First Amendment
Washington Post: Prosecutors drop case against man arrested for burning American flags outside White House
By Keith L. Alexander
Local prosecutors Tuesday dismissed remaining charges against a California man whose burning of two American flags outside the White House on the Fourth of July sparked a melee between ideologically opposed groups.
Gregory Lee “Joey” Johnson, 62, of San Francisco, had faced a felony charge of assault on a police officer after two officers said they were doused with an accelerant from a burning flag that made them ill and sent them to a hospital for treatment. That charge was dismissed a day after the burning incident.
Late Monday, prosecutors within the District’s Office of the Attorney General dismissed the remaining misdemeanor charges of inciting violence and disorderly conduct.
Johnson is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party who espouses the slogan “imagine a world without America,” and he has made burning flags an integral part of his protest. It was Johnson’s burning of an American flag during a march against nuclear war in Dallas in 1984 that led to a landmark 1989 Supreme Court decision overturning his conviction for “desecration of a venerated object” and making flag-burning a constitutionally protected right.
“The First Amendment right to burn a flag survives,” Johnson’s attorney Mark Goldstone said. “Texas versus Johnson lives, for now.”…
Last week, in a two-page letter to Racine, Goldstone and Arthur B. Spitzer, co-legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, encouraged prosecutors to dismiss the charges against Johnson. They argued there was no evidence Johnson tried to incite violence.
“As far as we can tell, there is no federal or District of Columbia criminal law that makes it an offense to burn something on Pennsylvania Avenue during daylight hours,” the men wrote. They added Johnson’s conduct was “entirely peaceful and non-threatening and therefore protected by the First Amendment.”
The Courts
Louisville Courier Journal: Jury finds Jerry Lundergan and Dale Emmons guilty of campaign finance crimes
By Joe Sonka
A jury on Thursday found Jerry Lundergan guilty on all 10 felony counts in the federal case accusing him of conspiring to conceal illegal corporate donations from his company to the Senate campaign of his daughter, Alison Lundergan Grimes.
The jury also found co-defendant Dale Emmons, a consultant paid by Lundergan’s company to provide services for Grimes’ campaign, guilty on all six felony counts.
The jury delivered its verdict after deliberating for less than three hours.
Lundergan and Emmons will remain free until their sentencing hearing on Jan. 22.
Federal prosecutors alleged in the indictments and five-week trial that Lundergan conspired with Emmons to direct illegal corporate contributions from his companies to the 2014 U.S. Senate campaign of Grimes and to falsify campaign records to cover up more than $218,000 of those contributions.
Defense attorneys for Lundergan and Emmons argued that the two made innocent mistakes during that campaign and did not knowingly violate campaign laws, which would need to be proven in order for there to be a conspiracy…
Guthrie True, Lundergan’s defense attorney, told reporters he was “very disappointed” in the verdict, saying he will “definitely” appeal.
True said U.S. District Judge Van Tatenhove’s ruling to allow evidence alleging campaign finance crimes committed by Lundergan in the 2011 and 2015 Grimes races for secretary of state was a “terrible” error that would be ripe for appeal.
Courthouse News Service: Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Montana Ban on Political Robocalls
By Karina Brown
In past decisions, the Ninth Circuit has upheld laws restricting automated phone calls based on consumer protections regulating commercial speech and those that restrict the time, place and way robocalls are allowed. And the court has found that such laws apply to cellphones. But a three-judge panel drew the line Tuesday on Montana’s robocall statute, the first considered by the court that regulates such calls based on their content…
Senior U.S. District Judge Charles C. Lovell found that while the law was based on the content of speech, and therefore implicated the First Amendment, Montana had a compelling interest to “protect the well-being, tranquility and privacy of the home” which justified the law.
On appeal, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit disagreed. While the state is right to use the law to protect personal privacy, the panel found prohibiting political campaigns from using automated phone calls goes too far.
“Regulating robocalls based on the content of their messaging presents a more severe threat to First Amendment freedoms than regulating their time, place and manner,” U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez wrote. “In particular, prohibiting political robocalls strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, as well as disproportionately disadvantages political candidates with fewer resources.”…
The judges sent the case back to Judge Lovell for further proceedings congruent with their ruling.
“Montana has offered no reason why, for example, an automated fundraising call from a political campaign is inherently more intrusive than a similar automated fundraising call from an apolitical nonprofit entity – both would tie up phone lines and answering machines in the exact same manner,” Paez wrote. “This underinclusiveness raises doubts about whether the robocall statute aims to address the problems caused by robocalling or instead to hinder discussion of certain topics.”
All three members of the panel were appointed by Bill Clinton.
FEC
National Review: FEC Chair Embarks Down the High-Tech Road to Censorship
By Hans A. Von Spakovsky and John York
Later this month, Federal Election Commission chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, will convene representatives from Silicon Valley giants like Facebook, Twitter, and Google to discuss something that is far outside the bailiwick of the FEC and has absolutely nothing to do with her duties as a commissioner: “fighting the disinformation that risks further corroding our democracy.”
