

By Kenneth P. Vogel

A member of the Federal Election Commission is calling on the agency to investigate whether Russian agents paid for Facebook ads to spread damaging stories about Hillary Clinton ahead of last fall’s presidential election.

“I think there is potential there for finding a violation, but I don’t want to suggest that I have prejudged anything that could potentially come before me,” said FEC commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democratic appointee to the commission.

Her assertion comes as agency staff is already moving to investigate a related complaint filed in December by a pair of watchdog groups against Trump’s campaign and the Russian government, according to two sources familiar with the agency’s handling of the complaint. They said that, if the investigation proceeds apace, agency staff could be expected to incorporate the recent revelations about Facebook ads into their fact-finding.  

Donors  

CNN: Why Trump’s No. 2 donor isn’t asking for much  

By Theodore Schleifer

Bernie Marcus isn’t getting much for his $7 million.

The co-founder and first CEO of Home Depot has none of the pizzazz of the famous Mercer, Adelson or Thiel families who used their sums to fund Donald Trump’s improbable White House victory and are as a result deeply intertwined with his political infrastructure. And for Marcus, the often overlooked second-largest donor behind casino magnate Sheldon Adelson to Trump’s efforts during the presidential campaign, that’s exactly how it should be.

In an age of activist donors who expect fealty from their chosen candidates, Marcus stands out as a throwback to a previous era of political billionaires with little desire to bring their own muscle to the game. Marcus appears all too content to operate on the margins of the White House, a reflection of both his shoulder shrug toward access and of his struggle to build a deep political operation that matches the depth of his pockets, according to interviews with more than a dozen people in his orbit.

The States

Crain’s Chicago Business: Public finance campaign bill picks up momentum  

By Greg Hinz

Last week the Illinois Senate voted 31-23 to approve a bill sponsored by Sen. Daniel Biss, D-Evanston, who also happens to be running for governor.

The measure would authorize appropriating up to $50 million each two-year election cycle to statewide and Legislature candidates who agree to limit their own fundraising and expenditures…

Now, normally I’d say the idea is a nonstarter over in the House, where Speaker Mike Madigan likes to keep his members close by supplying much of their campaign money.

But these are odd times, and as lawmakers race toward a scheduled May 30 adjournment, the speaker-interestingly-has assigned the bill not to some burial-ground study panel but to the House Executive Committee…

Of course, even if the measure makes it out of the House, it would have to get by Rauner. Senate Republicans unanimously opposed the measure in their chamber, arguing taxpayers ought not have to pay for politics, and that likely indicates where Rauner stands.

Common Dreams: Pro-Democracy Activists Arrested at Pennsylvania Capitol Demanding Reforms  

By Lauren McCauley

After marching 100 miles from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, a group of activists demanding that the Pennsylvania state government “get big money out of the political system” were arrested at the state Capitol on Monday for, as one observer put it, “chanting too loud.”

The March on Harrisburg protesters spent the first of the three-day civil disobedience campaign targeting House State Government Committee chairman Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County), who as the gatekeeper to government ethics reform has blocked movement on House Bill 39. The bill, which has been sitting in Metcalfe’s committee since it was introduced in January, would ban gifts to state lawmakers…

According to the organizers, about 12 protesters were hauled away for refusing to leave Metcalfe’s office while a second group of 11 people was arrested for chanting and blocking the exit to Monday’s committee hearing after Metcalfe refused to hold a vote on HB 39.

The Olympian: Unmask those protesters, says lawmaker angered by May Day damage  

By Walker Orenstein

State Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, says anonymity emboldens protesters who might cause property damage and become violent, so he introduced legislation Monday that would ban the wearing of hoods, masks and bandannas at a public event if they cover a person’s face.

Some people said the bill might clash with free-speech rights and burden peaceful protesters who want to stay anonymous for fear of retaliation…

State Rep. Laurie Jinkins, a Tacoma Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said there are times when protesters should get the protection of anonymity – a person in Chechnya protesting violence against gay men in that country might want to stay anonymous, she said by way of example.

“If that were happening here, you could understand why people might be wearing masks even to do a peaceful protest,” Jinkins said…

Elisabeth Smith, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said she believes Honeyford’s measure runs afoul of free-speech protections.

The bill would ban people from wearing a mask as a political statement, which she said is protected by past court rulings in much the same way flag burning is.