By Bradley A. Smith and Allen Dickerson

The regulation of political speech, including the regulation of contributions and spending, is one of the most constitutionally delicate operations in which the government can engage. As the Supreme Court stated in Buckley v. Valeo, “[Political] contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. . . . [T]he First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee ‘freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas.’” The same is true of “compelled disclosure,” which the Court has noted “in itself[] can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment.”  

Given these important First Amendment concerns, and wary of creating the actuality or appearance of partisan advantage, Congress has entrusted interpretation and enforcement of the campaign finance laws to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This agency is unique in a number of ways. Perhaps most fundamentally, it includes six commissioners evenly divided between the two major parties. Furthermore, having been the defendant in many of the most important First Amendment lawsuits of the past 40 years, it has considerable expertise in dealing with the intricate intersection of campaign finance regulation and constitutional liberties.   

Read more…

By Aaron Blake

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, raised concerns that the IRS targeting scandal could have a chilling effect on the agency’s employees who review tax-exemption requests. 

Cummings suggested the backlash against the IRS’s wrongdoing could cause employees to shy away from scrutinizing applications that deserve a closer look. “We cannot have employees who are there shaking like a leaf on a windy day, believing if they fail to do what they’re properly supposed to do they’ll get in trouble, he said. 

Read more…

By Thomas J. Spulak   

The Democratic chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the IRS called upon it to investigate the activities of these organizations, as did Democratic members of the House. So did The New York Times and The Washington Post as well as left-leaning groups such as Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center. None specifically singled out conservative groups and many specifically questioned the activities of the conservative Crossroads GPS as well as the liberal Priorities USA. Did the IRS think that because of the sources, they were only supposed to scrutinize groups supporting Republicans?   

Whatever the reason, word began to spread that conservative groups seeking exempt status were being unduly questioned by the IRS. They complained to Congress and thereafter Republican members of the House and Senate asked the IRS if in fact it was singling out conservative groups and if so to cease. The IRS said that it wasn’t, and for a while the issue went away.  

Read more…

Editorial

White House senior adviser Dan Pfieffer encouraged that fable on this Sunday’s news shows, implying that the Treasury’s internal process for handling the unfair treatment of political targets trumped the President’s right to know. When CNN political correspondent Candy Crowley asked Mr. Pfieffer why the White House and top Treasury officials weren’t notified, he explained that Treasury’s investigation was ongoing and “Here’s the cardinal rule: You do not interfere in an independent investigation.”  

Now there’s a false choice. The Treasury Inspector General’s report, for starters, was an audit, not an inviolable independent investigation. He lacked subpoena power and could bring no criminal charges. Having the President know of the IRS’s mistakes so that he could act to correct the problem was not a bridge too far or even clouding the purity of the process. Those things could have been done simultaneously without compromising Treasury’s investigation.  

Read more…

By Dan Balz

It is never good for an administration when a front-page newspaper article about an ongoing controversy begins as follows: “The White House offered a new account Monday of how and when it learned . . . ” That’s what readers of The Post awoke to on Tuesday. In trying to contain the controversy and protect President Obama, White House officials have only added to questions about what happened.  

Read more…

By Erik Wasson and Russell Berman   

K Street lobbyists say they are confident that their near-term legislative priorities won’t be thrown off course by the growing focus on executive branch scandals.

Read more…

Editorial

The bill is sponsored by Republican state Senator Kel Seliger of Amarillo and in the House by state Representative Charlie Geren, who are targeting frequent critic Michael Quinn Sullivan from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Mr. Sullivan is on the black list because his group spreads the word about the voting records of lawmakers. In a December 2011 op-ed in the Midland Reporter-Telegram, Mr. Seliger assailed Mr. Sullivan for “fraudulent misrepresentation of voting records” and suggested that such critical speech isn’t covered by the First Amendment.  

“Whereas, differing views and interpretations are a constitutional right of free speech, fraudulent manipulation of voting records is shameful and needs to be condemned,” he wrote. In other words, politicians get to decide what can or can’t be said about their voting records. This is the Lee Kuan Yew school of free political speech, but Austin isn’t Singapore.  

Read more…

By Elinor Comlay

Slim’s small but growing U.S. cellphone company Tracfone on Tuesday said it filed a complaint with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging the group has been lobbying state officials and regulatory bodies.  

“We have requested that the FPPC investigate our claims…to determine the true sponsors of (Two Countries, One Voice) and whether the political process in California has been unduly subverted by corporate and/or political interests.” 

Read more…

By KATE TAYLOR

When Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker and currently the front-running candidate for mayor, signed a deal to write a memoir that would be published in the lead-up to the primary election this year, it seemed like a fairly ingenious move. The book, and any attendant publicity, would allow her to get her personal story, including the way she coped with her mother’s death when Ms. Quinn was 16 and her later struggle to come to terms with her homosexuality, in front of potential voters at a critical moment in the election cycle.  

That potential advantage has not gone unnoticed by her opponents. Now, just weeks before the book’s June 11 publication date, one of her Democratic rivals, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, has asked New York City’s Campaign Finance Board to rule on whether the costs of promoting the book constitute political spending and should count against a cap imposed under the city’s voluntary public matching funds program.

Read more…

By ADAM KLASFELD 

CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair told Courthouse News that George should brush up on the Bill of Rights.      

“We are surprised that this candidate would not know about the First Amendment,” McNair said in a statement. “This is obviously a publicity push by a politician.” 

Read more…