This sort of government meddling is very dangerous to free speech…
The campaign against domestic “disinformation,” trolls, and fake news is dangerous because these terms are moving targets. When does an op-ed that Weintraub or the mavens of Silicon Valley disagree with or don’t like become an impermissible effort to mislead? When does a provocative political view become “dangerous” hate speech?
Without clear guideposts, there is no way for writers, tweeters, politicians, and pundits to know when they are crossing whatever murky lines Weintraub, Facebook, Twitter, and Google will consider at their symposium…
It is difficult to deny that our politics today are highly polarized and hyperbolic. It is also hard to miss the role social media plays in enflaming passions and obscuring the truth. Real as these problems are, the danger posed by a government entity patrolling the Internet for what it deems to be fake news – or tech companies censoring political speech at the behest of bureaucrats like Weintraub – is far worse…
We have much more confidence in the intelligence of the American people than Weintraub does.
The American public can be counted upon to glean what they need from the messy, noisy cacophony that is our democratic republic and, ultimately, cast their ballots in their best interests.
Congress
Washington Post: House committee votes to take steps toward impeachment as Democrats mull potential charges against Trump
By Rachael Bade
A group of Judiciary Committee Democrats has begun privately mapping a list of possible charges against President Trump, sketching out the contours of potential articles of impeachment even as House leaders publicly resist taking such action, according to a half-dozen lawmakers and congressional aides.
The informal discussions, closely held and preliminary, could produce a range of allegations – some that echo charges in proceedings against President Richard M. Nixon: obstruction of justice, abuse of power and defiance of subpoenas, as well as violation of campaign finance law and allegations of self-enrichment, said the individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of their work…
Additional potential impeachment articles being explored by the committee could focus on hush-money payments to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump and allegations that the president has used his public office to benefit his private business, according to the people familiar with the discussions…
The committee voted along party lines Thursday on new investigative procedures the panel will use “to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Donald J. Trump,” the resolution reads…
The committee is keen on exploring Trump’s alleged involvement in payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, which could be the basis for one article. Several on the panel say they believe there is enough evidence to establish Trump as a co-conspirator on campaign finance charges that sent his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to prison.
Fundraising
Washington Post: I like Elizabeth Warren. Too bad she’s a hypocrite.
By Ed Rendell
Shortly after announcing her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in February, Warren said she would shun high-dollar fundraising events. “That means no fancy receptions or big money fundraisers only with people who can write the big checks,” Warren wrote in an email to supporters. …
Now, Warren has every right to make that pledge even if she had obtained significant contributions from donors in the past. Doing that didn’t make her a hypocrite. But there are two other reasons why the description applies.
First, because she transferred $10.4 million from her Senate reelection campaign to her presidential campaign fund. More than $6 million came in contributions of $1,000 and up, as the New York Times recently noted…
The $10.4 million gave Warren a substantial head start in building a presidential-campaign staff and doing other things for which money is essential…
Second, Warren attacked former vice president Joe Biden for holding a kickoff fundraiser in Philadelphia in April, which she criticized as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors” in an email to supporters the next day.
Well, I helped organize that affair, and I thought her attack was extremely hypocritical because nearly 20 of us who attended the Biden fundraiser had also given her $2,000 or more in 2018 at closed-door fundraisers in “swanky” locations.
Warren didn’t seem to have any trouble taking our money in 2018, but suddenly we were power brokers and influence peddlers in 2019…
I also take issue with the notion, raised by Warren in her criticism of the Biden fundraiser in April, that people who give the maximum allowable individual donation of $2,800 to a presidential candidate are doing so because they believe it will get them a federal job, win their business a federal contract or even gain special access.
Donors who give $2,800 for the most part are doing so because they believe strongly that the candidate would make a great leader, or maybe they believe in the candidate’s values or policies on the important issues challenging the country.
Politico: Rendell lights pre-debate stink bomb
By Holly Otterbein and Marc Caputo
Rendell’s comments have also given voice to what other rival campaigns have said privately about Warren’s fundraising approach…
Both Rendell and Biden’s advisers, however, insist he didn’t tell the campaign beforehand about his Wednesday op-ed that assailed the Massachusetts senator for bashing big-money fundraisers after using them herself in past years.
Biden’s camp isn’t disavowing what Rendell said – and his aides are staying officially silent as Rendell’s attacks on Warren began trending on social media.
One Biden adviser said Rendell’s column “went off like a bomb … we didn’t know it was coming.”
But it wasn’t an unwanted bomb: Another Biden adviser indicated that the campaign “didn’t pitch him on this” but is nonetheless embracing the fallout of his sortie.
“I mean, he raised some fair points,” the second adviser said about Warren saying she won’t hold high-dollar fundraisers while having transferred $10.4 million from her Senate campaign account that was raised partly from large contributions…
Rendell claimed he penned the op-ed not at the behest or with the knowledge of the Biden campaign, but simply because the Post called him after he was interviewed by the Times.
