Free Speech
Washington Post: How the Internet could democratize campaign spending
Bob Biersack
The prospect of billions of dollars moving opaquely through the Internet and aimed at influencing our votes can sound ominous, especially as the Web is increasingly a tool that Americans use to communicate both personally and politically. In the broadest sense, allowing this flood of ad money feels contrary to our usual efforts to ensure that we know who is spending large sums to try to influence the makeup and actions of our government.
But the world of campaign finance regulation has always been fuzzy and complex, especially as we try to balance the values of fairness and transparency with the equally fundamental principle of freedom of expression. These new advertising tools, from email and websites to Facebook and YouTube and more, clearly offer both opportunities and challenges in an already fraught landscape…
If the cost of communicating with voters really is dramatically lower via the Internet and can’t be overwhelmed by big spending, then restrictions there might be less critical. Meanwhile, as the focus shifts away from expensive broadcast media, it might matter less that a small group of wealthy individuals and institutions could financially dominate that particular medium. When big dollars from a few donors are no better than small amounts aggregated from lots of people, democracy benefits.
FEC
Washington Examiner: FEC deadlocks on regulating YouTube videos
Rudy Takala
The issue involved a right-leaning group, the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, that posted YouTube videos last year critical of Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s position on the Iranian nuclear deal. A complaint was filed arguing the group should have been forced to disclose the videos to the FEC. The agency’s three Democratic commissioners voted to impose sanctions on the group for failing to disclose the videos, while the commission’s three Republicans voted against punishing the group.
The file on the matter was made public Friday, but opinions were not released until Monday. Democratic Commissioner Ann M. Ravel, who served last year as FEC chair and who has made disclosure of content on the Internet a cornerstone of her tenure there, said it was time for the feds to get serious about watching over the legions of people who use the Internet to consume information.
Washington Examiner: FEC Dem wants huge fines on Kochs, hits $233,000 as ‘too low’
Paul Bedard
Ann Ravel, the past chair of the six-member elections police, said she supported the sanctions against the groups but when it came to the $233,000 fine outside groups have dubbed as “massive,” she opposed.
On Twitter, Ravel said, “Although I voted to move forward with the case, I voted against the settlements. The proposed fines were too low.”
She also tweeted, “We shouldn’t let operatives funneling secret money into elections see low FEC fines as merely a cost of doing business.”
Independent Groups
Mic: Planned Parenthood Empowers Disenfranchised Voters by Offering Registration at Clinics
Claire Lampen
On August 4, the health organization announced the launch of a new campaign called “My Vote, My Voice.”
According to a press release, Planned Parenthood volunteers in 45 states will register patients outside health centers, on college campuses and elsewhere. A registration form is also available online…
“My Vote, My Voice” is an initiative of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the Super PAC associated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The PAC endorsed Hillary Clinton in January.
The effort is nonpartisan, but realistically, it’ll be a boon for Democrats: Per the press release, Planned Parenthood serves 2.5 million people each year, many of whom are young women of color, a demographic that has historically skewed Democrat.
Think Progress: Why Are Unions Bankrolling Candidates That Hate Them?
Josh Israel
According to the University of Michigan’s Roland Zullo, most unions practice “political volunteerism,” meaning they “try to support the candidates that, at the moment, appear to be the most friendly to their interest, regardless of political party.” In conservative districts, they might back the “lesser evil,” even if he or she has a less than stellar labor record.
Certain unions, he added, like maritime officers, air traffic controllers, and pilots, “draw heavily from people with a military background,” and skew more conservative. “By spreading the wealth around, you don’t alienate those members who wonder why you’re supporting only liberal candidates all the time.” While labor unions overall give the vast majority of their PAC dollars to Democrats, transportation sector unions like NATCA, AMO, and ALPA tend to be a bit more bipartisan.
IRS
Cato Institute: D.C. Circuit: IRS Must Face Lawsuit Over Non-Profit Targeting
Walter Olson
“So, yes, the president was saying – two months after the news broke – that the whole IRS thing was just a ‘phony scandal.’” That’s a tidbit passed along by Kim Strassel in her much-talked-about new book, The Intimidation Game. It references the scandal over Internal Revenue Service targeting of Tea Party and “patriot” groups for delay and for bizarrely burdensome documentation demands concerning their personnel and activities. Although President Obama offered what seemed to be heartfelt apologies at the time, and a couple of top officials departed the agency (including director of nonprofit organizations Lois Lerner, who had taken Fifth Amendment protection), there was soon an effort to recast the affair as a matter of merely incompetent mix-ups, rather than a lapse of public integrity and the rule of law. In June a Washington Post editorial took this line, to which I responded by pointing out that the discriminatory handling of groups with adversary political viewpoints was so systematic and intense as to be hard to explain by mere inadvertence.
