CCP
New CCP Issue Brief: A World Without Buckley v. Valeo
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) released a new Issue Brief today summarizing key aspects of the 1976 Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo. Without the landmark decision – which many powerful politicians and activists wish to overturn – political speech and association rights would be greatly reduced. CCP’s Brief highlights some of the restrictions on First Amendment rights that Buckley struck down…
“Over 40 years ago, the Court affirmed basic rights to free speech that had never before been seriously questioned,” said CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith. “Overruling Buckley, a 7-1 decision, would be like repealing the First Amendment itself, and would impoverish American political discourse and popular sovereignty.”
“When the raising and spending of campaign money is heavily restricted, incumbents, celebrities, and the well-connected benefit at the expense of everyone else,” said CCP Senior Policy Analyst Luke Wachob. “Protecting speech and association rights in campaigns is essential to the health of our political process.”
A World Without Buckley v. Valeo
By Luke Wachob
A world without Buckley would look vastly different from ours. Candidates and citizens would find their voices greatly diminished, while the voices of corporate media would be greatly empowered. Americans would hear fewer opinions about candidates and become less informed, while the famous, the wealthy, and the well-connected would ascend to new heights of political influence…
The Supreme Court compromised in Buckley, upholding some of FECA’s restrictions on political speech and association, while striking down others. If the Court had upheld the more radical provisions of the law, or if Buckley were to be overturned in the future, American politics could be transformed beyond recognition. The voices of candidates and citizens’ groups would be muzzled, with the voice of corporate media and the already influential amplified even further. Americans would hear fewer views and have less information when voting. Preserving Buckley is essential to protecting the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Courts
Washington Post: Court reverses convictions for videos that allegedly threatened Milford, Mass., chief of police and deputy chief
By Eugene Volokh
Judges and commentators broadly agree that there must be a “true threats” exception to the First Amendment (as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held). But it’s often not clear whether a particular statement falls within it; this Appeals Court of Massachusetts decision from last Friday (Commonwealth v. Cristino) is an interesting illustration of a court skeptically viewing the prosecution’s claim of threat:…
“Because these letters were directed at an elected political official and primarily discuss issues of public concern – [the selectman]’s qualifications for and performance as a selectman – the letters fall within the category of constitutionally protected political speech at the core of the First Amendment.”
“Where matters of public concern are the focus – that is, ‘any matter of political, social, or other concern to community’ – the First Amendment protections are often more rigorous than when matters of private significance are at issue.” Accordingly, since “the essence of the conduct was speech, and in particular, constitutionally protected speech,” there was insufficient evidence to support his criminal harassment conviction as it related to the selectman.
ABC News: Facebook fighting court order over law enforcement access
By Associated Press
Facebook is fighting a court order that blocks the social media giant from letting users know when law enforcement investigators ask to search their online information, particularly their political affiliations and comments…
Facebook is arguing in the D.C. Court of Appeals that the order violates First Amendment protections of the company and individuals.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment. Many documents have been sealed in the case and hearings have been closed to the public.
The timing of the investigation and references in court documents that have been made public suggest the search warrants relate to demonstrations during President Donald Trump’s inauguration, when more than 200 people were charged with rioting, the newspaper reported.
Congress
Medium: Putting the Voice of the People over Special Interests
By Rep. Derek Kilmer
During a hearing on the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, there was an effort to weaken the FEC even further. It would do so by declaring that the Commission could not enforce any rules regarding how business trade associations raise money. I stood up to try and stop it.
We should not be making it easier for trade associations to raise money from a few wealthy individuals without any FEC oversight. While I wasn’t successful in stopping today’s effort, this is too important to not keep fighting. On Team Kilmer we have a slogan: “don’t agonize, organize.”
It’s why this year I reintroduced a bill to institute modest but meaningful reforms at the FEC. Most importantly, it’s the first bill of its kind in years that is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
Read on for what it would do and be sure to join me in keeping up the fight to get money out of politics!
Disclosure
Center for American Progress: Secret and Foreign Spending in U.S. Elections: Why America Needs the DISCLOSE Act
By Liz Kennedy and Alex Tausanovitch
It has been nearly a decade since Congress took any significant action to address the problems in the U.S. campaign finance system. During the ensuing years, loopholes within the system expanded to a point where hidden spending by big donors is now an ordinary part of American politics and spending by foreign citizens-and even foreign governments-is a latent threat to U.S. elections…
Passing the DISCLOSE Act of 2017, first introduced by then Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in 2010, would reverse this trend by taking substantial, commonsense steps to increase the transparency of money in politics and eliminate foreign political spending. Under the DISCLOSE Act, organizations that engage in significant election-related spending, including tax-exempt nonprofits, will have to promptly report that activity. Loopholes that protect donors from disclosure will be closed. And protections against foreign national spending will be extended to cover domestic corporations with foreign owners and decision-makers.
