Congress

Politico: Manchin holds out until last minute on elections vote

By Burgess Everett

Sen. Joe Manchin declined on Monday to commit to advancing Democrats’ sweeping elections bill, saying he would need more assurances that his proposed changes would be adopted.

It may seem like a picayune matter given that no Republicans support the bill and the GOP is expected to filibuster the effort on Tuesday. But Democrats want to send a political message, and they need Manchin’s vote to paint a more vivid contrast with Republicans’ blockade.

The West Virginia Democrat opposes the Democrats’ sweeping elections bill but is undecided on whether to vote to start debate on it. All other Senate Democrats have co-sponsored the legislation.

Manchin has proposed a compromise bill focused on expanding early voting and ending partisan gerrymandering; it would cut some of the bill’s other elements, like publicly financed elections. He told reporters on Monday he’s still working on his compromise with fellow Democrats and that “there’d have to be an agreement to get on the substitute.”

“I hope they make some changes, agree with some changes,” Manchin said. “We put out an awful lot of changes that hopefully the country will agree with.”

Manchin visited with President Joe Biden at the White House on Monday afternoon to discuss voting rights, according to a White House official. Biden told Manchin he appreciated his efforts on the issue and “made clear how important he thinks it is that the Senate find a path forward on this issue.” 

The Hill: Democrats go down to the wire with Manchin

By Jordain Carney

Democrats are scrambling to lock down Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) ahead of a Tuesday vote on one of the party’s top priorities: a sweeping election reform bill. 

Democrats want to be able to put up 50 votes to advance the bill, which would fall short of overcoming a 60-vote legislative filibuster but allow them to put a spotlight on Republican opposition. 

Manchin voting against even starting debate on the bill would be a big setback for Democratic unity, and leadership was locked in down-to-the-wire talks with him throughout the weekend to try to get him to yes.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said as of late Monday afternoon he was in the dark about how Manchin would ultimately come down. 

“I’m hoping he’s going to move forward,” Durbin said, adding, “I just don’t know yet.” …

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who invited Manchin to speak during last week’s caucus meeting, indicated on Sunday that they were still working toward an agreement with the centrist senator. 

“As we speak, we are working to come up with an agreement to compromise with Joe Manchin,” Schumer told reporters in New York.

Washington Post: The Democrats’ big voting reform bill is in real trouble. Here’s what’s next.

By Greg Sargent

I’m told the White House is set to weigh in positively on Manchin’s efforts to secure a compromise with his own voting rights bill. This comes after voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams came out in support of Manchin’s effort.

If such a broad range of Democrats backs this set of more modest reforms championed by Manchin himself, and Republicans uniformly oppose it, will this make Manchin more willing to entertain ending the filibuster to pass it?

Probably not. But Manchin’s support for keeping the filibuster will grow harder to justify.

On Tuesday…Republicans are certain to filibuster the measure — indeed, it’s likely that zero GOP senators will vote for cloture — blocking it at the outset.

At that point, does the reform push simply die? Punchbowl News is now reporting that this is the likely endgame.

“Democrats won’t get cloture and the bill will stall,” Punchbowl notes, adding that after this, calls for eliminating the filibuster will grow, but Manchin (and several other moderates) will continue to oppose that. Then it’s game over.

This does seem like the most probable outcome. But there are important nuances that could make a difference in how this plays out.

People United for Privacy: Action Alert: S.1 Hurts Nonprofits and Freedom of Speech

This week, Senate Democrats plan to bring S.1, the deceptively named “For the People Act,” up for a vote. This bill not only undermines the ability of states to reform their election processes, but it also squelches speech by requiring nonprofits that communicate about issues to disclose their donors…

“Division B” of the Act includes several provisions that will chill the speech of issue advocacy groups and nonprofits that educate Americans about current issues:

• The DISCLOSE Act will expand the definition of political speech subject to complex government regulation. It also triggers significant donor disclosure requirements for organizations that spend more than $10,000 on ads about policy issues merely mentioning a candidate. The result will be increased harassment of nonprofit donors and decreased civic engagement.
• Stand by Every Ad Act requires video and audio ads paid for by nonprofits, including communications on the internet, to identify each of the organization’s top five donors giving $10,000 or more, even if those donors only gave general support. This invasion of privacy will make it more difficult for groups to speak and dangerously expose citizens to public scrutiny.

The Honest Ads Act creates complex disclaimer and reporting requirements for merely mentioning a federal candidate or elected official in an online communication. Small organizations with limited resources that need to consult attorneys before communicating online will be squeezed out of the public square.

Washington Post: Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster

By Kyrsten Sinema

It’s no secret that I oppose eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I held the same view during three terms in the U.S. House, and said the same after I was elected to the Senate in 2018. If anyone expected me to reverse my position because my party now controls the Senate, they should know that my approach to legislating in Congress is the same whether in the minority or majority…

My support for retaining the 60-vote threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policy. It is based on what is best for our democracy. The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority? …

Instability, partisanship and tribalism continue to infect our politics. The solution, however, is not to continue weakening our democracy’s guardrails. If we eliminate the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, we will lose much more than we gain.

