In the News
The Libertarian Republic: Senators Hold Hearing About Abandoning the First Amendment
By Joe Trotter
The amendment, written by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and co-sponsored by 41 senators, would allow Congress to regulate “the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination to, or for election to, Federal office; and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.” According to the preamble, the purpose for this is to “advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes.”
What does this really mean? Can certain types of nonprofit corporations like the Sierra Club and National Rifle Association be banned from mentioning candidates while discussing environmental or gun control issues? Can Congress pass legislation regulating when prominent personalities can use media attention inherent to their status as celebrities to speak about politicians and political causes? Can Congress decide that unions are more “politically equal” than nonprofit organizations and ban nonprofits from speaking out while unions have a free rein?
Udall’s proposed amendment is an invitation for Congress to discriminate against different groups of people based on how they choose to organize themselves, which runs entirely counter to the protections enshrined in the First Amendment. But that’s the point; Udall and his band of political speech authoritarians cannot stand that the Constitution doesn’t allow them to discriminate against certain groups that may impact their chances at getting re-elected.
The Blaze: These Senators Could Be in Ethics Trouble Over the IRS Scandal
By Fred Lucas
David Keating, the organization’s president, cited the abuse of the IRS by the Nixon White House, and the post-Watergate laws that prevented the White House from using the IRS for political reasons.
“If someone in the White House was connected it would make it a real criminal violation and a very sensational thing,” Keating told TheBlaze. “I doubt that happened. But there was huge heat coming from the Senate.”
If congressional committees believe organizations are skirting tax laws, there are procedures to investigate, Keating said.
“I don’t think it’s every appropriate for Congress to ask a law enforcement agency to go investigate this group, go audit that group,” he added. “Congress is not the FBI. It is not the Justice Department.”
Providence Journal: Conservative groups complain Whitehouse pressured IRS
By Thomas J. Morgan
Seth Larson, spokesman for Whitehouse, responded:
“The complaints filed by the Tea Party Patriots and the Center for Competitive Politics are frivolous and utterly without merit. As a former attorney general and U.S. Attorney, Senator Whitehouse noticed that certain legal declarations appeared to violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, which makes false statements a crime. Bringing such activities to the attention of the relevant federal authorities is perfectly appropriate for a senator, indeed any citizen who thinks they may be witness to a crime. Senator Whitehouse isn’t about to let the bullying or showboating tactics of these organizations interfere with his job representing the interests of Rhode Islanders.”
Note: Projecting much?
Investor’s Business Daily: Tea Party Presses Ethics Charges Against Key Dems
This is what progressives do when in power. They attack and demonize and isolate. They imply honest people are criminals. And they don’t mind using public money to do it. The ends justify their means, and the ends are always uppermost in their minds.
Nor is Harry Reid alone. A slew of other Democrats face similar ethics charges from the Center for Competitive Politics following the IRS’ targeting of right-leaning political groups in 2012’s now-tainted national election. The group includes Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
Whitehouse is also the target of a second Tea Party ethics complaint charging he “exerted pressure on federal agencies to target Tea Party nonprofits and to criminally prosecute groups such as ours.”
Daily Signal: Ethics Complaint Targets Harry Reid for Abuse of Power
By Josh Siegel
In another, unrelated complaint filed Tuesday with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, the Center for Competitive Politics, another conservative nonprofit, charges nine Democratic senators with “interfering with the administrative proceedings of the IRS.”
CCP
“Exploring a Constitutional Amendment to Amend the First Amendment and Promote Incumbents”
By Luke Wachob
McKissick, Jr. focused his testimony on issues affecting North Carolina that he felt were connected to the Citizens United ruling, ranging as far as teacher tenure, Medicaid expansion, and unemployment insurance. In other words, McKissick wants a constitutional amendment to prevent people in power from implementing policies he doesn’t like. Raskin argued that a century-old wall between democracy and plutocracy was being eroded by a “free market” ideology equating money with speech. He won the prize for most hyperbolic on the panel, accusing the Supreme Court of having “bulldozed” the campaign finance system and warning of momentum to “strike down all campaign finance laws.” Abrams took a far different position, noting that the Udall amendment’s intention was to limit speech, which fundamentally contradicts the purpose of the First Amendment, and that it would reverse not only Citizens United and McCutcheon, but also the 1976 landmark campaign finance ruling, Buckley v. Valeo. While McKissick and Raskin thought the 2012 elections were proof that the Court’s rulings had done serious damage to democracy, Abrams contended they were proof that the system worked: more money was spent, enabling more people to speak.
Members of the Committee went back and forth debating whether the Udall amendment was a necessary response to recent Supreme Court rulings or a dangerous attempt to reduce First Amendment rights and expand government power. Sen. Schumer (NY) again compared limiting political speech to noise ordinances, libel laws, and child pornography laws, showing off his profound ignorance of free speech. I’ve written about Sen. Schumer’s inability to distinguish between free speech exceptions – such as noise ordinances, libel laws, and true threats – and restrictions, such as telling a citizen “you’ve spent enough on speech this election cycle,” before. It’s troubling, to say the least, that a senior U.S. Senator doesn’t get the difference.
