In the News
Salt Lake Tribune: Utah ranks high on list of free-speech states
By Joe Albanese
The Institute’s Free Speech Index scores and ranks all 50 states on their laws governing political giving, grading them from A+ to F. Fortunately, Utah ranked as one of the top states in the country, earning an A+ grade. This places it alongside 10 other states that earned an ‘A’ or higher.
One crucial trait these states have in common is that they don’t limit the freedom of individuals to give to candidates, parties and political committees, as well as the ability of parties and political committees to give to candidates.
Why is it so important that states like Utah allow freedom in political giving to and between these groups? Because the main effect of government-imposed restrictions on political giving is to limit the amount of speech individuals, organizations and political actors can express. Giving money is not just a show of support. It also enables candidates and groups to spread their message further.
630 KHOW Denver (The Ross Kaminsky Show): The Rundown-Thurs 3/29: Stifling political speech in Colorado
The Institute for Free Speech has done a study of all 50 states’ freedom of political speech based on the ability of individuals and companies and political parties to contribute to the candidates of our choice. Colorado got an F as one of the very worst states in the nation when it comes to this kind of freedom. I’ve been talking about this for a while. We’ll talk with David Keating of IFS about their study.
Audio: David Keating on Colorado’s weak political free speech
Huntington Herald-Dispatch: West Virginia ranks poorly in ‘Free Speech Index’
By Luke Wachob and Alex Baiocco
In a new Free Speech Index on political giving, West Virginia, along with 10 other states, receives an “F” grade.
The Mountain State is arguably the worst state in the country for free political speech. Only Kentucky scores worse in the Free Speech Index, and Kentucky’s limits are actually higher than West Virginia’s in a few areas. West Virginia avoids last place because its population is less than half of Kentucky’s, reducing the amount of funding necessary to bring a candidate’s message to voters.
In West Virginia, individuals can give only $1,000 to candidates, parties and political committees per election. The same $1,000 per election limit exists on contributions from parties to candidates. This means parties are doubly restricted, facing limits both on what they can receive from individuals and on the amount of meaningful support they can provide for their candidates. On top of all this, West Virginia doesn’t adjust its limits for inflation, meaning a citizen’s ability to support their preferred candidates will continue to decline.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Comments to FEC on Rulemaking 2014-02 (Independent Expenditure Reporting)
By David Keating
The Institute for Free Speech is pleased that the Federal Election Commission has issued this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding independent expenditures by candidates and to allow reporting of independent expenditures “that relate to presidential primary elections and that are publicly distributed in multiple states.”
The proposed regulations could simplify and clarify reporting and would help bring these regulations into compliance with clear U.S. