In the News
Roll Call: High-Dollar Fundraising Makes Comeback, Raises Bribery Concerns
Eliza Newlin Carney
If unfettered campaign spending has rendered contribution limits all but meaningless, conservatives say the solution is to simply eliminate them.
“Our view is that they should take the contribution limits off altogether, and the candidates should be able to ask for money for their own campaigns,” said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics. “That’s publicly reported, they’re responsible for the messaging in the campaign and also being identified with the donors directly.”
Concurring Opinions: En Banc Unanimous Ruling from DC Circuit Upholds Federal Ban on Contributions by Federal Contractors
Ronald K.L. Collins
Morrison and Spitzer received some help by way of an amicus brief submitted on their clients’ behalf by the Center for Competitive Politics and the Cato Institute. “This case presents an unusual question,” wrote Allen Dickerson for the Center and Institute (Cato’s Ilya Shapiro was co-counsel on the brief.) “While suits challenging limits on political contributions are familiar, the statute at issue here completely prohibits a broad group of private, individual citizens from making any contribution. Such sweeping prohibitions are seldom enacted, and courts have rarely assessed their constitutionality.
Campaign Finance
Washington Post: Unlimited party fundraising and spending gives you less polarized legislatures? Discuss.
Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner
Why would enabling parties to raise and spend more money help to reduce polarization? Well, counter to Drutman’s claim that the parties “are not independent actors trying to move to the middle,” we find clear evidence that parties do tend to privilege moderate incumbents over those at the extremes. For example, the figure below uses contribution data and ideology data from Shor and McCarty to show how parties distribute their funds based on candidate ideology, comparing them to other contributors like individuals and issue groups. This pattern is even more pronounced when parties can give unlimited amounts to candidates.
The Intercept: Rep. John Sarbanes And A Campaign Finance Reform Plan That Might Actually Work
Jon Schwarz
That’s especially so ever since the Supreme Court declared even the flimsy restrictions on money in politics put in place since the 1970s to be unconstitutional. If our only hope is to amend the Constitution — which requires first a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and then approval from three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures — then it feels like we’re doomed.
But what if there were a way to approach this hellish problem from the opposite direction? If we’re forbidden by the Supreme Court from limiting money coming from the 0.01 percent, what about amplifying money from the bottom 99.99 percent?
That’s the basis for the Government by the People Act, introduced last year by Rep. John Sarbanes, a Democrat from Maryland’s 3rd District. (If the name sounds familiar, that’s probably because his father, Paul, was a five-term senator from Maryland.)
IRS
PJ Media: IRS Fails to Meet Deadline to Produce Lois Lerner’s emails
Debra Heine
Emmet G. Sullivan, United States district judge for the District of Columbia, ordered the IRS last week to begin producing every Monday nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lois Lerner emails. On Monday, the IRS defied the order.
The developments come in the wake of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of conservative non profits
SEC
Politico: Elizabeth Warren allies delay Obama’s SEC pick
Patrick Temple-West
It’s the latest attempt by the progressive movement that’s coalesced around Warren to set a litmus test for financial regulatory jobs. In January, banker Antonio Weiss withdrew his name for nomination to a Treasury post after Warren and others criticized his background on Wall Street. With the five-member SEC divided along partisan lines, liberals want to ensure the two Democratic commissioners won’t compromise on rules governing everything from shareholder activism to executive pay.
Independent Groups
Daily Iowan: U.S. Super PACs: good or bad?
Neil Flattery
Super PACs are allowed to raise an unlimited amount of funds as long as these organizations are run independently of a particular candidate and no financial contributions are made to a candidate’s campaign. Undoubtedly, largely wealthy individuals and interest groups fund these Super PACs with the aim at influencing elections in their favor.
However, these groups can also help promote the spread of ideas, prop up second-tier, financially outgunned candidates, and, according to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, are allowed under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Super PACs have been given a negative stigma in the media. The marriage of big money and politics campaigns can never be a good thing, right? However, the main objective of political-action committees, which is the spread of information and arguments, is at the root of democracy.
