In the News
Powerline: Ed Corsi’s Life of Political Crime
By Scott JohnsonThe First Amendment protects the right of Americans to publish their political views against infringement by Congress. On this point the constitutional language is about as clear as language can be made. Yet the Supreme has hemmed and hawed and created purported exceptions that threaten to swallow the rule.
CCP
Matthew McIntyre Joins External Relations Team
Matthew is very much looking forward to joining CCP, as he is passionate about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free political speech. “Of all the important campaign finance issues of the day, what interests me most is that citizens are required to disclose personal details to the government, including their name, address, employer, and occupation, for making a donation as little as $200 to a political campaign for federal office,” said Matthew. “Such requirements compromise an individual’s privacy, over a contribution so small it is doubtful a candidate would even know the donor’s name, let alone be corrupted by the contribution.”
A Non-Argument for Tearing Down the Wall between Church and State
By Luke WachobThe closest The Times comes to explaining their problem with religious political activity is when they say “the problem [with a proposal allowing ministers to endorse candidates ‘in the context of a religious worship’] is that a political endorsement from the pulpit is likely to be influential precisely because it occurs as part of a religious rite.” If The Times’ concern is with undue influence, it’s not clear why they’ve singled out religious groups. Universities are funded by taxpayers (unlike religious organizations) and are full of politically-engaged faculty members that wield considerable power and influence over their students. The Times doesn’t seem panicked about the influence of universities, employers, political parties, media members, and other authority figures, and doesn’t explain why churches are a special case. The “problem” might just be that The Times doesn’t like what some churches have to say.
Independent Groups
Philanthropy.com (pay wall): Curbs on Social-Welfare Groups Would Deprive Everyday Citizens of a Voice
By Nan Aron
The Internal Revenue Service’s clumsy handling of applications for social-welfare status in 2012 has triggered a rash of fevered responses along with some serious policy proposals.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
More Soft Money Hard Law: Political Contributions, Conflicts of Interest, and the Role of Ethical Standards
By Bob BauerIn the fight over contribution limits, litigants argue over how much money, given by whom and in which ways, can push normal politics into corruption or the certainty of its appearance. McCutcheon tests the proposition that corruption can be a byproduct of the total volume of giving, not just how much a donor hands over to a specific candidate or political committee. McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, No. 12-536 (S. Ct. docketed Nov. 1, 2012). Other cases bring the courts into the dispute over the relationship between corrupt potential and the size of the contribution, the tipping point at which the sum given exceeds what it is safe to allow. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). Threading its way through these arguments is the question of whether and how the identity of donors, such as political parties, should be weighed in the bargain. See e.g. Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan, Case:1:12-cv-05811 (N.D. Ill.).
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
The Hill: Peter King: ‘I’m running for president’
By Julian HattemThe announcement makes King the first Republican to officially declare their intentions to run for president in 2016.
FEC
AP: Feds subpoena records in Bachmann investigation
Federal officials have subpoenaed records from the National Fiscal Conservative Political Action Committee as part of a federal grand jury investigation, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. The move represents a major escalation in the multiple inquiries of alleged election law violations raised by campaign whistleblower Peter Waldron.
State and Local
California –– Sacramento Bee: The Buzz: California campaign finance proposal worries watchdog groups
A proposed California campaign finance reform law could backfire on good actors, according to watchdog organizations.After out-of-state money poured into the 2012 election – most notably, $11 million from an Arizona nonprofit – the Fair Political Practices Commission has considered a slate of bills to fortify disclosure requirements.But some nonprofits are concerned that one measure would penalize smaller entities that follow the rules.Assembly Bill 914, by Assemblyman Richard Gordon, D-Menlo Park, on behalf of the FPPC, would introduce a form on which nonprofits spending $50,000 or more in an election cycle would list donors.