FEC

The Hill: Exclusive: Watchdog sues FEC for closing Trump investigation

By Karl Evers-Hillstrom

A watchdog group sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Monday for dismissing its complaint alleging that the Trump campaign unlawfully coordinated with a super PAC during the 2020 election. 

In a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Democratic group End Citizens United, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) Action challenged the decision by Republican FEC commissioners to close an investigation into the Trump campaign without providing their reasoning.

The groups filed an FEC complaint against former President Trump’s reelection committees in May 2019 after the Trump campaign stated that America First Action was the only “approved outside non-campaign group” for supporters to donate to. 

The groups said the Trump campaign illegally solicited donations to a closely tied super PAC, an allegation the Trump campaign disputed. The FEC’s career attorneys recommended that commissioners investigate the matter, but the FEC’s Republicans voted to dismiss the case, effectively blocking further inquiries.

CLC Action wants a federal court to order the FEC to determine whether the Trump campaign violated campaign finance law.

“We should not have to sue the FEC repeatedly to make it do its job,” Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation and chief of staff at CLC Action, said in a statement. “Yet here is another example of the FEC refusing to enforce key laws that protect the rights of American voters.” …

The lawsuit coincides with a strategy by Democratic FEC commissioners to block the FEC from defending itself in court. 

Washington Examiner: GOP commissioner vows to end secret FEC voting

By Paul Bedard

On the heels of the latest scuffle at the Federal Election Commission over Democratic moves to hide critical votes, a GOP commissioner is pushing to make all key votes public.

Commissioner Sean Cooksey said he will propose the sunshine act at the next meeting.

“This policy proposal would bring new levels of transparency and accountability at the FEC,” he said.

Earlier this month, Cooksey blew the whistle on the growing trend by Democratic commissioners to hide votes and even block the agency from defending its decisions in court, a practice unheard of in other agencies.

And it follows a partisan fight on the commission over a Democratic move to hide a vote involving a Democratic National Committee contractor accused of colluding with the Ukrainian government to hurt the 2020 Trump campaign.

Cooksey has proposed an end to so-called zombie cases, in which the agency refuses to close a case even after a vote to end enforcement. Long-serving Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub has pushed that practice.

He said those cases have increased 225% in the last year, from four to 13.

Now, he also wants votes to block defending FEC actions in court made public.

“Publishing Commission votes related to agency litigation furthers the FEC’s transparency and accountability mission. The Commission has no legitimate interest in withholding entirely this information,” he said in a memo to the commission.

Politico (Illinois Playbook): Fired-Up Dems Await FEC Rule

By Shia Kapos

Members of the Democratic Party of Illinois (DPI) gathered last night for their first big fundraiser under the leadership of new party chair, Congresswoman Robin Kelly. 

The festive event raised funds for federal candidates running in Illinois…

But the party came as Democrats wring their hands about what the Federal Election Commission will rule on Kelly’s ability to raise soft money — or funds for state and local candidates. Because Kelly is federally elected, there’s a question about whether the FEC will permit such fundraising. That could become a challenge for legislative candidates who for years relied on the party chair, former House Speaker Michael Madigan, to raise campaign cash.

The issue first came up in March during the party chair election to replace Madigan after he stepped down. The AFL-CIO, a major donor to the Democratic Party, was among those especially concerned.

After Kelly’s victory, DPI sent a letter to the FEC offering three governance proposals that would allow her to work around the soft-money issue.

In one proposal, Kelly would be “prevented from exercising oversight or influence over the state account’s management or governance.” Another scenario would see a special committee or a vice chair assigned to oversee fundraising for the state campaign account. A third proposal would have Kelly recuse herself from matters pertaining to the state account.

The Illinois Dems’ proposals are at the top of the FEC’s agenda for Thursday’s meeting.

In the meantime, two advisory or draft opinions have emerged. One favors the idea of assigning a special committee to oversee the account. The other says it would be impermissible for Kelly to oversee fundraising under any of the three scenarios.

Free Speech

New York Times (LTE): Conflicts Within the A.C.L.U. Over Free Speech and Racial Justice

I was the executive director of the Illinois Division of A.C.L.U. when we agreed to represent a band of neo-Nazis planning to demonstrate in Skokie. I am deeply troubled by reports that the organization is wavering from its traditional defense of free speech and assembly without regard to content.

Our decision to defend the First Amendment in that case was supremely unpopular. In Illinois, we lost nearly 30 percent of our membership; we were forced to reduce staff and salaries and we were subjected to a barrage of threats. There was, however, never a moment’s doubt about the righteousness of our cause.

