In the News
Salt Lake Tribune: State agrees to pay legal fees over unconstitutional campaign law
Robert Gehrke
The plaintiffs argued that the law was overly broad and, if the law stood, they would be prohibited from weighing in on ballot questions or possible initiatives unless they disclosed all their donors.
The state ultimately capitulated, entering into an agreement last month that the disclosure requirements were unconstitutional unless related to political entities whose “major purpose” is political advocacy.
The state agreed not to prosecute groups for violating the law and to pay the legal fees for the lawyers with the Alexandria, Va.-based Center for Competitive Politics who represented the plaintiffs.
CCP
Utah Agrees to Pay $125,000 in Free Speech Lawsuit
The state of Utah today told a federal court it would pay $125,000 in attorney’s fees in a constitutional challenge to its campaign finance laws. If the court approves the fees, as expected, it would mark the final step in a lawsuit filed on behalf of three Utah groups by attorneys at the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP). Federal civil rights laws provide for fee awards when states violate constitutional rights.
“The First Amendment requires legislators to write laws with care and precision,” said CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson. “Poor drafting can harm vital constitutional rights, as happened here, and result in complex and expensive litigation.”
Free Speech
Pillar of Law: Welcome to the Dark Side, Brookings
Benjamin Barr
Ultimately, think tanks must rise or fall based on the quality of their work. Think tanks playing the role of corporate shills possess little depth and naturally fade away if their research is unsound or their promotional role is discovered. And think tanks who do not reach out to likeminded allies and develop sponsors while building worthwhile research won’t be around for long, either. Allowing the public to sort this out, for frauds to be outed, and for the best think tanks to rise is the real stuff of association, de Tocqueville style.
Had the NYT wished to play a useful role, it could have examined and written about the merits of urban renewal policy. It didn’t. Instead, it attacked the groups behind these ideas. Maybe Lennar Corporation, one of the nation’s biggest builders, has worthwhile ideas about the topic. But when journalists focus solely on deriding the people behind a project, sensible discourse about the issue fades.
Government Harassment
Washington Post: Big Oil’s master class in rigging the system
Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren
So now the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York are investigating whether ExxonMobil violated state laws by knowingly misleading their residents and shareholders about climate change. Those investigations may be making ExxonMobil executives nervous, and their Republican friends in Congress are riding to the rescue. House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and his fellow committee Republicans have issued subpoenas demanding that the state officials fork over all materials relating to their investigations. They also targeted eight organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Greenpeace, with similar subpoenas, demanding that they turn over internal communications related to what Smith describes as part of “coordinated efforts” to deprive ExxonMobil of its First Amendment rights.
Independent Groups
Washington Examiner: AFL-CIO plots union expansion after Clinton victory
Paul Bedard
Big Labor’s unprecedented campaign to put Democrat Hillary Rodham into the Oval Office could have a big payoff.
Union leaders are plotting to use momentum from the potential victory to power a new expansion inside corporate walls and business sites.
“And after the ballots are counted and the elections have been won, we’ll be in a better position to organize in the workplace, and win strong contracts and better pay,” promised AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in a speech to glassworkers convention in Las Vegas this week…
“When your membership gets involved in the ground campaign, nothing can stop us. When your members speak the truth about Donald Trump, he will crumble like a house of cards. You know what it takes. Keep leading the way. Keep blazing a trail forward. As a national movement, we’ve been under attack so long, that I know it can be hard to get out of a defensive crouch,” he added.
FEC
Washington Free Beacon: Dem Regulators Again Target Protections for Online Political Speech
Lachlan Markay
The FEC’s six commissioners unanimously ruled that the group’s failure to report expenditures associated with the ads did not violate federal law, since they focused on a legislative issue and did not call for the election or defeat of a political candidate.
However, the commissioners split on a separate question. In its legal analysis, the FEC’s general counsel noted that four YouTube videos cited in the complaint against the foundation would have been legally permissible even if they had engaged in “express advocacy.”…
According to Ravel, the sticking point was the section relating to the internet exemption. Ravel, in a statement on the vote, called on the FEC to reconsider the exemption, which she has previously opposed, but she did not deny that it exists or that it exempted the foundation’s communications from regulations on television or paid internet advertising.
That earned a rebuke from the commission’s three Republicans, who called Ravel’s statement “a familiar, if tired, refrain [that] fails to justify a public official’s failure to apply well-established law adopted unanimously by a fully-apprised Commission in 2006.”
Citizens United
AEI: A constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United: Really? How?
Peter J. Wallison
Many of Ms. Clinton’s listeners who cheered her idea probably believe that their right to free speech would not be affected by overturning Citizens United. Of course, the language of the amendment would be determinative, but let’s assume it is as simple as adding new language at the end of the First Amendment as it now reads. Thus, the current language “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” would be supplemented by “except that corporations are prohibited from making political contributions or supporting or opposing any candidate for elective office.”
