CCP
DoubleSpeak: “Campaign Finance Reform”
By Scott Blackburn
The pro-“campaign finance reform” community, however, is not thinking of “campaign finance reform” as a fundamental change to the way campaigns are financed. In Washington-speak, “campaign finance reform” is a tool for dealing with threats. Usually, of course, these are deemed “threats to democracy” but, from the perspective of an incumbent, a “threat to democracy” coincides entirely with any political speech that makes it harder for that individual to get re-elected. In the eyes of the pro-“reform” lobby, independent groups need to be even more heavily regulated because they run ads against incumbents, and organizations running issue ads need to be even more heavily regulated because they are “influencing elections.” But these activities are groups simply expressing their opinion on current politicians and topical political issues.
And, of course, there is a partisan bend to all of this new regulation. In the 1990s, Republicans wanted to regulate bundling (the act of an individual collecting campaign donation checks from a network of wealthy donors and then giving all of those checks to the campaign at one time). Why? Because bundling is and has been a particularly effective tool for donors who give to Democratic politicians. Today, Democrats want to regulate independent groups running issue ads. Lo and behold, this has been a particularly effective tool for groups organized to support Republicans.
Moment of Zen: DISCLOSE Act 2014 Edition
Got nerds?
IRS
Wall Street Journal: The IRS’s Foreign Policy
Editorial
The IRS has stuck by its story that tax-exempt applications by conservatives got slow-rolled because of bureaucratic bungling not because the groups opposed President Obama’s policies. Now the slow drip of email evidence to congressional investigators is casting further doubt on that tale.
In 2009 the Pennsylvania group Z Street applied for tax-exempt status for its mission of educating people about Israel-related issues. In 2010 an IRS agent told Z Street that its application was delayed because the tax agency’s Washington, D.C. office was giving special scrutiny to groups whose missions might conflict with Administration policies. The IRS’s “Be On the Lookout” list that November also included red flags for groups referring to “disputed territories.”
Z Street sued in August 2010 for viewpoint discrimination and its case is headed for discovery in federal court. Now emails uncovered by the House Ways and Means Committee show that the IRS and State Department were conferring in 2009 about pro-Israel groups like Z Street and considering arguments to deny their tax-exempt applications.
Reason: Remy: What are the Chances? (An IRS Love Song)
Remy weighs the odds of finding true love and, like a well-timed IRS hard drive failure, finds a higher power at work.
Independent Groups
More Soft Money Hard Law: Political Spending and its Apparent Consequences
By Bob Bauer
The New York Times this morning reports on political spending in this election cycle, but it also wishes to explain to readers the meaning of all these dollars. So the article this morning about the money going into Senate and House races links the cash to “consequences [that] are already becoming apparent”: candidate loss of control over their messaging and a sharply negative tone. The grounds for these conclusions are not drawn from the the numbers. They are added on.
Note that a contradiction is now entering into the discussion of Super PACs and outside independent activity. One of two things can be true but not both: either the “shadow parties” or candidate-affiliated organizations are synchronizing their messages with the candidates’, or they are operating independently and crowding out the candidate’s communications. The Times puts both explanations into its story. We have both loss of control and “laserlike” precision and consistency in candidate and outside group advertising aimed at the opposition.
On the topic of negativity, the Times assumes that the harshness of tone can be attributed to developments in campaign finance. There is just as good if not better reason to consider the effect of historically low approvals of Congress, a polarized electorate, high levels of voter dissatisfaction, the effectiveness of negative advertising, and perhaps other factors. Money amplifies the negative message, one could agree: it is not the cause of it. Candidates may be pleased to let independent groups share the task of negative messaging, but they pitch in. It is well understood by now that “stand by your ad” and other measures to rein in candidate “attack” politics have had little effect.
Washington Post: Coming soon: A campaign run entirely by super PACs
By Philip Bump
Three-quarters of the money spent on behalf of Chris McDaniel’s failed bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in Mississippi came from outside political action committees (PACs). That money, from groups like the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks, accounted for 36 percent of the funds spent by both sides combined.
