In the News
Washington Examiner: Sen. Dick Durbin’s Senate hearing aims to suppress ALEC donors
By David Keating
To recipients of a letter Durbin sent to about 300 groups in connection with his hearing, the intimidating message was clear: Stop supporting the American Legislative Council (ALEC), a bipartisan group of conservative-leaning state legislators. Because ALEC once supported stand-your-ground laws, Durbin wants to scare off donors to the group.Ironically, Durbin is using his perch as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights to threaten our First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.Durbin was quoted in a news account on the letters saying, “my concern is with the lack of transparency. As a public official, when I take a position, I stand up to explain and defend it. I file annual financial disclosures, campaign finance reports and have to face the scrutiny of public opinion.”The legitimate purpose of disclosure is to allow citizens to monitor elected officials to prevent corruption. Durbinism is the concept of using disclosure to allow elected officials to monitor citizens and suppress dissent.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Business Blackmail Backfire
This tactic earned him a rebuff in late August from AT&T T +0.73% senior vice president James Cicconi, who noted in a letter to Mr. Durbin that it seems “inescapable that any response to your request will be used by those interests whose purpose is to pressure corporations to de-fund organizations and political speech with which they disagree.” This is a polite way of saying we know what you’re up to.Mr. Cicconi notes that AT&T contributes to groups “that span the political spectrum,” including such Durbin favorites as the liberal Center for American Progress, because its goal is “to support heathy and respectful political dialogue and well-informed, well-debated public policies.” A litmus test like Mr. Durbin’s “risks weakening the political processes and institutions on which our democracy depends.”
Wall Street Journal: ‘Citizens’ Ruling Spurred Fears at IRS of Tea-Party Challenge
By John D. McKinnonInternal Revenue Service officials worried that tea-party groups would challenge tax-code restrictions on political activity in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court decision on campaign spending, according to recently disclosed emails on the agency’s scrutiny of conservative groups.The emails between IRS officials leave many questions unanswered about the tea-party cases. But they suggest for the first time that officials feared possible legal challenges to their handling of applications by tea-party groups for tax-exempt status. Some sought to be charities while others wanted to be social-welfare groups. But the landmark Citizens United decision raised questions about the validity of some IRS curbs on tax-exempt organizations’ political activity.
Washington Post: Club for Growth takes aim at Obamacare as it continues to take on GOP from the right
By Lori Montgomery
The first sign that Republican leaders could not control their new majority came on a vote to help Americans who lose their jobs to foreign workers. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) considered the measure routine and in February 2011 put it on a list of bills expected to pass without objection.Enter the Club for Growth. Flush with power after helping to elect 13 House members and defeat two veterans in the Senate, the conservative campaign-finance machine blasted out an e-mail declaring its opposition to extending the 40-year-old retraining program, which it called “inappropriate for a country devoted to free markets and a limited government.”
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Forbes: It’s Time To End Our Failed Affair With Campaign Finance Laws
By Paul Sherman
It’s an old cliché that appearances can be deceiving, but, in the upside-down world of campaign finance law, appearances are all that the government needs in order to criminalize peaceful political activity. That’s because nearly 40 years ago, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s first major campaign finance decision, the Court held that such laws are justified as a means of avoiding even the mere “appearance” of corruption. Since then, lower courts across the country have taken this principle and run with it, upholding limits and sometimes even outright bans on the financing of political speech based on only the flimsiest of evidence.
More Soft Money Hard Law: The Corporation and the Little Guy in the 11th Circuit
By Bob BauerThe Campaign Legal Center has alerted its readers to a “flood” of challenges to campaign finance laws, and its message is that the reform advocates must remain at their battle stations. It is certainly true that interests hostile to any campaign finance regulation are hard at work; they might well believe that in this time, with this Supreme Court, their moment has come and no time should be wasted. But not all of these challenges are fairly lumped together and described as one indiscriminate assault against any and all reasonable regulation. A few raise questions that even those favoring reasonable limits on campaign finance should take—and address—seriously.
State and Local
Alabama –– NY Times: Secret Society Dips Toe in City Politics, Prompting Lawsuit
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSONTUSCALOOSA, Ala. — The college students began arriving a little before lunch at Calvary Baptist Church, far more than usual for a local election. The poll workers knew immediately: the Machine was here.The school year at the University of Alabama has barely gotten started, and already the campus has found itself in a charged self-examination on issues of politics, power and race, with the exposure of tenacious segregation among fraternities and sororities drawing national attention.
Arizona –– The Republic: Judge lets law boosting campaign contributions take effect
By Alia Beard RauMaricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain denied a preliminary injunction Thursday, allowing House Bill 2593 to go into effect today. The law raises campaign-contribution limits by up to 10 times current caps.The group that challenged the law, which included the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Commissioner Louis Hoffman, the Arizona Advocacy Network and state Rep. Victoria Steele, D-Tucson, vowed to appeal the decision.
Delaware –– The News Journal: Special prosecutor probes Gov. Jack Markell’s 2008 campaign
By Maureen MilfordA special state prosecutor investigating campaign finance practices in Delaware is looking into whether Gov. Jack Markell or anyone on his 2008 campaign helped donors contribute illegally or knew about the schemes.“We have been looking carefully into the question of whether Markell or any campaign knew about or suggested reimbursement,” said E. Norman Veasey, an independent prosecutor who was tapped by Attorney General Beau Biden in 2011 to lead an investigation into election finance in Delaware.
District of Columbia –– Washington Post: Barry may face censure, committee demotion after disclosing payments from contractors
By Mike DeBonisA special D.C. Council panel is expected to vote Monday on a proposal to censure council member Marion Barry and take away his committee chairmanship in response to his recent disclosure that he accepted cash payments from city contractors.The five-member disciplinary panel is leaning toward approval of the proposed punishment, according to members interviewed late last week who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