The New York Times is a corporation, so this language would prohibit the Times from editorializing in favor of or against either Ms. Clinton or Donald Trump. Moreover, it might shut down blogs, or firms like Facebook or Twitter, that are corporate vehicles for the expression of opinions about candidates by others. Clearly, closing down newspapers that publish editorials wouldn’t be satisfactory to many Americans, and if extended to other corporate opinion forums would be highly unpopular among the American people.
Influence
Washington Post: Facebook may soon have more power over elections than the FEC. Are we ready?
Nathaniel Persily
So, the question is not whether these powerful platforms should regulate political advertising but whether they should regulate it differently than other kinds of paid communication. And herein lie both dangers and opportunities. The dangers arise from the potential for the platforms to use their power to discriminate against certain ideas, groups or candidates — as was alleged, for instance, in the controversy surrounding the editing of Facebook’s trending news feature. At the same time, they have an opportunity to adopt rules, especially regarding disclosure, that go beyond what the government now requires. Indeed, given the potential of these technologies to facilitate extreme micro-targeting and even to advertise to you when you don’t realize it, full transparency is more important now than ever.
Buzzfeed: Barbra Streisand Will Headline Clinton Fundraiser Targeting LGBT Donors
Dominic Holden
According to an invitation obtained by BuzzFeed News, Streisand will serenade a LGBT-targeted fundraiser for Clinton on Sept. 9 at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City.
Featuring a rainbow H logo, the invite from “LGBT for Hillary” says dinner tickets start at $1,200, with limited availability, and top out at $250,000 per ducat. Donors who break six figures get a meet-and-greet reception with Clinton.
Candidates and Campaigns
Huffington Post: Democrats Won’t Have To Worry About Money When It Comes To Winning Back Congress
Paul Blumenthal
Who has the most money by no means determines which party will win an election. For House races in the 2016 election, the strength of fundraising by Democratic challengers, especially in comparison to poor fundraising by Republican challengers, is partly related to the fact that the large Republican majority means that there are few remaining Democratic-held seats for them to contest. That being said, the numbers put up by Democratic challengers show a strong effort by the party to win, especially in the Senate.
The States
Albany Times Union: Sparks at JCOPE over retroactive donor disclosure
Chris Bragg
Commissioners of the state’s ethics watchdog agency unanimously passed “emergency” regulations that will govern the state’s lobbying disclosure rules should Gov. Andrew Cuomo sign an ethics reform package, as expected.
A brief but heated discussion broke out in the hallway of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics’ office on Broadway after the public session of the meeting, however, between an outspoken lawyer and JCOPE’s top lobbying staffer, concerning potential consequences on donors of the new rules, which will take effect retroactively.
Under current law, issue-oriented lobbying groups (designated as 501(c)4s) that spend more than $50,000 annually on lobbying in New York must report donors of more than $5,000. But the new law, expected to be signed by Cuomo, would lower those limits to capture groups that spend just $15,000 a year, and require their disclosure of givers of more than $2,500.
Gotham Gazette: Cuomo Cabinet Boat Trip Highlights Campaign Finance Law Concerns
David Howard King
The use of campaign funds to pay for government staff to take a working field trip appears to be completely legal under New York State campaign finance law, but critics of the system say the law is too loose, including around blurred lines like the cabinet retreat. Those who want to see campaign finance reform say the current system allows elected officials to take in significant donations, including from entities with government business, and enhance their lifestyles by paying for extravagant meals, cars, and trips; and even legal defense in criminal cases as former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, and several others have done.
McClatchy DC: Campaign donation limits, tobacco taxes on Missouri ballot
Summer Ballentine, Associated Press
Missouri voters will be able to weigh in on proposed cigarette tax hikes and campaign contribution limits during the November election, Secretary of State Jason Kander announced Tuesday…
The constitutional amendment aimed at cutting down on money in Missouri politics would re-impose caps on campaign donations, which now are unlimited and have allowed donors to give five- and six-figure-checks to candidates.
The measure would limit contributions to $2,600 to candidates per election and a maximum of $25,000 to political parties. Fred Sauer, the founder of Orion Investment Co. in St. Louis, financed the ballot initiative.
McClatchy DC: Missouri’s Koster says he backs limits on campaign donations
Summer Ballentine, Associated Press
Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster on Tuesday said he’s backing a proposal to re-impose campaign contribution limits in the state…
Missouri has allowed unlimited political contributions since 2008.
Koster previously served as a Republican state senator and had voted to end contribution limits.
In a statement, Koster said he voted to allow unlimited contributions to “increase transparency and accountability” but said that hasn’t happened.
“I believe contribution limits are one of the few legal remedies left for government to earn back the public’s trust,” Koster said.
