In the News
ABC7: Independence Institute calls for government transparency, now suing for “privacy of its donors”
“We are being transparent about who funded it; the Independence Institute,” said Caldara. “We have donors and investors and people who donate money to us. I wouldn’t know which one of thousands of donors you would want to know who gave. It comes out of our general fund.”Caldara could have produced the ad and risked getting sued if anyone discovered he did not submit a contribution report. He told 7NEWS he wants the courts to decide this issue, so it could be used in the future.“You wonder what it’s like to have to go to a court and say, ‘Mother, may I please have the right to free speech,’ but that’s exactly what we’re doing,” said Caldara.
CCP
Independence Institute Sues Colorado
Amending the First Amendment
Wall Street Journal: Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment: When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.
By Theodore B. OlsonDemocrats claim that the Supreme Court has made politicians and political parties less accountable by encouraging donations involving outside interest groups. Outside of what? Democrat fundraising circles? Their actual fear is that less traditional candidates—including outsiders—will have the funding necessary to challenge incumbents in primaries without the blessing of party elders.It hardly enhances democracy to pine for the days when candidates were chosen by party bosses in secret, rather than by voters presented with candidates expressing a range of political viewpoints. If Democrats are concerned about the vitality of political parties when contending with outside groups, then Democrats should embraceMcCutcheon, which enables citizens to increase contributions to parties.“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”
Breitbart: Harry Reid’s Senate is Focussed on Citizens United While the World is Burning
The last time the threat to the homeland was this grave was in the aftermath of September 11th. So, what is first on the policy agenda for the United States Senate after a month-long recess? Developing a response to ISIS? Or even a policy on the Russian advances in the Ukraine? No! Reid has his sights on gutting the First Amendment and overturning the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court decision.This folly known as S.J. Res. 19, introduced by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), is just another example of how out-of-touch the Democrat-controlled United States Senate is and why Congress, according to the Real Clear Politics average, is at nearly a 80 percent disapproval rating. Harry Reid and the Democrat Caucus that he leads are completely consumed by a political agenda that attacks Citizens United. Why? Because the Citizens United decision gives a powerful voice to the opposition and makes it easier to participate in the process — a scary thought for liberal incumbents.The Udall amendment is an insult to our Founding Fathers and the ideals that this great nation was built upon. The First Amendment holds a special place in the Bill of Rights. It safeguards our right to worship as we see fit, the freedom of the press, and yes the First Amendment most importantly protects political speech. These wise men wanted safeguards that would protect us against an oppressive government. Today, a group of liberal Senators and radical liberal groups are attempting to chip away at those protections.
NRA ILA: Harry Reid Trying To Use Constitutional Amendment To Silence NRA, Its Members, And Free Speech
As the title of the proposed constitutional amendment suggests, S.J.R. 19 is intended to allow anti-gunners in Congress to silence their critics and to control the gun “debate.” S.J.R. 19 would authorize burdensome federal and state regulation–or outright prohibition–of spending by corporations and other legal entities (like NRA) to do what many were created to do: protect the rights of their members at the ballot box. Prominent constitutional scholar Floyd Abrams said of S.J.R. 19, “It is intended to limit speech about elections and it would do just that….”The U.S. Senate could vote on the measure as early as next week. NRA strongly opposes S.J.R. 19 and will score legislators’ votes on the proposed amendment. Please take action NOW to stop this proposed constitutional amendment that would severely restrict free speech during elections. Please immediately contact your U.S. Senators and tell them to OPPOSE Senate Joint Resolution 19.
IRS
Wall Street Journal: Republicans, Democrats on Senate Panel Issue Duelling Reports on IRS Controversy
By John D. McKinnonThe IRS inspector general, J. Russell George, said Friday that he stands behind the audit report and that his office’s review of IRS treatment of groups that applied for tax-exempt status is ongoing.Republicans say in essence that Democrats are comparing apples and boulders, and that conservative groups were far more frequently and heavily burdened by the treatment they got at the hands of the IRS.“The majority’s interpretation of the evidence fails to capture the extent of the IRS’s bias against conservative groups and flagrant abuse of power,” said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the subcommittee. The minority report adds: “The inclusion of a scant few liberal groups by the IRS does not bear comparison to the targeting of conservative groups.”
