CCP
Ineffectual Laws and Individual Liberties
By Brennan Mancil
Any law regulating an individual or organization’s free speech rights also implicates their First Amendment rights. The first five words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…,” establish a barrier to legislative restrictions on political speech rights. However, amidst growing concern by some over increases in political spending, Congress and state legislatures have sought to infringe on the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
According to the Supreme Court, the only constitutionally viable regulation of free political speech is to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof. Under federal and state law, it is illegal to bribe or otherwise unlawfully influence public officials for personal gain. With this quid pro quo corruption illegal, the only other form of corruption available to address is ‘corruption’ in the marketplace of ideas. Generally, this involves the active expression of political opinion that competes with other voices for recognition. Campaign finance regulations regulate this form of speech, contrary to the guarantees offered by the First Amendment.
If campaign money is so effective in corrupting politicians and the political process, why isn’t there more money flowing into the system? This is the question posed in the study, “Why is There So Little Money in Politics?” After assessing the amount of money invested in the process by various sectors and groups, the authors concluded that money itself has minimal influence on garnering votes. Instead, far more people give money to candidates they believe in, not in an effort to sway a candidate’s votes or political opinions. This contradicts the premise that more money in politics inherently means more corruption in government.
Amending the First Amendment
Verdict: Amending the First Amendment
By Ronald D. Rotunda
What would you think of a proposal to improve the Mona Lisa by, perhaps, adding a life-like firefly in the upper right hand corner? We know more about paints than in Leonardo’s day, so we could make the firefly positively glow, something he could not do. Sacrilege, you might say, and you would be right.
Now, how about improving the First Amendment? It’s only an amendment, after all. Right now, Congress is, indeed, seriously thinking of amending the First Amendment. On June 3, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment, S.J.Res. 19. This proposal would give Congress and “each State” the power to impose “political equality” by regulating how much you and I could spend on, or contribute to, political campaigns. Think of political campaigns as yet another regulated industry: the regulators are—no surprise here—the incumbents. This proposal already has 41 cosponsors.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: Another IRS Abuse
Editorial
In October of 2010, apparently without a court order, the IRS sent 21 computer disks containing 1.1 million pages of tax-return documents to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to the Justice Department, the massive data dump included public returns from non-profit groups but also taxpayer information that by law the IRS is required to keep confidential. Reps. Issa and Jordan ask in their letter for information relating to the preparation and transmittal of the data.
How did these documents wind up at the FBI? In September of 2010, IRS officials including Lois Lerner and Sarah Hall Ingram helped the New York Times NYT+0.83% prepare a story about non-profit policy groups which “heavily favored Republicans” in their purchases of issue advertising.
The day after the article appeared, Justice Department Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith noted the story in an email to colleagues and asked whether they could charge the groups with conspiracy to violate U.S. laws. Mr. Smith also suggested scheduling a meeting with Ms. Ingram, who like Ms. Lerner was a senior official overseeing tax-exempt organizations at the IRS.
Wall Street Journal: Opinion: Will IRS Abuse Ever Be Prosecuted?
Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky on new evidence that the IRS leaked confidential taxpayer data to the FBI.
Kochs
Roll Call: Koch Starts Lobbying on Campaign Finance Issue
By Kent Cooper
It is not clear if this new lobbying effort is aimed to counter the efforts for a constitutional amendment stating Congress can regulate contributions and spending in federal elections. The Senate Democrats announced at the end of April they would schedule a vote this year on the issue. The Koch Companies Public Sector LLC contracted with The Nickles Group effective May 1st, but registered on June 6th.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Wall Street Journal: Eric Cantor Loses to Tea Party’s David Brat in Virginia Primary
By Kristina Peterson and Janet Hook
Mr. Brat delivered his Tuesday night victory speech off the cuff, said Jamie Radtke, formerly the president of the Richmond Tea Party and a resident of Mr. Cantor’s district. “What you proved tonight was dollars don’t vote—you do,” Mr. Brat told his supporters, according to Ms. Radtke.
Roll Call: Campaign Finance Hearings Showcase Extremes | Rules of the Game
By Eliza Newlin Carney
And as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted in his rare joint appearance with Reid before the full Judiciary Committee last week, Democrats know full well that a constitutional amendment — which would require approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures — is dead on arrival.
“This is a political exercise, and that’s all it is,” McConnell told the Judiciary panel. “The goal here is to stir up one party’s political base so they’ll show up in November, and it’s to do it by complaining loudly about certain Americans exercising their free speech and associational rights, while being perfectly happy that other Americans, those who agree with the sponsors of this amendment, are doing the same thing.”
CPI: After Lindsey Graham met billionaire, supportive super PAC secured donation an hour later
By Marcelo Rochabrun
In early March, billionaire John Catsimatidis met privately in New York City with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., where the two men lamented the still-fragile economy and chewed over other national issues.
At the time, Catsimatidis, the owner of a grocery store chain and a 2013 New York City Republican mayoral hopeful, had already donated the legal maximum of $5,200 to Graham’s re-election campaign.
FEC
Wall Street Journal: BitBeat: A New Way to Give a Politician a Bitcoin
By MICHAEL J. CASEY and PAUL VIGNA CONNECT
Based on legal advice and statements by FEC Chairman Lee Goodman, the firm has adopted a fairly liberal interpretation of a key FEC advisory in May and so is assuming that donors can provide more than $100 worth of bitcoin per electoral cycle to each candidate.
At the time of the May advisory, the Commission unanimously agreed to accept a request from Make Our Laws, a non-partisan political action committee focused on campaign finance reform, to allow it to accept up to $100 in bitcoins from a single contributor per cycle. However, the six-member commission was split down party lines on whether to allow the PAC to accept more than $100 if it wished, a position that would exempt it from the hard limit that currently applies to cash-only donations.
Mr. Goodman, a Republican, issued a statement declaring that the opinion “in no way establishes the outer boundary for the contributions and use of bitcoin.” He suggested that because the commission had not ruled against permitting a larger amount, the limits that apply to donations by check and other traceable forms of payment – $2,600 per candidate per year, $5,000 per PAC, $10,000 per state and local party committees, and $97,200 for national committees – would apply to bitcoin.
State and Local
New York –– NY Times: Tapes in State Senator’s Trial Reveal Quid Pro Quo Arrangements
By Joseph Berger
The United States attorney’s office in New York has charged Mr. Smith with orchestrating a campaign to bribe three of the five Republican county chairmen to give him a letter authorizing his run on the Republican line.
The go-between in that alleged plot to run for mayor was Daniel Halloran III, a Republican city councilman from Queens who is also on trial for bribery and wire fraud charges. To get him to go along with Mr. Smith’s ambitions, Mr. Stern and Mr. Modi gave him almost $40,000 in cash and $6,500 more in checks to his fruitless congressional campaign in 2012. His lawyer, Vinoo P. Varghese, contends the $40,000 was a series of personal loans and said the $6,500 was reported as campaign contributions.