CCP Welcomes Research Fellow Scott Blackburn
By Matt Nese
The Center for Competitive Politics is pleased to welcome Scott Blackburn to our team as a Research Fellow.
Prior to joining CCP, Scott was a research intern at the Cato Institute, working for Cato’s Libertarianism.Org. He also worked as a regulatory policy intern at the American Action Forum and wrote for the political fact-checking site, FactCheck.Org. Scott graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a B.A. in Political Science in 2012.
Scott has always believed strongly in the rights of individuals to freely and openly express their opinions, and the dangers the regulatory state poses to those individual rights.
Amending the First Amendment
Wall Street Journal: Why Is Ted Cruz Defending Planned Parenthood?
By Rebecca Ballhaus
Scarcely taking a breath, he said the amendment “would give Congress the power to muzzle Planned Parenthood and the National Right to Life. Forty-two Democrats have signed their name to giving Congress the right to muzzle the Sierra Club, to muzzle the National Rifle Association and the Brady Center on Handgun Violence, to muzzle Michael Moore and Dinesh D’Souza, to muzzle the teamsters and the National Education Association, to muzzle the NAACP, to muzzle the Anti-Defamation League to muzzle pastors and priests and rabbis who organize their parishioners to be involved in politics.”
“When did elected Democrats abandon the Bill of Rights?” he asked, his dramatic flair drawing a few giggles from audience members.
Washington Post: This is no way to fix the problem of billionaires buying elections
By Dana Milbank
Unfortunately, the one who made the most sense was Cruz, who quoted two liberals, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, opposing similar amendments in the past. The Texan cited Kennedy saying, in 1997, “We have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start.”
Cruz drew laughter from the audience, and even a few Democratic senators, when he said he was defending the free speech not only of conservatives but also of Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, labor unions and Michael Moore.
Cruz isn’t defending anybody’s liberty; he’s championing oligarchy. But his efforts will be undone, and the Supreme Court reshaped, by the very democratic process the oligarchs are trying to subvert — long before any constitutional amendment is adopted.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Dan Backer has an anti-Hillary PAC — and says Clinton owes him a heartfelt ‘thank you’
By Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz
“I did not get a thank you,” Backer told the Loop. “They’re taking advantage of our legal brilliance.”
Backer is the listed treasurer for about 40 PACs, most of them hybrids. Some are legitimate operations, raising real money. Others have accounts of a few thousand dollars. Stop Hillary PAC has raised nearly half a million dollars since last summer. Backer also helps run a Stop Pelosi PAC and a Stop R.E.I.D. PAC, for non-fans of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Those entities, Backer says, are designed to build an army of opposition to the Democrats’ deep political operations.
“Stop Hillary will oppose those candidates and fight against those who will be part of the Hillary network,” Backer said. “And the biggest thing the PAC will do is remind people that Hillary the brand is bulls—.”
Kochs
Washington Post: Review: ‘Big Money,’ on the role of the ultra-rich in American politics, by Kenneth Vogel
By Bethany McLean
There’s also a conundrum at the book’s core. Thus far, whether it’s George Soros throwing money at John Kerry, or Foster Friess at Rick Santorum, or Sheldon Adelson at Newt Gingrich, or the entire Republican fiasco of 2012, big money has mostly struck out. Vogel spends a lot of time doing an autopsy of what one of his sources calls the Republican “disaster” in 2012. He traces it in part to the fragmentation among donors, wonders if the same thing will happen to Democrats and writes this: “The party’s big money, in other words, was shaping up as its own worst enemy. Sparring sects were positioning themselves to take control of the party by determining its nominees, shaping the issues, and electing the candidates. But there was a very real possibility that they would instead cancel each other out.”
Despite this “very real possibility” and all the evidence of failure that Vogel presents, his core message is that the rich are “hijacking American democracy.” We’re at the dawn of a new era of mega political contributions, not the end of it. It feels too optimistic to believe otherwise. But given Vogel’s work chronicling all the failures, the book cries out for some explanation as to why past isn’t prologue and how those 200 people are going to be able to buy their president, instead of just losing their money.
Lobbying and Ethics
Politico: Exodus hits Patton Boggs
By Anna Palmer and Byron Tau
One Patton Boggs insider estimated that 200 lawyers, lobbyists and staff, through layoffs, buyouts and departures, will have left the firm by the time everything settles down. At its peak in recent years, the firm had about 500 lawyers and lobbyists.
The Hill: A lifetime ban on lobbying for lawmakers?
By Cristina Marcos
Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) on Tuesday introduced legislation to prevent members of Congress from becoming lobbyists after they retire.
Current law allows senators to become lobbyists two years after leaving office, while House members only have to wait for a year. But Bennet and Tester’s bill would institute a lifetime ban on lobbying for lawmakers.
“Washington lobbyists shouldn’t be allowed to hold more sway than the folks back home in Colorado and around the country. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the way things happen around this place,” Bennet said.
