CCP
Senate’s Attacks on Dissent Continue
Luke Wachob
Setting aside the (im)propriety of such a resolution, it’s interesting to consider how campaign finance and tax law impact this debate. In picking a fight with nonprofits, Senators have chosen targets that have a hand tied behind their back. Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, many of which are scheduled to be named by Senators on the chamber’s floor, are prohibited by law from supporting or opposing candidates, and the law surrounding nonprofit political speech is incredibly complex. Criticizing public officials can become a minefield for these groups, who often must consult with an attorney – costing precious time and money – prior to mentioning an elected official by name. Thus, it is easy for Senators to scold these groups, knowing that many of them are legally prohibited from running ads during election season to respond to their attackers.
Mixing complex laws that make it difficult to speak with politicians’ natural inclination to target organizations with which they disagree is a toxic combination for free speech.
Free Speech
National Review: Senate Democrats Seek to Criminalize First Amendment–Protected Speech
Editorial Board
Not long ago, it was, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!” Now, it’s, “How dare you engage in politics without our permission!”
This is a straightforward First Amendment issue: There are activists who think that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, misguided, or exaggerated, and those who believe that the climate-change policies favored by Democrats such as Senator Whitehouse are poor choices irrespective of how one evaluates the scientific data. These critics may be wrong, and they may even be failing to give the academic research its due — and, so what? If they are wrong, it isn’t a crime to be wrong. A political disagreement is not a tort. This is a straightforward First Amendment issue.
The Democrats are, as we keep pointing out, engaged in a nakedly authoritarian assault on free speech, political debate, and dissent.
Reason: Barbara Boxer and the Democratic Party Hold Two-Day Festival Against Free Speech
Matt Welch
But make no mistake: This coordinated campaign would be an assault on free speech even if it were not drenched in conspiratorial inaccuracy. Democratic lawmakers, attorneys general, and activists are systematically singling out free-market think tanks for potential criminal prosecution and one-sided disclosure requirements based on the content of the think tanks’ research and commentary. They are literally trying to criminalize dissent. If successful, they will establish as “fraud” or “racketeering” any future think-tank work that runs afoul of political orthodoxy. President Trump will have a helpful precedent to sic his Justice Department on groups that advocate for free trade and open immigration. George Soros will no longer get away with his current levels of foundation transparency.
Sadly, this heavy-handed act of government intimidation will likely go as unnoticed as Hillary Clinton’s long track record against free speech. Why? Because generally speaking both the mainstream press and the organized left reserve their First Amendment outrage for politicians they disagree with. Their silence is shameful, and deafening.
Independent Groups
Washington Free Beacon: Dem Super PAC Spends Millions on Firms, Salaries—Nothing on Candidates
Joe Schoffstall
21st Century Democrats, which was created in 1988 by former Sen. Tom Harkin, commentator Jim Hightower, and former Rep. Lane Evans (D., Ill.), has a stated mission of “training progressives and building a network of populist Democrats who stand up for America’s working families. The super PAC pledges to “support progressive Democratic leaders who will shape the direction of the Democratic Party and enact public policy that transforms this country to a just, fair and equal society for all.”
Despite the group’s stated mission, the only support they appear to have given to Democrats in recent years comes in the form of endorsements posted on their website.
Huffington Post: Super PAC And Dark Money Spending Already Tops $100 Million In Fight For Senate Control
Paul Blumenthal
Super PACs and nonprofit groups have already spent at least $101 million in most of the states hosting contested Senate races that will determine which party controls the chamber in 2017. In almost every state where control of the Senate is at stake, groups aligned with Republicans dominate. In all, Republican groups have spent $70 million of the $101 million total.
That $101 million continues the steady increase in spending by super PACs and nonprofit groups since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling and subsequent lower court decisions.
Conventions
Bustle: Why Are The 2016 Conventions So Early? It’s All About The Benjamins For Republicans & Democrats
Amee LaTour
Many of us count the primaries as basically over once the final states have held their contests. But the primary season doesn’t technically end until the Republican and Democratic National Conventions take place, where delegates cast their votes and the nominee is officially named. They’re usually scheduled between late August and early September, but the conventions will be held in July this year. Why are the conventions happening so early? It all comes down to the oh-so-sexy topic of campaign financing rules…
Campaign financing laws stipulate that general election funds can only kick in once a candidate has been officially nominated their party’s convention. Candidates often burn through primary spending early on when they’re competing against other potential nominees, leaving them with a gap in funding until after the convention.
Citizens United
Iowa Public Radio: Former Congressman Jim Leach: Citizens United “Doing Enormous Damage” to America’s Political Process
Clare Roth and Ben Kieffer
Former Congressman Jim Leach pointed to Citizens United, and the equation of money to free speech, as a key catalyst for much of the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the system…
He says the disgust with politics expressed by supporters of Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump is rooted in something real.
“Rigged is an over-exaggerated term, but there are elements that are valid. And, unfortunately, Iowa is a problem in this.”
He points to, among other things, the public nature of voting in the Democratic Party’s caucus process as a source of that umbrage.
Influence
Real Screen: Alexandra Pelosi examines campaign finance for HBO
Kevin Ritchie
Journalist and filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi is turning a lens on the mega-rich who back the major U.S. political parties in a documentary for HBO.
Meet the Donors: Does Money Talk? looks at the money side of American politics through the perspective of multi-millionaires and billionaires who donate, as well as fundraisers, lobbyists, unions and campaign finance reform crusaders.
Armed with a hand-held camera, Pelosi visits offices, cocktail soirees and fundraising events to ask America’s moneyed elite about the extent of their donations, their reasons for giving and the influence and access they get in return.
Hollywood Reporter: Jon Voight Lashes Out at Democrats, Hillary Clinton
Paul Bond
“The things I say, some people are shocked by,” Voight said prior to the premiere at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. “But if they do a little research, you’ll find people who give you the truth, and one of them is Dinesh D’Souza. He’s standing up and taking the blows. He was literally put in jail because someone didn’t want him speaking out.”
In fact, the movie begins with a reenactment of D’Souza talking to other inmates. One is in for lighting someone on fire, another for drug running. When D’Souza says he is in for donating too much to a friend’s senatorial campaign, the others laugh.
San Diego Union-Tribune: Scott Peters and congressional pals swap donations
Lauryn Schroeder
San Diego Rep. Scott Peters and his family have been involved in a series of donation exchanges with the families of other congressional candidates, apparently legal trade-offs that allowed more money to flow to each campaign than might be allowed under contribution limits.
Federal Election Commission reports show Peters and his family have written checks for years to other Democrats, almost always for the maximum amount.
These candidates and their families donated the same amount to Peters around the same time, often on the same day.
U-T Watchdog was able to identify 21 such dollar-for-dollar swaps.
Candidates and Campaigns
Wall Street Journal: Many Voters Think They’ve Seen Trump Ads On TV — But He Hasn’t Run Any
Rebecca Ballhaus
Nearly half of voters in a recent survey said they had seen TV ads supporting Donald Trump in the last week.
There’s just one problem: His campaign hasn’t aired any, and his friendly super PACs have run very few.
Meanwhile, 52% of respondents said they had seen an ad promoting Democrat Hillary Clinton—just six percentage points more than the proportion who said they had spotted Trump ads. Mrs. Clinton has aired more than 20,000 TV ad spots since June 8, on top of more than 11,000 aired by her friendly super PAC, according to the Center for Public Integrity, which analyzed Kantar Media/CMAG ad data.