We’re obviously a few miles down the road from the days when candidates for elected office stood on wooden platforms. But we are perhaps further than you might think. In fact, there is nothing in federal law that would prevent a super PAC or group of PACs from picking out a candidate and taking care of his or her entire campaign. And we’re starting to get a glimpse of what such a campaign might look like.
Contribution Limits
AP: Group sues state over political contribution limit
The Liberty Group says in its lawsuit that the funding limit unconstitutionally restricts free speech. It cites the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down such limits at the federal level.
“I wish Wyoming would have been a bit more proactive in trying to comply with the Supreme Court ruling,” said Benjamin Barr, an attorney representing Wyoming Liberty Group. “We’ve seen other states take action on this when the Legislature can’t take action to protect the rights of their citizens.”
Barr said the group tried to resolve the issue without legislation, asking the state to follow Maryland and Massachusetts in issuing orders not to enforce the state law while the Legislature waits to make it compliant with federal law.
Corporations
NPR: When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution
By NINA TOTENBERG
The dictionary defines “corporation” as “a number of persons united in one body for a purpose.” Corporate entities date back to medieval times, observes Columbia law professor John Coffee, an authority on corporate law. “You could think of the Catholic Church as probably the first entity that could buy and sell property in its own name,” he says.
Indeed, having an artificial legal persona was especially important to churches, says Elizabeth Pollman, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
“Having a corporation would allow people to put property into a collective ownership that could be held with perpetual existence,” she says. “So it wouldn’t be tied to any one person’s lifespan, or subject necessarily to laws regarding inheriting property.”
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Politico: GOP’s black market: Anti-incumbent campaigns
By Alexander Burns
Thanks to an explosion of outsider Republicans running for office and the Supreme Court’s loosening of campaign finance rules, the economics of political consulting have shifted. Suddenly, there’s enough anti-incumbent work to sustain not just a skeleton crew of mercenary consultants, but a full-fledged cottage industry of ideological renegades — interlocking firms that pop up in one divisive primary after another, often working together or for different entities in the same race.
That makes it harder than ever for party leaders to stamp out internal challenges or deter strategists from taking on sitting officials by cutting them off from the elected officials and party committees on which so many firms depend.
“There is a small band of brothers who are very skilled campaign practitioners who take on these races,” Jon Lerner, the veteran conservative operative who has long advised the Club for Growth, explained in an email. “The biggest factor drawing them together is an iconoclastic unwillingness to be pushed around by the traditional power sources within the party.”
Wall Street Journal: Fundraiser-in-Chief
By Jason L. Riley
Mr. Obama doesn’t have the luxury of letting up on the fundraising, no matter the bad optics. He’s the party’s biggest money draw, and his party is in serious danger of losing of the Senate, where Republicans could take control next year with a net gain of six seats. The GOP is expected to pick up seats in West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota, and Democratic incumbents in places like North Carolina and Alaska are hanging tough in the polls.
Lobbying and Ethics
Fox: House Ethics panel investigating Reps. Rush, Whitfield
Whitfield said in a statement that his case pertains to his work on behalf of animals. Whitfield’s wife, Constance Harriman Whitfield, is a lobbyist for the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
The committee said it received reports on both lawmakers on June 10 from the independent Office of Congressional Ethics, which makes recommendations to the ethics committees in Congress. The contents of those reports have not been revealed.
The committee said its acknowledgment that it was considering allegations against the two men “does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred or reflect any judgment on behalf of the committee.”
State and Local
New York –– NY Times: Cuomo Defends His Handling of Ethics Panel
By THOMAS KAPLAN and SUSANNE CRAIG
BUFFALO — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday defended his office’s dealings with a panel he appointed to root out public corruption, asserting that his aides offered only “advice” to the commission meant to be helpful.
The governor described the panel, which he abruptly disbanded in March in exchange for the passage of a modest package of new ethics laws, as a “phenomenal success.”
Although his aides were in communication with the commission, he said, the panel’s leaders “exercised their independent judgment” in pursuing investigations.
