First Amendment

Learn Liberty: No, corporations are not “people.” But the First Amendment still applies.

By Michael Munger

Corporations, then (and this was the holding in Citizens United) can participate in politics because to rule otherwise would be a restriction on the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. (The amendment actually says “peaceably to assemble,” but that has been interpreted to mean “association”). Same amendment as speech protection, but freedom of association is quite different…

[I]magine that the state can say which associations have political participation rights and which don’t. What about political parties? Parties are associations of individual citizens, and the political rights of the citizens are expressed more effectively through associating into groups. That is why the First Amendment puts freedom of assembly on a par with the other freedoms (speech, religion, press, and petition).

Independent Groups

Washington Examiner: Jon Tester denounces dark money one month after dark money group buys ads on his behalf

By Emily Jashinsky

“Each and every month, we are proving that you don’t need dark money to make real change happen,” said Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in an email sent to supporters on Monday.

That’s certainly easy for Tester to say. It’s only July of the off year, and already the dark money group Majority Forward is spendng money to make sure he’s re-elected. The group included Tester in a $3.5 million ad buy across six different states in May, touting his record to voters who will decide whether or not the Democratic senator keeps his seat come 2018… 

Majority Forward, the nonprofit affiliate of Senate Majority PAC, does not disclose its donors, pouring millions of dollars from unknown sources into states across the country to support Democratic candidates. The group says its primary mission “is to encourage full participation by voters in our election process.”…

If Tester is so opposed to dark money pouring into his state from Washington, will the senator denounce Majority Forward’s efforts on his behalf?

The Media

Vox: Fake news is bad. Attempts to ban it are worse.

By Anthony L. Fisher

In a recent article titled “Free Speech and Fake News,” the philosopher Peter Singer declared fake news to be “a threat to democratic institutions.” And he hyperbolically implied that admitted performance artist Alex Jones’s repeating of the farcical “Pizzagate” story presented a “clear and present danger” to the republic and is thus unprotected by the First Amendment. . . Singer dismisses former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s proposed remedy fighting such fallacies (“more speech, not enforced silence”) as “naïve,” and proposes making libel – normally a local, civil court matter – into a federal criminal offense…

Considering the fact that President Trump has repeatedly mused about “opening up libel laws” to go after his political enemies, namely, the New York Times, perhaps it is Singer who is being naïve. The distinguished philosopher is suffering from a failure of imagination if he fails to foresee how this awesome expansion of criminal liability for speech could be abused by bad actors in power – even though Trump’s election appears to partly motivate his call to increase the power of government to crack down on speech.

Candidates and Campaigns

Fox 5 Atlanta: Like It or Not: Campaign Donations

By Jessica Szilagyi

While most of us are content to be rid of the endless commercials, mailers, and political prognosticating, many Georgians are suggesting there should be a law against what we just witnessed. They argue that political candidates shouldn’t be allowed to accept donations from outside the district where they’re running.

That is ridiculous for many reasons.

For starters, it’s unconstitutional. State and federal courts have repeatedly ruled that campaign donations are actually a form of “free speech” and therefore protected. Helping a candidate is a way to promote political ideas and change. We can all agree that there are many other ways to do that, but do we really want to be in the business of telling someone how they can play politics?…

Do you want the government to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own money? And how would you make the determination of having a “vested interest?” Is it a district? A region? A state? Or none of the above? Do you want your elected officials to make that determination? I don’t.

Finally, politics are important, and it’s reasonable to spend money on important things. Consider this: Americans spent $18 billion on Easter candy this year while the 2016 election cost less than a billion, so it’s clear “important” things vary by person.

The States

Texas Tribune: Texas Supreme Court rejects Tea Party challenge to campaign finance laws

By Jim Malewitz

Democrats called the group a “sham domestic nonprofit corporation” used to funnel support to Republican candidates, and alleged the group violated state campaign finance laws by illegally accepting and spending political contributions that it failed to disclose.

King Street Patriots, which called itself a “group of concerned residents from the Houston area,” countered that it formed to “provide education and awareness [to] the general public on important civic and patriotic duties.” It denied being a “political committee” bound by Texas election law and denied making political contributions or expenditures. Further, the group filed a countersuit challenging a slate of state campaign finance laws, calling them an unconstitutional assault on the right of political association.

On Friday, the Supreme Court resolved the broadest questions in the case, upholding the state’s ban on corporate contributions, laws creating disclosure requirements and the right to sue over alleged violations as constitutional…

The justices ruled that King Street Patriots was not a “political committee” under Texas law, based upon the “limited record” before the court, a determination that could change if Democrats presented more evidence.

McClatchy DC: Initiative Aims to Force Disclosure of Advocacy Group Donors

By James Nord, Associated Press

A proposed ballot measure that would force nonprofit advocacy organizations to reveal top donors if the groups make significant contributions to ballot question campaigns would help inform voters about who is behind initiative messaging, the South Dakota House speaker said Wednesday…

The plan would require the disclosure of the 50 largest contributors to nonprofit advocacy groups – including labor organizations, business leagues and social welfare organizations – that give $25,000 or more in a year to a South Dakota ballot measure committee…

The plan also aims to impose the disclosure requirement on groups that spend $25,000 or more on independent expenditures within a year. Under the proposal, if a top-50 contributor is an advocacy group, that organization would have to share its 50 largest donors…

Critics have argued that South Dakota residents have the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment.

NY1 News: Queens Councilman Stands Trial for Allegedly Pocketing Taxpayer Money

By Bobby Cuza

Even before he was first elected to the City Council, Ruben Wills had already begun a scheme to defraud taxpayers, prosecutors said, stealing $19,000 in state grant money awarded to his Queens non-profit, and $11,500 in public campaign finance funds…

Prosecutors from the state Attorney General’s office, which brought the case, said that in addition to misusing public funds, Wills tried to cover it up by submitting false records to the state and city Campaign Finance Board.

Baltimore Sun: Council overrides veto on public financing, approves sale of Long Reach

By Kate Magill

The county council Monday voted to override County Executive Allan Kittleman’s veto of the creation of a public finance system for campaigns… 

The passage of the small donor public finance system puts an end to a process that began earlier this year after voters approved the development of a system that would draw campaign donations through government appropriations. The council initially passed the measure on June 5, but it was quickly vetoed by Kittleman.

U.S. News & World Report: Ex-Arizona Attorney General Cleared in Campaign Finance Case

By Bob Christie, Associated Press

The decision by County Attorney Brian McIntyre said there isn’t enough evidence to uphold a decision made in 2013 by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.

Polk found that Horne and former aide Kathleen Winn engaged in illegal coordination of campaign spending when she ran an outside group supporting his election.

The decision frees Horne from having to repay $400,000 and up to $1.2 million in fines.

The rejection of Polk’s findings came six weeks after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Horne didn’t get a fair hearing when she overruled an administrative law judge who disagreed with her conclusion.

Justice Clint Bolick, writing for the court, said Horne’s due process rights were violated because Polk assisted in the civil prosecution and made the final decision against Horne.

The court ordered Attorney General Mark Brnovich to independently review Polk’s decision. He referred it to McIntyre to avoid a conflict since he defeated Horne in the 2014 Republican primary.