FEC
Huffington Post: Federal Election Commission Shows How To Disclose Data In A Digital Democracy
Alexander Howard
On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security showed how to deploy government technology poorly. Now, the Federal Election Commission is showing how to do it right, with the help of 18F, the federal government’s software development shop. The FEC on Wednesday rolled out its first-ever application programming interface for software developers to access its campaign finance data.
The API makes it much easier to search through the FEC’s campaign finance database. Users can get data for any parameters they specify, as opposed to downloading all of the commission’s data and running queries on it.
First Amendment
Town Hall: Study: On First Amendment Freedoms, Americans Are Trending Libertarian
Daniel Davis
Does the First Amendment go too far? According to a new survey, most Americans say it doesn’t. Americans in the year 2015 are more pro-free speech, pro-religious liberty, and anti-government spying than they have been in recent years. This should come as welcome news to liberty-loving Americans who feel squelched by the toxic culture of political correctness.
The study, conducted by the Newseum’s First Amendment Center, surveyed Americans on a range of hot-button political issues that pertain to the First Amendment…
The one First Amendment issue where public opinion trends less libertarian is the issue of campaign finance. When asked whether corporations and unions should have more limits placed on their campaign spending, 73 percent said yes. Only 23 percent said spending should remain unlimited. This represents a 10-point shift in favor of stricter spending rules since 2012. In 2010, the Supreme Court liberalized campaign spending laws in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Citizens United
Talking Points Memo:A Federal Court Just Threatened Citizens United
David Schultz
All hope is not lost. And yesterday’s court decision is a step in the right direction. America need not wait for Congress or the Supreme Court to come around. The president and various federal agencies have the power to make several small but important reforms. Here are four:
1) The president could issue an executive order to require federal contractors to disclose all political contributions they make and to bar contractors from bidding on federal contracts for two years if they spend too much to influence a federal race or a member of Congress.Yesterday’s ruling upholds a ban on individual “pay to play” contributions to prevent conflicts of interest or undue influence. A new order could build on that ruling.
Candidates and Campaigns
National Journal: Why Republicans Can’t Kick Donald Trump Out of Their Debates
Tim Alberta
“The RNC by law cannot remove anyone from a debate, nor can it insert anyone into a debate,” says Sean Spicer, the party’s chief strategist and spokesman, who has served as the liaison between the RNC and the networks.
Because debates serve as a major promotional platform for campaigns, any attempt—by a political party or a network—to ban a particular candidate from participating could have severe legal consequences. It would amount, Spicer said, to a “coordinated expenditure” that promotes one candidate over another, a violation of campaign finance rules.
NPR: For Limberbutt McCubbins, ‘The Time Is Meow’ To Run For President
Ashley Lopez
So Weiss logged on to the Federal Election Commission’s website this spring and created “The Committee for the Installation of Limberbutt.”
According to Federal Election Commission filings, Limberbutt is a Democrat. Or as Weiss puts it, a “demo-cat.”
Weiss and Emilee McCubbins say they have already gotten letters about Limberbutt’s candidacy—some going as far as to ask for proof of the cat’s citizenship. Other letters are seeking information about possible volunteer opportunities to help get McCubbins in the White House.
“I got a letter in the mail from a lawyer wanting to represent him,” McCubbins said. “I’ve gotten numerous emails.”
The States
Jamestown Sun: North Dakota’s campaign contribution law regarding cities under review
John Hageman
North Dakota law only requires campaign committees to report the names and organizations that have contributed more than $200, and not for those giving $200 or less. The committees only have to report the aggregate total of those contributions, according to the study from the Upper Midwest Center on Public Policy, led by Managing Director Nick Bauroth.
“This study does not claim that such contributions and expenditures are a sign of corruption or some untoward behavior by candidates and political action committees,” the study concluded. “Indeed, small contributions could actually be a product of grassroots support for a particular campaign. However, without greater transparency, how can anyone ever know the difference?”