The States
Detroit News: Campus free speech bills: Restrict or protect rights?
By Candice Williams
Critics say the proposed measures could hinder student activism. However, the main sponsor, state Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, says the “Campus Free Speech Act” ensures invited campus speakers have their voices heard…
The legislation in Michigan follows action by Republican lawmakers in several other states to crack down on protesters who disrupt speakers at post-secondary institutions.
In Wisconsin, for example, lawmakers are weighing a bill that would penalize protesters who disrupt speakers. The issue is now before the state Senate…
Free speech expert Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said he doesn’t mind the parts of the bills that reiterate the values of the First Amendment. However, he considers certain areas problematic.
“Why single out protests and demonstrations?” he said. “If I recall correctly, those terms aren’t even defined in the statute. So this bill, which is supposed to be a free-speech bill, is putting a particular kind of limit on certain kinds of free speech, so-called protests and demonstrations.”
Spokane Spokesman-Review: Vermont passes ethics, disclosure laws; now Idaho’s one of just two states without
By Betsy Z. Russell
Thanks to legislative action this year in Vermont, Idaho is now one of just two states in the nation with no requirements for personal financial disclosure by state lawmakers or other elected or appointed officials. Idaho had been one of three states with that distinction. Now it’s just Idaho and Michigan.
S.8, the legislation that Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed into law on June 14, includes a series of ethics reforms…
Vermont’s move comes as the Idaho Legislature has appointed a working group of 10 lawmakers to study possible changes to Idaho’s laws on campaign finance reporting and ethics. Idaho currently has no “revolving door” law or financial disclosure requirements. Those are among the reasons the state earned a “D-minus” in the State Integrity Investigation in 2015, which compared states and their ethics and disclosure laws, practices and enforcement.
Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Revolving door rarely swings for lawmakers returning as lobbyists
By Dana Ferguson
An Argus Leader Media review identified 14 former legislators who made the jump to lobbyist since 2012 after serving in office between 2006 and 2017.
Only four registered less than two years after vacating their legislative seats.
Under state law that took effect this month the required cooling off period was extended from one year to two…
Doug Kronaizl, spokesman for a group that brought the ethics and campaign finance proposal Initiated Measure 22, said it is important to expand the cooling off time to insure former lawmakers don’t have undue influence…
Represent South Dakota campaigned to pass ethics and campaign finance reform proposal Initiated Measure 22 on the 2016 ballot. Voters narrowly approved the measure, which included the two-year lobbying ban.
Lawmakers repealed the law in Pierre but approved the provision in a separate bill.
Sen. Blake Curd, R-Sioux Falls, brought the bill replacing the two-year policy… “I’m not aware that anyone has abused this system,” Curd said, “but I think it’s important to increase that gap. A year is pretty short.”
Seattle Times: Liberal think tank in Seattle ordered to pay $30,000-plus in campaign-disclosure fines
By Joseph O’Sullivan
The Washington Budget & Policy Center has agreed to pay about $30,000 in relation to violations of state campaign-disclosure law, according to the state Attorney General’s Office.
The center didn’t properly report independent expenditures that it made while opposing Initiative 1366, according to court records detailing the settlement…
The action stems from a complaint filed by the right-leaning Freedom Foundation, according to Misha Werschkul, executive director for the center.
“We are committed to tracking and disclosing all reportable activities and we have taken action to update our internal policies and practices” for campaign reporting, Werschkul wrote in an email.
The settlement comes as the Attorney General’s Office takes action on another Freedom Foundation complaint. The office last week announced a lawsuit against SEIU 14 over alleged campaign-finance violations.
The office determined the union “made significant campaign contributions but failed to register and report as a political committee in at least 2014 and 2016,” according to a statement released last week.
Santa Fe New Mexican: State law could lock away Pearce’s $1 million war chest
By Andrew Oxford
New Mexico law is unclear on whether candidates for federal office can give more than just a few thousand dollars to campaigns for state office, potentially setting up a showdown over New Mexico election laws…
Federal law does not prohibit members of Congress from using their campaign funds to run for state office. Candidates can donate their funds to candidates, political parties or charities. And federal law does not limit the amount of money federal campaign committees can donate to candidates for state office, deferring instead to local policies, according to Stephen Spaulding of the campaign finance reform group Common Cause.
“Whether [Pearce] can use the $1 million is thus really a question of state law in New Mexico,” Spaulding said in an email.
At the Secretary of State’s Office, a spokesman said staff are drafting a response after Pearce’s campaign asked about transferring federal election funds.
Two decades have passed since a judge last addressed this issue in much depth in New Mexico.
