The Center for Competitive Politics put together this handy packet, “The Udall Amendment: A Briefing Book,” looking at many of the problems with the current attempt to overturn First Amendment political speech and associational protections by the Senate’s speech police caucus. For more information about this futile attempt to strip away our constitutional protections for cheap political points, check out our information page here, our analysis of key flaws with the proposed amendment here, and videos highlighting the ridiculousness of the amendment here and here.
In the News
NY Times: The Makeup of the F.E.C.
By Luke WachobThe current structure, allowing no more than three commissioners from any political party, helps prevent partisans from using the agency to hamper political opponents. It is a crucial safety feature to protect First Amendment rights. Allowing any president to appoint a fourth member from his party would essentially place the agency under his control.If you are comfortable with President Obama’s having that power, what about a president like Richard Nixon?
CCP
Mayday PAC attacks on First Amendment fail in New Hampshire
“Mayday PAC seems to think that money can buy elections, but they’re wrong. As we have always argued, money is only a tool that helps speakers reach a wider audience, as Mayday PAC did here with its speech communicated through TV, radio, online ads and mailings. If the voters don’t like what you’re selling, they’re not going to vote your way no matter how much money is spent on advertising.“Hopefully Larry Lessig and his supporters will learn a valuable lesson – that voters are more intelligent than they think, and that money doesn’t buy elections.
DoubleSpeak: “Dark Money”
By Scott BlackburnWhat Do We Think it Means?“Dark Money” conjures up this image of secret evil – an amalgam of Rich Uncle Pennybags and Darth Vader, who is covertly controlling all of American democracy. The phrase plays on our basest fears. We don’t know what “Dark Money” is (How could we? We can’t see it!), and we don’t know exactly what “Dark Money” buys or who is spending it (Of course we don’t! It is purposefully hidden from us!), but we are told it is there, lurking in the shadows of political campaigns, allowing billionaires to “buy elections.” When we think about “Dark Money,” in short, we get scared and feel the need to get rid of this bogeyman that is supposedly haunting our elections.What Does it Really Mean?It turns out, however, that “Dark Money” is not that “dark” after all.Take, for example, this recent USA Today editorial decrying the influence of “Dark Money.” The editorial ominously warns us that, “[w]hat’s really scary is that many donors don’t have to reveal who they are or what they want from politicians.” The article then goes on to tell us exactly who these secret donors are and specifically what they want from politicians. It tells us about, “Americans for Prosperity, the most active group on the right … led by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, who vehemently oppose Obamacare and are seeking to elect as many Republicans to Congress as possible.” Now if this organization is somehow secretly destroying American democracy and buying elections, how does USA Today know who they are, who their primary donors are, and what their political position is? How exactly is this “Dark Money?”
Amending the First Amendment
Politico: Ted Cruz: Amendment threatens SNL
By Lucy McCalmont“Congress would have the power to make it a criminal offense, Lorne Michaels could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician. That is extraordinary. It is breathtaking and it is dangerous,” the Texas Republican argued on the Senate floor on Tuesday, with a board of stills from the late-night sketch show displayed behind him.
Reason: Al Franken Misrepresents the Censorship Power Democrats Are Demanding
By Jacob SullumDuring today’s debate about SJR 19, a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict freedom of speech in the name of “democratic self-government and political equality,” Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) claimed the measure would merely “restore the law to what it was before Citizens United was decided.” Not so. True, the amendment would allow Congress to re-enact the speech restrictions overturned in that case, which barred unions and corporations, including nonprofit advocacy groups, from criticizing federal politicians on TV or radio close to an election. But as I noted yesterday, the amendment would go a lot further than that.
Fox News: Hill Republicans attack Dems’ plan to limit election spending, use proposal against them
A proposal by Senate Democrats to limit campaign spending was supposed to die a quick death. But Capitol Hill Republicans are rallying to keep the issue alive in an apparent campaign season strategy, arguing it would put wide-ranging limitations on political free speech by amending the Constitution.Top Senate Republicans took to the chamber floor Tuesday to make their case, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz who called the proposal “the most radical” that the upper chamber has considered since he arrived in 2011.
Washington Examiner: Parties play politics over Constitutional amendment on campaign cash
By Sean Lengell
A second procedural vote pass Wednesday afternoon on a voice vote, setting another up yet another procedural vote Thursday or Friday. A final vote would require a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes. Democrats control 55 votes.McConnell has blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for shamelessly wasting Senate time on a measure he knows has slim chance of passing.“We are presented by the majority leader with a stunt of a vote on a piece of legislation that would rewrite the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and something that is going nowhere,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday. “It’s not going to happen and the majority leader knows it. It’s just like a lot of the other showboats we’ve had recently.”
Roll Call: Constitutional Amendment Debate Roils ACLU | Rules of the Game
By Eliza Newlin CarneySen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has frequently referenced the ACLU letter, which warned: “Tinkering with the First Amendment in this way opens the door to vague and over-broad laws, which both fail to address the problem that Congress wishes to solve and invariably pull in vast amounts of protected speech.”Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington legislative office, who co-signed the June letter that Cruz often cites, acknowledged the division within her organization. But she rejected what she called “hyperbolic rhetoric” from Neuborne and former ACLU leaders. She noted the ACLU board, which has consistently challenged campaign finance limits on First Amendment grounds over four decades, amended its position in 2010 to endorse limits on campaign contributions, which the group had previously opposed.“I think that there is a deep divide within the ACLU about this issue,” Murphy told CQ Roll Call. “But we are taking positions that are supported by our national board. Our most recent policy that endorsed contribution limits for the first time also opposed a constitutional amendment. So which particular contested and incorrect reading of the First Amendment are they talking about? Are they upset because we do support contribution limits? Are they upset because we oppose a constitutional amendment?”
The Hill: Franken: Citizens United is one of the ‘worst’ rulings
By Ramsey Cox“Citizens United was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court,” Franken said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “It was a disaster.”
Independent Groups
Free Beacon: Campaign Finance Reformers Admit Crushing Defeat in New Hampshire
By Lachlan MarkayA leading campaign finance reformer admitted defeat on Wednesday after spending more than $1.6 million on a Senate candidate who garnered less than a quarter of the primary vote.Jim Rubens, a Republican Senate candidate in New Hampshire, received just 23 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s primary, losing to former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who will challenge Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D.) in November.
Daily Caller:The Case For Outside Spending: New Hampshire Edition
By Paul H. JosseyOutside money levels the playing field — a lodestar of the left. It can alert constituents when lawmaker positions do not align with their preferences, as a recent study found. Shaheen, for example, is confronting voter anger over the border crisis and her party’s unpopular (and tone deaf) president. Brown may run into trouble with GOP primary voters over his stance on guns. Super PACs and 501(c)(4) nonprofits pointing out these weaknesses don’t “buy” votes, they inform voters. The results may seem a disorganized jumbled mess but this is exactly what the Founders intended, with the people the final arbiter.Outside money also allows advocacy groups to respond quickly to attacks in ways the campaign may not have the resources or desire to. In responding to Brown’s surge, Shaheen’s campaign manager stated they would be “correcting … Big Oil’s dishonest attacks.”This is itself a dishonest attack. No obvious oil-backed money is playing heavily in the race. As an industry, oil and gas interests have contributed a paltry $34 thousand to Scott Brown’s campaign, ranking it his 14th most supportive industry. Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer’s group on the other hand has spent over $1.1 million and ranks third in independent-expenditure spending. Brown’s campaign can leave this rebuttal to outside groups who relish these proxy fights.
