In the News
Des Moines Register: Bipartisan design of federal campaign regulator is not a flaw
David Keating
These tactics will create bad government — not good government — and are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the FEC’s design and history. Though the commission is not without its flaws, the agency’s bipartisan structure is a desirable and purposeful feature of its design. And, despite the hyperbolic rhetoric to the contrary, the FEC does enforce the law, and finds bipartisan consensus in the vast majority of its decision-making…
Devoid of this historical context, claims by some that the FEC is “gridlocked” are misleading. The FEC’s bipartisan design — unlike the nominally nonpartisan Nixon Justice Department or the IRS — is what allows its regulations to carry weight. Otherwise, every FEC action would be tinged with politics and understandably viewed by many as illegitimate.
Townhall.com: Show Me Tyranny
Paul Jacob
On Friday, the Missouri Ethics Commission — performatively admitting it doesn’t recognize the First Amendment — fined Calzone $1,000 and ordered that he register as a lobbyist before speaking to any legislators.
While the immediate goal of this silly tyranny is to block Calzone’s freedom of speech, he understands the bigger, broader implications: “Make no mistake, though, this attack is a threat to every citizen who would dare to encroach on the lobbyists’ and politicians’ territory.”
Calzone will appeal the decision with the help of the Freedom Center of Missouri and the Center for Competitive Politics. And he will prevail.
CCP
CCP v. Harris: Amici Curiae Brief of the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Support of CCP
If this Court lets the Ninth Circuit’s opinion stand, then nonprofit organizations seeking to operate in one of the largest, richest, and most politically active states would be subject to blanket disclosure requirements, chilling the freedom of speech and the freedom of association. [Citation Omitted] The decision directly bears on the ability of minority and dissident groups—including the NAACP itself!—to organize in confidence and to monetize their educational activity. Amici urge the Court to issue a writ of certiorari to address the questions presented and correct the misapplication of its precedents by the Ninth Circuit.
Independent Groups
Bloomberg: Rick Perry’s Exit Shows the System Is Working
Jonathan Bernstein
It’s a sign winnowing still works in presidential-nomination contests, even in the new age of almost non-existent campaign-finance limitations. By all accounts, Perry’s super-PACs still had cash, even though his official campaign didn’t. But it wasn’t enough to keep him going.
A big part of the system we’ve known since the 1980s involves attrition: Many candidates run for president, and one by one the more marginal ones leave when they no longer have a realistic chance of winning. Perry’s exit now is good evidence that other losing candidates will drop out in the future — super-PAC money notwithstanding.
New York Times: Candidates Afloat on a Sluice of Money
Editorial Board
The money flood, invited by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, is floating candidacies in both parties, with politicians ceaselessly begging for millions from the most affluent Americans. Two candidates are notably absent from the race for excess money — Donald Trump on the Republican slate, and Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont whose criticism of the super PAC political culture has won him supporters.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is accepting super PAC money to survive, she says, even as she vows to rein in entities that can take in unlimited contributions. Cynics are laughing, but the proposals she outlined last week are excellent.
Citizens United
Cato Institute: Hillary: The Candidate on Hillary: The Movie
Trevor Burrus
According to her video, Citizens United was “a conservative organization that wanted to bring down Hillary Clinton’s candidacy because they didn’t like who she is, they don’t like what she stands for”–in other words, the quintessence of political speech protected by the First Amendment. Yet, because Hillary: The Movie was funded by a corporation–a nonprofit corporation founded to forward conservative causes–the movie and its accompanying advertisements ran afoul of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In short, the government was explicitly censoring political speech…
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) thought that the ads “are negative to the degree where all of our approval ratings sink to an all time low,” and that the ads “simply drive up an individual candidate’s negative polling numbers.” Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) grumbled that the ads “[do] not help our image.”
These quotes demonstrate that censoring critical and “negative” political speech is often a proximate goal of campaign finance “reformers.” They also show that giving elected representatives the power to censor campaign speech will unleash self-serving and grotesque motivations to protect “20-percent lead[s].”