Wall Street Journal: Opinion: The IRS Scandal: A Status Report
Attorney Cleta Mitchell with the latest on the IRS targeting controversy and the expected report from Sen. Carl Levin.
Daily Caller: IRS: Five More Employees Lost Emails In Computer Crashes
By Patrick HowleyThe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lost emails from five more employees due to computer crashes, likely bringing the total number of computer crash victims tied to the IRS targeting scandal to more than 20.The IRS added five more employees to its computer crash list Friday, the Associated Press reported. The new computer crash victims are linked to congressional investigations into the IRS scandal and include two more Cincinnati-based tax exempt agents who worked under Lois Lerner.The announcement came just hours after new emails revealed that computer-crash victims Lerner and Nikole Flax were part of a “secret research project” that led the IRS to improperly demand donor information from nonprofit groups.
Disclosure
Washington Post: Making campaign contributions anonymous
By Bertram J. Levine and Michael JohnstonIndeed, if we think about all the ways transparency helps contributors and candidates put pressure upon each other, it is clear that reporting contributions can make matters worse. Suppose, then, that we turned out the lights? What if we let Adelson and Shaun McCutcheon spend their money on politics but not take credit for their “generosity”? What if we made all campaign contributions and independent expenditures anonymous — and made sure they stayed anonymous?To be sure, anonymity for contributors is not a new idea. In their 2002 book “Voting with Dollars,” Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres convincingly argued for making it impossible for candidates to verify the sources and amounts of contributions to their campaigns. Under their approach, contributors could boast of their largess, but candidates would have no way of knowing whether a contribution was actually delivered. Sadly, the Ackerman-Ayers system has not taken root, and federal law continues to make it possible for anyone — powerful incumbents included — to learn precisely who has given how much to whom.The problem is not just how much money we allow into the system, or even how few individuals provide it. An equally serious, and somewhat ironic, issue is that transparency makes the appearances problem worse. If incumbents could not know the sources of contributions to their war chests, they could not “thank” their benefactors with policy “favors,” nor could they extract contributions through intimidation. Donors wanting to support challengers — who are routinely out-spent by solid margins under the current system — would not need to worry about reprisals from incumbents.
Lobbying and Ethics
Washington Post: Mr. McDonnell’s disgrace is also Virginia’s
EditorialIN THE end, it didn’t take long. After months of legal wrangling and public spinning; after five weeks of courtroom testimony; after two hours of a judge’s instructions in the legal niceties of the case, the jury in Robert F. and Maureen McDonnell’s trial knew public corruption when it saw it. Scarcely 48 hours after they got the case, the jurors rendered their verdict with no minced words: The McDonnells are guilty.
State and Local
New York –– Politics on the Hudson: Teachout, Wu sue state Democrats over pro-Cuomo mailers
By Jon CampbellThe Teachout campaign cites section 2-126 of the state Election Law: a ban on spending party money on any one candidate in a primary election.“The (Democratic) party is undermining the actual function of the party, which is to allow Democratic primary voters to make the decision between candidates,” Teachout said in interview. “Party leadership can’t make decisions between candidates before voters make the decision. That’s what we see here, and it’s a real problem.”But the legal question isn’t quite so simple. That section of state Election Law was the subject of an Appellate Division decision in 2006, with a panel of judges unanimously ruling the clause “cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny” because it’s too broad and infringes on the First Amendment.
Virginia –– Richmond Times-Dispatch: Jurors sent resounding message but McDonnells have substantial grounds for appeal
By Mark Bowes“(But) I think there will be a substantial and important legal appeal on the issue of what constitutes an official act, and what kind of breach of fiduciary duty is necessary to establish ‘honest services’ fraud,” McBride added. “These are issues that the Supreme Court has explored, and the Supreme Court has generally been very hostile to a broad reading of the honest services statute.”
