In the News
Washington Post: Conservative group sues for FEC report on Crossroads GPS
By Josh Hicks
The Center for Competitive Politics has asked for an unpublished report on the FEC’s review of Crossroads GPS, but the agency has declined to provide the document under a Freedom of Information Act request, citing an exemption that allows agencies to withhold details of their deliberative processes.
Government-transparency advocates have criticized the Obama administrationfor its increased use of the exemption in recent years.
The Center for Competitive Politics said in a statement Monday that the FEC report is “of great importance to the regulated community” because it would help groups understand the general counsel’s thinking when it comes to interpreting the law.
National Journal: Conservative Group Sues FEC for Redacted Crossroads Document
By Shane Goldmacher
The document, a first draft from the general counsel’s office, would be closely analyzed by political attorneys for insights into the commission’s thinking in cases of nonprofits. It could also serve as a road map for campaigns to avoid FEC enforcement.
On Monday, the right-leaning group sued to see the sealed pages.
“The FEC ignored the law and its own policies and regulations that require publication of the document,” said David Keating, president of the group, in a statement. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Washington Examiner: Watchdog group claims Federal Election Commission improperly denied FOIA request
By Spencer Brown
CCP believes “the two documents have unknown differences in the legal test used by the FEC’s General Counsel to determine if an organization must register as a political committee.” In this, the CCP claims, “the FEC hid this possible change from organizations seeking to comply with the FEC’s interpretation of federal law.”
Chamber of Commerce: Exposed: The Campaign to Silence the Business Community
By Sean Hackbarth
The report explains how foundations like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation fund groups like the CPA to build a false narrative that a company that engages in policy debates is “risky” for investors. By “co-opting various reputable organizations” like the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School, CPA coordinates an effort to perpetuate “the myth that increased disclosure has mainstream support from the business community.”
Activist groups like ThinkProgress and Media Matters then latch onto this false narrative to pressure public companies through letter-writing campaigns, shareholder resolutions, and lawsuits to disclose their public policy advocacy spending. While they claim it’s to promote “transparency,” the real intention is to “distort the disclosed information to ‘name and shame’ the company” like what Target experienced in 2010.
CCP
Free speech group sues FEC for failure to disclose
Alexandria, Va. –– The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) today filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) seeking a controversial agency document denied to CCP despite a Freedom of Information Act request. That document relates to a complaint against Crossroads GPS that was dismissed by the FEC last December.
“The FEC ignored the law and its own policies and regulations that require publication of the document,” said CCP president David Keating. “Ironically, the three Democratic commissioners who denied release of the document claim to favor disclosure.”
Typically, when the FEC’s General Counsel reviews a complaint alleging a campaign finance law violation, a First General Counsel’s Report is distributed to the Commission. As a matter of longstanding policy reflected in federal regulations requiring the FEC to “make the fullest possible disclosure of records to the public,” the FEC makes First General Counsel’s Reports public.
Complaint: Center for Competitive Politics v. Federal Election Commission
The letter did not inform CCP which FOIA exemptions the FEC applied in its denial, nor did it attach any statement of reasons by any of the commissioners for its constructive denial. Nor did the letter state which commissioners, or how many, had voted to deny CCP’s appeal.
Agency denial of CCP’s appeal without explaining the rationale for that decision is arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F)(i); see also FEC v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F.2d at 1476 (“[T]o make judicial review a meaningful exercise, the three Commissioners who voted to dismiss must provide a statement of their reasons for so voting.”).
Plaintiff has now exhausted administrative remedies.
Comment on the New York Emergency Regulations Relative to Independent Expenditure Reporting
By Allen Dickerson
CCP’s most significant concern with the Regulations stems from their tendency to increase, rather than limit, vagueness regarding what speech qualifies as an independent expenditure. State law requires those making independent expenditures to register as political committees and file detailed campaign finance reports.[2] Given these burdens, the standard for determining what speech qualifies as an independent expenditure is particularly important.
But rather than clarifying what expressive activity will trigger these (not insubstantial) requirements, the Regulations make it significantly more difficult for speakers to determine, in advance, whether their desired speech will be an independent expenditure. Instead, they abandon the pre-Regulation law’s crisp standard—which is firmly rooted in United States Supreme Court precedent—and replace it with a vague, amorphous test that chills speech and vests state bureaucrats with significant discretion to sanction speech after the fact.
Brennan Mancil Joins CCP as Research Associate
By Matt Nese
Prior to joining CCP, Brennan wrote for The Arch Conservative, a campus journal of political opinion at the University of Georgia. He is active in Georgia politics and is a former member of the GAGOP Executive Board. Brennan is pursuing degrees in Political Science and International Affairs from UGA.
Brennan firmly believes that the ability to spend money on political speech is an integral part of the political process, and restrictions to its usage inhibit political discourse.
“Those who advocate for greater campaign finance regulations lament the effects of political spending, while ignoring both the First Amendment rights of individuals and groups and the necessity of this spending to facilitating citizens’ ability to speak out. Spending on political speech gives citizens the ability to express their opinions, regardless of political affiliation.”
Amending the First Amendment
Orange County Register: Senate eyes wrong approach to campaign finance abuses
There’s a good reason that New York’s U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer has secured a place near the top of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the upper chamber: The Empire State’s senior senator is something of a savant when it comes to political strategy. No position, no matter how unprincipled or demagogic, is a bridge too far for Mr. Schumer if he thinks it will help the Democratic Party come Election Day.
Thus, it’s no surprise that, in a year in which Harry Reid’s favorite pastime has been warning of the nefarious influence of the Koch Brothers and progressive groups have been bemoaning the prevalence of “dark money” (political spending where donors don’t have to reveal their identities), Sen. Schumer has been the foremost voice for a constitutional amendment proposed by New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall to expand Congress’ powers to regulate political speech.