Conservative Review: The IRS just admitted they could resume targeting conservatives
Hans von Spakovsky
For those who have blindly accepted the claims of the administration and their political supporters in Congress that nothing untoward happened with the IRS, this opinion should be a wake-up call. As the appeals court says, “there is very little factual dispute between the parties as to the conduct committed by the IRS.” Instead of routinely processing their applications as it was obligated to do “in the normal course of IRS business, as would have been the case with other taxpayers, the IRS selected out these applicants for more rigorous review on the basis of their names, which were in each instance indicative of a conservative or anti-Administration orientation.”
Citizens United
The Hill: Reversing Citizens United key to breaking logjam on guns
Former Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.)
There’s a reason accomplishing anything has become so difficult. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, special interests like the NRA have been able to flood our elections with money. It’s given them outsized influence and taken the voice away from the American people, who overwhelmingly support commonsense gun safety measures, such as comprehensive background checks or blocking terrorists from buying guns.
The NRA’s political spending has tripled since the Citizens United decision in 2010. In 2014 alone, the NRA spent nearly $30 million to influence elections.
Worse, Citizens United has allowed a handful of billionaires to funnel millions of dollars to groups like the NRA for them to spend in elections. For example, the Koch brothers’ network has given the NRA more than $10 million since 2010.
Influence
New York Times: Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day
Eric Lipton, Nicholas Confessore and Brooke Williams
An examination of 75 think tanks found an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as registered lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes, with only intermittent disclosure of their dual roles.
With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy. Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations.
The Hill: In email, State asked to ‘take care of’ Clinton Foundation associate
Julian Hattern
Shortly after Hillary Clinton took the reins as U.S. secretary of State in 2009, a longtime confidante with deep ties to the Clinton Foundation pressed her senior aides to give a job to an unidentified male associate.
“Important to take care of” the person, Douglas Band told Clinton aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Nora Toiv in an April 22, 2009, email with the subject line “A favor…”. The name of the aide is redacted.
“We have all had him on our radar,” Abedin responded. “Personnel has been sending him options.”
The exchange, which was obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and released on Tuesday, adds to the murky connections between Clinton’s role leading the State Department, her family foundation and a consulting firm for which Abedin worked part-time.
Candidates and Campaigns
NBC News: Clinton Campaign Now Outspending Trump on Ads — $52 Million to 0
Mark Murray
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has now spent $52 million on ads, and pro-Clinton outside groups have chipped in an additional $39 million, according to ad-spending data from Advertising Analytics. (That’s the new name of the company NBC News partners with on this data.)
By comparison, the Trump campaign itself has spent $0, with pro-Trump outside groups adding $8 million over the airwaves.
In total, that’s $91 million for Team Clinton, versus $8 million for Team Trump.
What’s more, the Trump campaign ($0) is also being outspent on ads by Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson ($15,000) and the Green Party’s Jill Stein ($189,000).
Politico: Clinton scores major GOP donor from Trump
Alex Isenstadt
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday added another name to the rapidly growing list of major Republican donors she has taken away from GOP nominee Donald Trump — former MGM CEO Harry Sloan.
Sloan is a mainstay of Republican fundraising, having served on national finance committees for John McCain and Mitt Romney. As the 2016 election got underway, he signed on with John Kasich…
In recent days, a number of high-profile Republicans have announced their support for Clinton. Last week, billionaire Silicon Valley executive Meg Whitman, who ran for California governor in 2010, revealed that she would be helping the former secretary of state.
New York Times: Donors for Bush, Kasich and Christie Are Turning to Clinton More Than to Trump
Adam Pearce
In a typical election year, donors whose candidates have dropped out of the race funnel additional contributions to another candidate in the same party.
But this presidential election is different. Of the donors who gave at least $200 to Jeb Bush, Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Chris Christie or Senator Lindsey Graham in the Republican primaries, more of them have also contributed to Mrs. Clinton than to Mr. Trump, according to Federal Election Commission filings through June.