That there now appear to be some within the organization who would forsake the A.C.L.U.’s most vital guiding principle in favor of a politically motivated agenda is not only a direct repudiation of the work we did in the litigation we pursued during the Skokie controversy, but also a betrayal of the organization’s long and valiant history.

Should they prevail, the resulting damage to the A.C.L.U.’s reputation and its core mission will be immense and irreversible. It will also compel those of us who believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says to take a step no true civil libertarian should have to take: We’ll have to invent a new A.C.L.U., an invention that cannot but do serious and lasting damage to the old one.

David M. Hamlin

Palm Springs, Calif.

The States

Seattle Times: Google to pay Washington state $400,000 to settle campaign finance lawsuit

By David Gutman

Google has agreed to pay $400,000 to settle charges that it has not complied with Washington’s strict campaign finance laws, which require businesses to retain records of political ads they sell in the state.

It’s the second time in three years that the tech giant has settled a campaign finance lawsuit in Washington…

Google agreed to the fine “without conceding the enforceability or applicability of the statute and regulation,” the settlement says.

Both lawsuits were brought in King County Superior Court by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who has brought similar cases against Facebook, including one that is still pending…

The lawsuits cite longstanding state law that requires media companies to collect and make public detailed information about political ads. Ad sellers must keep and disclose specific information on the names and addresses of people who buy ads, geographic locations ads are targeted at and the total number of views of each ad…

Michael Aciman, a Google spokesperson, said the company takes issue with “the applicability and enforceability of the State’s political advertising and disclosure laws.”

“We’re settling this case because we believe the best way to resolve this matter is to work collaboratively with Washington State regulators to reform those laws, rather than litigate our position in court,” Aciman said. “Until then, we will continue to not accept Washington State election ads. Any advertiser that purchases these ads is violating our policies and we have measures in place to block such ads and remove violating ads when we find them.”

OpenSecrets: NYC’s mayoral primary was partly funded by public money. Here’s what that meant for candidates.

By Melissa Holzberg and Brendan Glavin

During the 2021 cycle, [New York City] mayoral candidates can receive $8 for every $1 contributed by an individual up to the first $250 that donor contributed. That means a $250 contribution is actually worth $2,250 to the candidate…

In total, over $37 million in public funds were distributed to candidates in the Democratic primary…

Only one Democratic candidate, Ray McGuire, opted out of the public funding program which allowed him to give his campaign $3 million and accept contributions up to $5,100. 

But the decision to opt-out of public funding hasn’t helped McGuire sell a winning campaign message. Just 3% of likely Democratic voters said McGuire was their first choice in the latest WNBC/Telemundo 47/POLITICO/Marist poll. Conversely, the four top candidates in the poll (Adams, former commissioner of the New York City Sanitation Department Kathryn Garcia, activist Maya Wiley and entrepreneur Andrew Yang) all had more public money fund their campaigns than private funds.

New York Times: Who Are the Billionaires’ Picks for New York Mayor? Follow the Money.

By Dana Rubinstein, Jonah E. Bromwich and Katie Glueck

Together, billionaires have spent more than $16 million this year on super PACs that are primarily focused on the [New York City] mayoral primary campaign that ends on Tuesday — the first mayoral election in the city’s history to feature such loosely regulated organizations devoted to individual candidates.

Overall, super PAC spending in the mayor’s race has exceeded $24 million, according to the New York City Campaign Finance Board, making up roughly 30 percent of the $79 million spent on the campaign.

The impact has been dramatic: a deluge of campaign mailers and political ads on radio, television and the internet, especially in recent weeks, as the unusually large field of Democratic candidates vied to win over an electorate distracted by the pandemic.

Dedicated super PACs exist for all but one of the eight major Democratic candidates, but half of the billionaires’ spending has benefited just three of the field’s more moderate contenders…

“Who’s going to be mayor matters to a lot of people with a lot of money,” said Lawrence Norden, the director of the electoral reform program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “You have to ask yourself when people are spending tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a candidate, why are they doing it and what do they hope to get out of it?” …

“Right wing hedge fund billionaires think they can buy this city, spending millions on Eric Adams and Andrew Yang,” the Working Families Party national director, Maurice Mitchell, said in a statement.

The Observer: Politics and pandemic mark closing days of legislative session

By Gary A. Warner, Oregon Capital Bureau

More than 78% of Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 107 in November 2020, amending the state constitution to explicitly allow regulation of campaign finances. A 1997 voter measure placing caps on giving was upended by the Oregon Supreme Court’s ruling that it ran afoul of the broad interpretation of free speech guarantees that go beyond even the U.S. Constitution.

Oregon remained one of five states without contribution limits. But how much is too much bogged down placing numbers on the limits during the 2021 session as competing visions stalled amid the flood of legislation.

“Something as comprehensive as what was being talked about is going to be really difficult to pull off,” Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego said last week. Legislative leaders say they will try again next year.