Tampa Bay Times: The dangers of dark money
Daniel Ruth
Perhaps this suggests that not even $100 million can buy you an election. But that certainly hasn’t prevented plenty of other White House aspirants from taking advantage of a morally corrupt — and perfectly legal — campaign finance system that essentially plays all of us for chumps.
With the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which deemed corporations and unions free to contribute directly to political efforts, the financial floodgates have opened and swamped the electoral process. In order to evade accountability, all a candidate needs is a super political action committee. Or better yet, get a social welfare nonprofit and avoid identifying the donors.
Lobbying
Public Affairs Council: 2015 Public Affairs Pulse Survey: Most Americans Say it’s Smart for Big Companies to Get Political
Mark Willis
Despite public doubts about corporate lobbying, support for lobbying rises when people feel it is being done for the right reasons. These reasons include:
To protect jobs (80%); To open new markets (72%); To create a level playing field with competitors (71%); To reduce business costs (58%)
“This means companies need to take the time to explain to employees and customers why they are involved in politics,” said Public Affairs Council President Doug Pinkham. “When people hear the business reasons, they are more likely to associate lobbying with smart strategy — and they are more likely to be supportive.”
Candidates and Campaigns
Bloomberg: Getting Campaign Reform Backward
Editorial
If history is any guide, the next Congress is not likely to pass a public financing law or a constitutional amendment limiting private spending, no matter which party is in control. Nor is it likely to create a strictly nonpartisan enforcement agency. But before offering pie-in-the-sky ideas — or announcing “a referendum candidacy” — candidates might try a simpler solution: Fix the FEC first.
American Prospect: Is Hillary’s New Campaign Finance Reform Plan the Real Deal?
Justin Miller
The policy plan seems like a wish list for the campaign-finance reform community—indeed, it is largely based off of a plan from a coalition of democracy groups—though insiders say the one thing she failed to address was the utter inability of the FEC to enforce the existing campaign-finance laws…
Skeptics will be quick to point out that so far in the presidential campaign, Clinton has been heavily reliant on the big-money donors and powerful super PACs that she goes after in her plan. That’s certainly a fair point, and it’s worth keeping in mind that a lot of these policies would go directly against many corporations to which she has long been close to.
Bloomberg: Larry Lessig, Real-Life Capra Star
Cass Sunstein
Life isn’t a Frank Capra movie, and it’s tempting to be cynical about what Lessig is trying to do. Has any serious presidential candidate ever run on just one issue — and promised to resign after addressing it?
Lessig’s central argument would have been stronger in 2008. In recent years, wealthy interests have lost a lot of battles, on health care, financial regulation, the environment and taxes on the top 1 percent. And it might well be unrealistic to think that, in 2017, Congress will enact some of the most fundamental electoral changes in U.S. history.
Nevertheless, Lessig is right to draw attention to the wide gulf between our aspirations to self-government and our actual practices. Corruption is a strong word, but it is captures the undue influence of those with money to throw around.
The States
Great Falls Tribune: Group suing over election laws seeks to avoid disclosures
Matt Volz
Motl said that by suing, Montanans for Community Development had opened the door to inquiries about its operations, records and plans. The commissioner told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the documents he is seeking are essential to defending the case and that the judge’s ruling followed the court’s procedural rules.
“You can’t just walk in and say ‘freedom’ and not explain the basis of your position,” Motl said.
Just for Fun
Washington Free Beacon: Shadowy Outside Group Targets Donald Trump in New Attack Ad
Andrew Stiles
A mysterious advocacy group is targeting Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump in a new online attack ad, the Washington Free Beacon has learned exclusively.
The ad, produced by the outside spending group Golf Cart Veterans for Truth, takes aim at Trump over his alleged cheating habits on the golf course, as detailed in a recent Washington Post report.
Asked about the numerous accusations of cheating from former golfing partners during a press conference last week, Trump dismissed them as “absolutely false,” telling reporters: “I win at golf, that I can tell you.”
