CCP
Video Roundup: IRS Abuses: Ensuring that Targeting Never Happens Again (Video)
By Joe Trotter
On July 30th, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing titled, “IRS Abuses: Ensuring that Targeting Never Happens Again.” The hearing, which looked into ways reforms could help prevent future IRS targeting of people and organizations based on their political beliefs, features Center for Competitive Politics President David Keating, super-lawyer Cleta Mitchell, as well as the Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk and Hans A. von Spakovsky.
The panel made a number of interesting points and offered several good suggestions for avoiding further IRS political targeting controversies. Here are a few short videos worth watching from the hearing:
Independent Groups
Spiked: Campaign finance: even billionaires deserve free speech
Big money isn’t the problem in US politics – the lack of big ideas is.
By Neil Ross
The promoters of the proposed amendment make two assumptions that are both patronising and dangerous. The first is that money corrupts, and that all politicians are corruptible. I would argue that many politicians are individuals who want to do good for their communities and society in general. No doubt there is the occasional backhander, but I don’t believe this is the norm. The second and most dangerous assumption is that we, the people, are not capable of handling the 24-hour onslaught of today’s saturation campaigning, and need protection from big, bad corporations with cash to burn on political campaigning. This is flawed on two levels. First, as has been proven again and again in elections throughout the US, the richest candidate does not always win. Second, those armchair activists writing to their elected officials to encourage spending limits always exempt themselves from the pernicious influence of cash-heavy campaigning. You see, they are worried about ‘the masses’, the everyday blue-collar workers, who will supposedly be all-too-easily influenced by what they see on Fox News and then act like zombies at the polling booth.
Controversy over campaign finance and the harsh reality that money is a necessity in politics is nothing new. Even the notoriously frugal Abraham Lincoln, after virtually bankrupting himself, had to rely on wealthy backers to run his successful presidential campaign. It is true that, in today’s money, Lincoln’s campaign cost very little compared with the billions spent now. But Lincoln didn’t win the presidency because of the money behind him. Lincoln won because of his political conviction, his renowned oratory skills, and his ability to persuade his peers that his ideas were worth voting for.
It is today’s politics, devoid of strong leaders, strong ideologies and real moral conviction, that has created a situation where spending becomes a key issue. When James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, he and his enlightened peers believed their fellow men were potentially free-thinking, rational and autonomous agents, capable of enjoying ever-more freedom. Today we need a similar communal self-confidence; and we need to resist the calls to limit how much freedom we can handle, no matter the cost.
Washington Post: Hundreds of big donors, including Obama bundlers, are ‘Ready for Hillary’
By Philip Rucker and Matea Gold
At least 222 donors have signed up as co-chairs of Ready for Hillary’s national finance council — a commitment that requires donating or raising $25,000 each, or at least $5.55 million between them, according to a membership list obtained by The Washington Post. More than 600 other donors are considered members of the finance council, required to give or raise $5,000 each.
The Ready for Hillary fundraising team includes scores of President Obama’s biggest campaign bundlers — evidence that the rift between the two camps has healed considerably since 2008. The super PAC also features donors representing all major sectors of the Democratic Party’s money base, from Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, the list shows.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
More Soft Money Hard Law: Politicians: The Good , The Bad, and The Corrupt–and their Different “Constituencies”
By Bob Bauer
The McCutcheon decision intensified the disagreement about when the use of money in politics is corrupt, and when it is just politics. Chief Justice Roberts endorsed in general terms one bond that money creates—official “responsiveness” to constituents, whom he apparently took to include donors. The Chief Justice ruled out legislative attacks on the “ingratiation” and “access” that contributions might buy. McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S.Ct. 1434, 1441, 1462 (2014). Critics were appalled. Yet, for all the excitement that followed, neither the few lines the Roberts opinion almost summarily devoted to the question nor much of the response to him helped clarify the critical issue: what is tolerable politics and what crosses the line?
