In the News
National Review: What Money Can’t Buy: Elections
By Luke Wachob
In reality, campaign-finance restrictions are closer to being the epitome of corruption than its antithesis. The crony capitalists here are not citizens with the gall to donate up to $2,600 per election to the candidate of their choice, but the incumbent politicians and entrenched political interests crafting legislation — and now constitutional amendments — to limit speech about candidates in order to protect their privilege and prevent new voices from getting a seat at the table.
Despite incredibly low approval ratings for Congress, incumbents continue to win reelection at high rates. The advantages incumbents typically hold over challengers — name recognition, ties to party leaders and media members, databases of donors from past campaigns, free postage — are difficult to overcome. The challenges are further exacerbated by contribution limits and other restrictions on fundraising. Given the evidence that money is necessary to win an election, but not sufficient, government can best promote competitive elections simply by getting out of the way of candidates’ fundraising and imposing as few limits as possible.
Virginia voters proved once again that we are not brainwashed by whichever candidate has more money to spend. Americans are smart enough to know whom they want to vote for. We should stop pretending that campaign-finance restrictions are about protecting the public and admit their true purpose: protecting incumbent politicians from challengers.
Wall Street Journal: The High Price of Obama Fatigue
Editorial
On Jan. 27, 2010, Mr. Obama used his State of the Union speech to explicitly criticize the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, seated in front of him, for their campaign-finance ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.
The forces Mr. Obama put in motion with this attack were described in a seminal piece for this newspaper by former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith—”Connecting the Dots in the IRS Scandal.” Through 2012, a succession of Democratic senators urged the IRS to investigate 501(c)(4) nonprofit political groups. Mr. Obama himself in a March 2010 radio address spoke of “shadowy groups with harmless sounding names” that threaten “our democracy.”
Here’s a partial list of the American place names where the “tea party” groups audited by the IRS were organized: Franklin, Tenn.; Livonia, Mich.; Lucas, Texas; Middletown, Del.; Fishersville, Va.; Jackson, N.J.; Redding, Calif.; Chandler, Ariz.; Laurens, S.C.; Woodstown, N.J.; Wetumpka, Ala.; Kahului, Hawaii; Sidney, Ohio; Newalla, Okla.
He’s right, these people do live most of their lives in the shadow of daily American life, out of the public eye. Still, they considered themselves to be very much inside “our democracy.” Then the IRS asked them for the names of their donors, what they talked about, political affiliations.
Washington Post: IRS to propose specific limits on nonprofits’ political activities
By Josh Hicks
The Center for Competitive Politics was less enthusiastic, saying the Federal Election Commission is better suited for dealing with campaign-finance matters.
“The idea that a tax-enforcement agency is getting involved in politics is an extremely dangerous thing,” said David Keating, the group’s president. “It’s not in their area of expertise.”
CCP
“New Soft Money,” Same Old Arguments
By Scott Blackburn
On Wednesday morning, Law Professor Daniel Tokaji and Graduate Research Fellow Renata Strause, both of Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, unveiled their provocatively titled report, “The New Soft Money.” The report, according to its authors, is “the most comprehensive to date on the impact of independent spending” on elections and campaigns. Despite this lofty proclamation, however, the report fails to cover much new ground, instead returning to the standard old saws of those who favor greater regulation of political speech. Among its major findings, the report concludes that organizations making independent expenditures: (1) cooperate with campaigns through media and signaling without explicitly coordinating; (2) spur public distrust and congressional polarization; and (3) influence legislation through the use of implicit threats. All of these claims, however, are not significantly supported by the evidence offered in the report.
Before exploring some of the weaknesses of “The New Soft Money,” it should first be praised for much of its substance. The report presents a clear and readable account of the history of more than 100 years of campaign finance regulation, from the Tillman Act of 1907 to April 2014’s McCutcheon decision, and it provides a helpful guide to the regulatory regime that the IRS and the FEC have set up to distinguish between the many different types of regulated organizations involved in the political process. It also does yeoman’s work compiling and documenting spending by independent organizations over the past 35 years and attempts to break down what this spending has actually accomplished.