The proposal comes in the wake of Supreme Court decisions like the Citizens United case (which opened the door to super PACs) and a more recent decision striking down aggregate restrictions on how much money donors can give to federal candidates (though limits remain on donations to any individual candidate).
IRS
Wall Street Journal: IRS Sent FBI Database on Nonprofit Groups in 2010, GOP Lawmakers Say
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
WASHINGTON—The Internal Revenue Service transmitted a 1.1 million-page database of information concerning tax-exempt organizations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the run-up to the 2010 election, including confidential taxpayer information that shouldn’t have been shared, according to House Republican lawmakers investigating the IRS.
The information was to be used in investigations of nonprofit groups’ political activity, the lawmakers say, citing internal emails from the agencies.
The Justice Department turned over the database to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this month in response to a subpoena, officials said on Monday.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Wall Street Journal: Another John Doe Disclosure
Editorial
The document also reveals that the first Doe was enlarged no fewer than 18 times over two and half years. That secret investigation began by looking into funds stolen from a veterans group while Mr. Walker was Milwaukee County executive and eventually became a kitchen-sink probe into Mr. Walker’s staff and campaign.
After 33 months, Messrs. Robles and Chisholm had little to show beyond some minor charges against former Walker aides. So rather than enlarge their investigation for the 19th time, the prosecutors “closed” it and reopened under new management. New sign, same bad food.
Mr. Schmitz was brought in as a supposedly independent voice to lead the investigation in August 2013, but a lawsuit filed May 30 says Mr. Schmitz was hired as a special investigator at the state Government Accountability Board and was on the GAB payroll before he was appointed special prosecutor.
Kochs
Wall Street Journal: Book Review: ‘Sons of Wichita’ by Daniel Schulman & ‘Big Money’ by Kenneth P. Vogel
By BARTON SWAIM
Whatever else Mr. Vogel’s book proves, “Big Money” makes clear that this influx of mega-cash hasn’t enabled anyone to “buy” an election. In 2012 Super-PAC money helped keep the GOP primaries competitive for far longer than they otherwise would have been, with the result that voters in usually irrelevant primary states had reason to engage their faculties over whom the Republicans should nominate as president. Rather than “hijacking” American politics, big money—in this case, anyway—democratized it. That’s a disaster if you’re a billionaire trying to buy a president. If you’re a wealthy citizen trying to draw attention to a body of ideas neither party fully embraces, it may be worth it.
If the Kochs are interested in financial gain, as Mr. Krugman and others on the left contend, they are exceptionally poor investors. Even if they could have gotten everything they might want out of a Romney administration—highly unlikely in any circumstance—the financial benefits would have been negligible compared with the hundreds of millions they donated. The same is true of other big donors on both left and right in 2012.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Washington Post: Democrats aren’t winning back the House. So how are they raising so much money?
By AARON BLAKE
Basically nobody is giving House Democrats any real chance of winning the majority this year. And yet, the committee in charge of doing just that, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), continues to lap the competition in fundraising.
These two things, to put it mildly, do not generally go together.
When you’re in the minority, after all, you have less power. People therefore have less incentive to give you money, and that goes double when you have basically no shot at returning to power after the election in question. (Not to mention when there’s a far more compelling contest on the other side of the Capitol, for the U.S. Senate.) Committees also rely heavily on contributions from their members, and when you have fewer members — the GOP currently leads in that category 233-199 — that means less money.
The Hill: McAllister says he expected contribution for vote
By Alexandra Jaffe
“The Heritage Foundation is a nonpartisan research and educational organization that does not make endorsements or donations in elections,” he said.
And McAllister later told the Monroe News-Star that he wasn’t talking about the Heritage Foundation and that his comments were taken out of context.
“I have never cast a vote with the expectation or anticipation of receiving any money for a vote. I was just trying to illustrate how much money controls Washington, D.C., and the reporter took the comments totally out of context,” he said.
Washington Examiner: Why these Republicans weren’t happy with a plan to draft Sarah Palin
By BETSY WOODRUFF AND DAVID M. DRUCKER
An online campaign to draft Sarah Palin into running for the U.S. Senate was a long-shot.
Some Republicans say it was also an unnecessary distraction — and probably nothing more than a ruse to raise money by an obscure Tea Party organization.
FEC
National Journal: Four Years Later, FEC May Finally Update Its Books With Citizens United Ruling
By Shane Goldmacher
It’s been more than four years since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling reshaped the campaign finance landscape, and yet the Federal Election Commission has failed to issue new regulations to take into account the landmark decision.
That could be about to change.
Behind closed doors, a bipartisan clutch of FEC commissioners are quietly moving to refresh the election regulations after years of stalemate, those familiar with the process tell National Journal. The updated rules under consideration by the commissioners are narrow in scope, mostly seeking to strip unconstitutional provisions from the books; the revisions would not include the stricter disclosure requirements that some Democrats have sought, people involved said. But the very fact that the commission is undertaking the effort at all is a significant development for an agency that has become synonymous with Washington gridlock and dysfunction.
State and Local
Nevada –– Las Vegas Review-Journal: Reid faces election complaint over donation request
By LAURA MYERS
As a state candidate, Flores, D-Las Vegas, is allowed to accept limited corporate contributions. But Reid, as a federal politician who cannot accept corporate money, isn’t even allowed to ask for such funding for another candidate, according to federal law.
Reid should have added a disclaimer to his email request to donate to Flores, saying he wasn’t specifically soliciting corporate money for her, according to the complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission.
“Harry Reid clearly violated Federal Election Law in an email fund-raising solicitation which deliberately left out a proper disclaimer which would have expressly mentioned the strict law against federal office holders requesting money from corporate contributors,” said the letter to the FEC’s general counsel office.