Washington Post: Cantor reflects on being a House leader
By Paul Kane and Sebastian Payne
Eric Cantor, the departing House majority leader stunned by a June 10 upset in Virginia’s primary, announced Friday morning that he would also resign altogether from Congress, effective Aug. 18.
After giving a farewell address to House colleagues Thursday morning, Cantor told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that his outright resignation would allow his successor, likely to be Republican nominee David Brat, to get an edge in seniority by taking office in November rather than January.
Washington Post: Attention rich people: You still can’t buy elected office (for yourself).
By Jaime Fuller
Last year, a political scientist wrote at the New York Times, “in 2012 only four of the top 12 self-funders won House elections. And only one of 12 won Senate elections. In most cases, the winners came from safe seats; the losers had little chance anyway.” The Center for Responsive Politics reported that 14.5 percent of self-funded congressional candidates have won their races since 2002. The National Institute of Money in State Politics found that 6,171 of the more than 75,000 candidates who ran for state office from 2002 to 2009 provided the bulk of their campaign’s funding. Only 668 of them won.
Despite all that dismal preamble, there are plenty of self-funding candidates determined to prove history wrong in 2014. A few of them have primaries coming up on Tuesday in Michigan. There’s Brian Ellis, who is running against incumbent Rep. Justin Amash in the state’s 3rd District race. If Ellis hadn’t donated more than $1 million to his campaign, Amash’s fundraising advantage would be considerable, according to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. But Amash still has more money in the bank than his opponent. A local poll from this monthhad Amash up by more than 20 percentage points.
FEC
Wyoming Liberty: Playing Chicken with the FEC
By Steve Klein
There’s only one thing standing in the way of all this “campaign finance reform”: three of six FEC commissioners who still believe the major purpose test protects free speech. In order to bring enforcement actions against anyone, the commission must have a majority vote, and on many matters relating to PAC status the commission continues to deadlock.
Last month, the FEC did not find reason to believe that the American Action Network failed to register as a PAC, and made the same determination for Americans for Job Security, both by votes of 3-3. Yesterday, both groups of commissioners released statements of reasons behind their votes in both cases, which are starkly different.
The speech-friendly statement of reasons from Chairman Lee Goodman and Commissioners Caroline Hunter and Matthew Petersen carefully analyzes the major purpose test and applies it to both matters. Following the traditional test, the commissioners note that the majority of these groups’ advertisements discuss issues, and that both groups hold themselves out as being concerned with issues. The statement also notes the burdens of PAC status (recognized by the Supreme Court in Citizens United) and critiques the ever-evolving standards utilized by the FEC’s legal staff that always seem to come up on the side of imposing PAC status upon a particular group.
State and Local
Maryland –– Gazette: Montgomery County campaign finance bill loses steam
By Kate S. Alexander
As the Montgomery County Council heads on its monthlong August recess, a bill to establish public campaign financing remains unfinished, and some members are questioning what problems, if any, the reform bill solves.
Written by Councilman Philip M. Andrews, the bill would establish a public financing system for local elections by conditionally matching private contributions with public funds. The bill would allow candidates to receive public money to help fund their campaigns, but places limits on the size of contributions for candidates who accept it.
“The question is, ‘What is the problem that we’re solving?’” Councilwoman Nancy Floreen said.
New York –– NY Daily News: Andrew Cuomo hires criminal lawyer to represent governor’s office as scandal over Moreland anti-corruption commission grows: sources
By Kenneth Lovett
Cuomo hired prominent white-collar criminal defense lawyer Elkan Abramowitz in May to represent the governor’s office in U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s probe into the administration’s dealings with the Moreland Commission, sources told The News.
Cuomo’s top aides, Secretary to the Governor Larry Schwartz and counsel Mylan Denerstein, have also hired their own personal attorneys, the sources said. Cuomo separately has sought advice from several lawyers, the sources said.