But in examining the impact of independent spending, the report falters in two significant areas. First, it fails to capture a diverse range of perspectives. And second, it attempts to paint standard and long-standing campaign behavior and free expression of opinion as sinister or corrupt influence.
IRS
CPI: IRS chief promises stricter rules for ‘dark money’ nonprofit groups
By Julie Patel
The new rules would seek to define what constitutes political activity. The new regulations could also further regulate labor unions and trade associations — two kinds of politically active nonprofits that the IRS didn’t address in a highly contentious rulemaking attempt the agency itself short-circuited in May.
Independent Groups
Decode DC: Campaign finance reform is dead and the Supreme Court killed it
By Dick Meyer
WASHINGTON, D.C. – One of my favorite lines about politics came from the Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1984. He had crossed the Capitol and was talking to the House Ways and Means committee about closing tax loopholes. Going against the tax lobbyists, Moynihan quipped, was like “pitting your kidneys against a brewery.”
Well, if that’s true, then keeping money out of campaigns is like a dialysis patient pitting a lone, damaged kidney against the global beer industry. And indeed, that in a nutshell is the story of what we call “campaign finance reform.”
Watergate inspired a 40-year reform crusade to limit the influence of money in politics, primarily by limiting how much people and organizations could contribute to campaigns, parties and other assorted political committees. The crusaders’ kidneys are about to the fail; the brewers are fat and happy.
NY Times: Soft Money’s Squishy Political Influence
By Derek Willis
To congressional campaign workers, the groups that can raise and spend unlimited donations can seem like unpredictable wedding guests: You don’t know when they’ll show up, what they’ll bring or whether their presence will prove a welcome distraction or a disaster.
State and Local
New York –– Wall Street Journal: Blame Game After Push to Revamp Campaign Financing Ends
By Mike Vilensky
ALBANY—Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders said Wednesday they are no longer pursuing a broad overhaul of New York state’s campaign-finance laws, which allow some of the highest donations to politicians in the nation.
The issue suddenly fizzled in June after dominating much of the state’s political conversation. So, who killed a campaign-finance overhaul this year? It depends on whom you ask.
New York ––– NY Times: Inquiry Into Hynes’s Spending as Prosecutor Widens
By STEPHANIE CLIFFORDJUNE
Federal prosecutors have joined a state investigation into possible fraud by Charles J. Hynes, the former Brooklyn district attorney, signaling that he could now be facing federal charges with longer prison terms.
Assistant United States attorneys from New York’s Eastern District are coordinating with an investigation by the state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, who began his inquiry after a city report suggested Mr. Hynes had used more than $200,000 in public funds for a consultant to his re-election campaign. The report, by the Department of Investigation, said the misuse of funds could amount to larceny.
Connecticut –– CBS: Student Accuses High School Of Blocking Conservative Websites
Andrew Lampart, a senior at Nonnewaug High School, discovered that he couldn’t get on the National Rifle Association’s website while on campus as he was doing research for a classroom debate on gun control in May.
“So, I went over to the other side,” Lampart told WTIC. “And I went over on sites such as Moms Demand Action or Newtown Action Alliance and I could get on these websites but not the others.”
Georgia –– WXIA: Local leaders still ignoring campaign finance deadlines
By Catie Beck
The last time we asked those leaders about late fees owed to the state, we heard lots of explaining. However, state law dictates that politicians file their campaign finance forms on time. The leaders we talked to in April have not done so.
Today, state records still show none of the leaders we contacted in April have paid a single dime. Not State Sen. Donzella James, not Walton County Commissioner Mark Banks, or Atlanta City Councilman Ivory Young. Young offered a reason – he says he has had some financial issues related to medical expenses.
