In the News
District Court Judgment in James v. FEC
Independent Groups
MSMHL: “Deference”
By Bob BauerComfort might be taken in the possibility that Members were swayed by public opinion—in McCain’s words, reform advocates won the argument by “going directly to the country.” Even if true, however, a commendable sensitivity to public preference is not the same as expert conclusion about sound public policy. But there is reason to believe that it is not true. For campaign finance has never been a high priority for voters that drives their choice in elections, and Members by and large know it.The part of the “country” where the power of the reform argument was strongest was to be found in interest group lobbing and elite editorial pages. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with interest group lobbying or influential editorializing. Or that Members should disregard these pressure points, either in judging the merits or in assessing the political pressures facing them. The question is whether, in insisting that Members are owed deference to their “expertise” in campaign finance matters, the intention is to honor their authority in this realm of policy or to maneuver them into representing and voting for the preferences of others. The deference argued in idealized terms in scholarship and jurisprudential argument means something quite different in the practice of interest group politics.
National Journal: This Man Is the Future of Super PACs
By Shane GoldmacherBut his geekiest and priciest political moment came last June, when he created his own super PAC, hired his own campaign team, and poured more than $1.4 million of his own money into a single candidate—Republican Gabriel Gomez, who was contesting a special election 3,000 miles away to fill John Kerry’s Senate seat in Massachusetts—despite the fact that Jordan had never met or spoken to him. Gomez lost the election, but Jordan continues to plan forays into the political world. This week, he funded a flight of ads in Oregon’s contested Republican Senate primary, and he is contemplating more such interventions in the near future.For Jordan, building his own highly specific political organizations is proving much more attractive than simply doling out checks to omnibus groups like Crossroads. And he’s one of a growing number of millionaires and billionaires who are taking this approach. The biggest of these do-it-yourself donors—people such as Bloomberg or brothers Charles and David Koch—are household names. But a number of relatively anonymous free-spenders are also opting to play the role of kingmaker on their own terms.
Washington Post: Liberal donors eye new long-term investments in states and new voters to boost Democrats
By Matea GoldWhile maintaining a low public profile, the alliance plays an influential role as the left’s central money hub, attracting political donors interested in more than simply making campaign contributions. Last week’s meeting at the Ritz-Carlton in Chicago drewan array of Democratic powerbrokers eager to influence the donors’ thinking, including White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.Many of the group’s top contributors come from the party’s liberal wing. That was evident last week in the conference’s theme — “A New Progressive Era?” — and the focus by speakers such as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio on economic inequality.The Democracy Alliance does not make contributions itself. Instead, donors who join the alliance, known as “partners,” are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to groups it recommends. Among the partners are some of the country’s largest labor unions.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Commentary: John Paul Stevens’s War on Speech
By Jonathan S. TobinAs a feature in the New York Times about Stevens’s book pointed out, the former justice isn’t just interested in restricting campaign expenditures but is willing to listen to arguments about banning or at least placing restrictions on the publication of books about politics. That sentiment alone should raise alarms to Americans about the intent of these laws no matter whether they are liberals or conservatives.When placed in that context, there’s no question that Justice Stevens’s own book as well as the efforts of Democrats to pass amendments trashing the Bill of Rights isn’t so much about playing fair as it is in waging a war on speech.
Corporate Governance
New Republic: Mary Jo White Doesn’t Scare Anybody: Obama’s SEC chief has whiffed on regulating corporations
By Alec MacGillisStill, that was enough to set off a fierce Republican backlash—the Wall Street Journal editorial page fulminated against the proposal, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by California Republican Darrell Issa, demanded the SEC turn over staff emails regarding the proposal. This, in turn, led to a remarkable and largely overlooked nine-page memo from Issa’s committee last July. The document alleged that Schapiro had agreed to add the disclosure rule to the agenda, against the misgivings of her staff, only as a result of pressure from Barney Frank and liberal groups like Public Citizen. “The inexplicable attention to political spending by tax-exempt organizations suggests that pressure from the House Democratic Leadership and special interest groups successfully influenced staff consideration of the issue,” the memo states. It goes on to connect the proposed rule to revelations that the IRS had given close scrutiny to Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, decrying both as part of a “government-wide effort to stifle political speech.”Frank scoffed when I asked him recently about the Issa memo. (He scoffed even at my calling it the “Issa memo,” saying it was surely written by staff, not the chairman himself, since Issa is “semi-literate.”) “For Darrell Issa of all people to suggest something inappropriate with a member of Congress pressuring an administrative agency to do things is as bizarre as it gets,” Frank said, noting that he was pushing to greatly increase the SEC’s budget even in the period when Schapiro was resisting the disclosure proposal. A spokeswoman for Issa, Becca Watkins, said he stood by the memo: “Our memo was a result of documentation and internal emails that showed the concern from the SEC that came out of professional staff,” she said.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
National Review: Campaign Finance Reform Is an Assault on Free Speech
By Dustin SigginsThe senator hammered people who say restricting speech fits with the First Amendment. Pointedly, Cruz said that “there are 300 million Americans who have the right to criticize you all day long and twice on Sundays.” He also asked whether the same people who want citizens and those who run corporations silenced would apply the same standard to The New York Times or CBS, both of which are corporations that engage in political speech.“…I would ask you, why does a corporation like The New York Times or CBS, or any other media corporation, in Congress’ view, enjoy greater First Amendment rights than individual citizens,” said Cruz.
State and Local
Chicago –– Daily Caller: Reporter to Rahm: Should CNN ‘Chicagoland’ series be considered a campaign contribution?
By Patrick Howley“The emails between CNN and your administration seem to indicate that there was coordination between the administration and CNN how Chicagoland documentary took place. Do you think that that’s an appropriate way to interact with someone that is ostensibly doing a news piece, a documentary, something that’s supposed to be reality on your administration?” the reporter asked.
Louisiana –– Times-Picayune: New Orleans judge frees Vitter Super PAC to solicit donations over $100,000
By Bruce Alpert“FFLF contends that, absent injunctive relief, FFLF and its prospective donors face the dilemma of either engaging in political advocacy to the fullest by accepting donations in excess of the contribution limit and thereby risking enforcement proceedings and penalties, or complying with the statutory limit, thus self- censoring and chilling their own speech for fear of enforcement proceedings,” ruled Feldman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.“With the continuing threat of penalties, FFLF is denied the ability to solicit and accept funds that it would use for political speech; as such, the defendants are preventing it from engaging in political advocacy during the 2014 and 2015 state and local Louisiana elections,” Feldman ruled.The Louisiana Board of Ethics pointed to Spies own statements that the Fund for Louisiana’s Future was devoted to helping Vitter run. But Feldman said the group can work for one candidate if it likes, as long as there is no direct coordination with that candidate or his campaign.
Texas –– Texas Tribune: Dark Money Hearing Centers on Transparency, Free Speech
By Aman Batheja“Texas does not limit restrictions,” said Jim Clancy, chairman of the Texas Ethics Commission, adding, “The defense mechanism that the public has is the transparency of who is making that contribution and knowing who is standing behind the measure.”Critics argued that requiring advocacy organizations to disclose their donors would be used for retaliation purposes. Several cited the recent case of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who resigned following criticism over a $1,000 donation to a campaign in support of banning gay marriage in California.“If they can’t win on the merits of their ideas, they are attempting to win through oppression and official intimidation,” said Michael Quinn Sullivan, who runs Empower Texans, a network of organizations that includes a 501(c)(4) that has spent heavily in recent election cycles. “That is a wrong path for the people of Texas.”