Center for Public Integrity: You Donated To Kids With Cancer. This Vegas Telemarketer Cashed In.
By Sarah Kleiner and Chris Zubak-Skees
During the last four years, the U.S. saw a significant spike in the number of PACs that raise most of their money from small-dollar donors before plowing much of it back into salaries, administrative costs and raising more cash, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of more than 68.7 million campaign finance records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
PACs that contract with Zeitlin account for about half of that spike, making him a major player in the political world. For more than two decades, he raised tens of millions of dollars in the name of nonprofits before shifting to PACs.
By and large, nonprofits and political committees are allowed to spend almost everything they collect on fundraising. What’s not legal: lying to prospective donors about how their money will be used. It is up to a patchwork of federal and state investigators, each with different jurisdictions and responsibilities, to police solicitors. This is often difficult for agencies with limited resources.
Candidates and Campaigns
ProPublica: The Myths of the “Genius” Behind Trump’s Reelection Campaign
By Peter Elkind with Doris Burke
After the 2016 election, much was written about the Trump campaign’s use of new Facebook tools to “microtarget” voters, sophisticated data analytics and rapid-fire testing of thousands of campaign ad permutations. Parscale was hailed as an innovative “genius,” an impression he encouraged…
“If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you think he’s a 21st-century Steve Jobs,” says a Republican consultant who knows Parscale. “He’s not an asshole. He’s kind of a huckster. But he’s smart enough to realize he’s a huckster.”
Parscale’s true gift wasn’t deploying new, cutting-edge uses for technology. It was skillful management: cobbling together and empowering a fast-moving, opportunistic digital team staffed by experts from the RNC, commercial ad placement firms and social media companies, which flew about a dozen employees into San Antonio to work alongside Parscale’s team. At Parscale’s direction, the digital operation carried out an unprecedented tilt toward social media, for which the Trump campaign spent nearly half its media budget.
Parscale’s all-in approach toward Facebook was perfectly suited to his unique candidate. “The key to digital success is bottling lightning, and with Donald Trump, the lightning strikes every five minutes,” says Wesley Donehue, CEO of Push Digital, who worked on Marco Rubio’s failed bid for the 2016 presidential nomination. “You will never be able to replicate any digital strategy you had for Donald Trump for any other candidate or any corporation because there is no other Donald Trump.”
Academics and political strategists say digital ads don’t do much to persuade voters to switch candidates. They’re aimed primarily at raising money, firing up the base and suppressing turnout among opposition voters – which perfectly matched Trump’s needs.
The States
Must Read Alaska: Irony: ‘Better Elections’ files complaint, uses Outside $$
By Suzanne Downing
Alaskans for Better Elections, which was denied its ballot initiative because it was found to be illegal, filed an immediate lawsuit in Superior Court to appeal the decision of the lieutenant governor.
From the looks of it, the Better Elections group has the advantage in court; it’s getting friendly treatment from a liberal judge.
Judge Yvonne Lamoureaux, who was appointed by Gov. Bill Walker, has ordered the State to begin printing petition booklets so the Better Elections group can continue progress toward its attempt at overhauling the Alaska election system…
Unless there’s a legal intervention by some unknown entity, the State of Alaska will print petition booklets and allow signature gathering during the litigation. The state and Grenn’s group have also agreed to an expedited litigation schedule, including a court hearing on Sept. 30 and oral arguments on Nov. 1 in Anchorage Superior Court…
At issue is whether the ballot initiative violates the single-subject rule. The initiative was written by former Attorney General Bruce Botelho with the help of former Gov. Bill Walker’s Chief of Staff Scott Kendall. They say it’s perfectly legal.
Alaskans for Better Elections is underwritten and advised by Outside special interest groups, including Represent.Us, of Massachusetts; Voters’ Right to Know, of California; and Fair Vote Action Fund, of Maryland.
According to Grenn, “The initiative would put an end to secret “dark money”-much of which comes from outside Alaska-that anonymous, big-money spenders use to influence our elections. It would also open Alaska’s primary elections to all Alaskans, regardless of political party, and ensure majority winner elections. The measure gives voters the option to rank candidates in general elections, or, if they choose, voters can vote for just one candidate as they do now.
New York Post: NY’s campaign ‘reform’ commission is stonewalling a watchdog
By Editorial Board
Montana can’t outlaw political robocalls, the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday, finding the state’s law violates the First Amendment, hamstrings underdog candidates and fails to protect recipients from financial scams.
In yet another sign that the commission rewriting New York’s campaign finance laws is operating with unseemly secrecy, the Government Justice Center is having to sue for documents “introduced at the Commission’s first official meeting and related communications.”
The Public Campaign Finance Commission rejected the watchdog group’s request for those records under the state Freedom of Information Law, which could drag out compliance until after Dec. 1, when the commission is supposed to issue its rewrite…
This entire project – a commission named to rewrite state law, with its plan binding unless the Legislature rushes back for a special session to override it – is already ridiculously overcomplicated. It’s even more outrageous that key parts of it are being done out of the public’s view.
