In the News
Wall Street Journal: Political Speech, Limited Time Offer
EditorialFloridians Paul Jost and his wife Laura Holmes each want to donate the full $5,200 to candidates but are capped by the $2,600 ceiling because their contributions did not come until after the end of the primary election. Mr. Jost wants to donate $5,200 to Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks against Democratic Rep. David Loebsack in southeast Iowa, and Ms. Holmes wants to do the same for Carl DeMaio against Democratic Rep. Scott Peters in San Diego.Their lawsuit, brought by the Center for Competitive Politics in federal district court in Washington, D.C., doesn’t challenge the $5,200 base limit but asks why a donation to a candidate could be fine in June but forbidden in July, though all of the money is going to support the candidate running for a single office.In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court recognized that the only legitimate rationale for campaign-finance limits is to prevent quid-pro-quo corruption between a donor and candidate. The arbitrary time-limit distinction doesn’t pass that test. Why would a $5,200 contribution be uncorrupting one week and poisonous the next? The real point of the limits seems to be to tilt the donor field toward incumbents.
New York Post: New York’s ‘shut up’ rule
By Scott BlackburnImagine you hear a radio ad where your state representative — let’s call him Fred — claims to oppose higher taxes. But you know that Fred voted three times for higher taxes.Outraged, you print up 500 flyers with a picture of Fred, a copy of his voting record on taxes and a brief statement about how you think your neighbors should know the truth.You hand out these flyers at your son’s Little League game, your daughter’s soccer practice and in front of the grocery store while your husband is shopping.While most would applaud you for performing your civic duty and educating the public about a dishonest politician, the New York State Board of Elections could now fine you at least $1,000.
CCP
Public Campaign’s Obfuscation about Tax-Financed Polarization
By Luke WachobWith that in mind, you might expect that Arizona’s shift towards more conservative politics would be embraced by supporters of the state’s tax-financed campaign program as evidence that wealthy donors had long been thwarting the true will of the people, and that the Clean Elections program had reduced their undue influence.Unsurprisingly, that is not what’s happened. Instead, advocates for tax-financed campaigns are now dismissing any link between the Legislature’s politics and the state’s campaign finance laws. Public Campaign addresses the issueusing a quote from political scientist Michael G. Miller’s explanation of Arizona’s political shift in Vox: “You’ve got to bear in mind, Arizona’s still a really unique place politically, they have a strong strain of libertarianism running through the right side of their politics. It’s a very perceptible tinge of American conservatism. Barry Goldwater’s alive and well in his home state.”
Gov. Rick Perry Indictment
Reuters (Video): Texas Gov. Rick Perry vows to fight indictment
August 16, 2014 5:10 PM EDT — Gov. Rick Perry says an indictment against him for abuse of power was itself an abuse of power and vows to fight it. (Reuters)
Wall Street Journal: Texas Chainsaw Prosecution
EditorialThe indictment’s absurdity is also underscored by its claim that Mr. Perry “knowingly misused government property,” referring to the $7.5 million in appropriated funds. The relevant Texas statute on misuse of public property requires “custody” of the property. Mr. Perry never had control over the $7.5 million before or after his veto. It was simply unspent public money.As for the charge that he tried to coerce Ms. Lehmberg, Mr. Perry was exercising his First Amendment right to speak his mind about a public spending decision. This is what politicians are elected to do. The indictment and its interpretation of Texas law thus violate the Governor’s First Amendment right to free political speech.Democrats who are defending the indictment claim that political revenge isn’t a motive because Ms. Lehmberg recused herself and the charges were brought by a grand jury convened by special prosecutor Michael McCrum. But the tactic of using a special prosecutor to disguise political motives is common. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm did the same to put a patina of respectability on his secret probe of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Washington Post (Volokh): Does a governor have ‘custody or possession’ of funds the legislature wants to appropriate, in a bill that he vetoes?
By Eugene VolokhBeyond this, how does vetoing the appropriation qualify as “misuse,” in the sense of “dealing with” the $7.5 million “contrary to an agreement under which defendant held such property or contrary to the oath of office he took as a public servant”? I think I understand what this language means in typical cases — for instance, if there’s an agreement (perhaps even an implied agreement) that certain property (say, city-owned trucks managed by the defendant) is to be used for city business and not to haul away material from the defendant’s own private demolition site.But what sort of “agreement” is there under which the governor “holds” the $7.5 million that he can either choose to allow the DA’s office to receive or order returned to the Texas State Treasury (especially given that the governor never actually had access to the $7.5 million for his own purposes)? Presumably the prosecutor is planning to prove some such “agreement” in court, but I can’t imagine what it might be. Moreover, while for a typical public servant, his employers (or the legislature) can require certain agreements about the use of property as a condition of his employment, I don’t think the legislature may impose such agreements on the governor (nor do I know of their ever having tried to do this).
Election Law Blog: Rick Perry and the Criminalization of Politics
By Rick HasenPerry joins the list of other politicians prosecuted under controversial or dubious theories, including Tom DeLay, John Edwards, Scott Walker, Don Siegelman, and Ted Stevens. Some go to jail; some don’t. Some get convicted by juries; some don’t. Some have their prosecutions overturned on appeal; some don’t.The common thread here is the criminalization of politics.
NY Mag: This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous
By Jonathan ChaitThey say a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and this always seemed like hyperbole, until Friday night a Texas grand jury announced an indictment of governor Rick Perry. The “crime” for which Perry faces a sentence of 5 to 99 years in prison is vetoing funding for a state agency. The conventions of reporting — which treat the fact of an indictment as the primary news, and its merit as a secondary analytic question — make it difficult for people reading the news to grasp just how farfetched this indictment is.
Disclosure
Washington Post: Democrat? Republican? There’s an app for that
EditorialBuyPartisan would take the nation’s ideological sorting to a new level. It’s not just that Americans refuse to marry, socialize and live near people who disagree with their partisan affiliation. If the app succeeds, it would be a sign that Democrats and Republicans aren’t even willing to do business with one another any longer.We can think of a few things this kind of app could usefully do, like help consumers sort out companies with sketchy records on human rights. But we hope BuyPartisan fails.
State and Local
Arizona –– AP: Arizona Free Enterprise Club violated election law
State Elections Director Christina Estes-Werther said Friday that there was “reasonable cause” indicating the corporation failed to report all campaign contributions and expenses.Fountain Hills resident Paul Ryan filed a complaint against the group in July.
California –– LA Times: L.A. Ethics Commission suggests a new approach to buying votes
By Jon HealeyThe busy people here in Southern California have better things to do than pick a mayor or decide whether to require porn stars to wear condoms. To paraphrase Snoop — a true student of the Angeleno psyche — we’ve got our mind on our money and our money on our mind.Recognizing as much, the ethics watchdogs’ proposal calls for the city to set up a lottery for voters — let’s call it a Votto — so that the prospect of cash prizes will lure more people into the voting booth. The commission, which doesn’t have the authority to implement the plan itself, left it up to the City Council to decide how many prizes to offer and how large they should be. It suggested that the council conduct a trial run to see what prize level might be effective.“Maybe it’s $25,000, maybe it’s $50,000,” Zahniser quoted Commission President Nathan Hochman as saying. “That’s where the pilot program comes in — to figure out what … number and amount of prizes would actually get people to the voting box.”I know what you’re thinking. In the old days, paying people to vote was illegal. In fact, it still is, depending on the context. But this is the Ethics Commission, so it knows where the lines are drawn, right?
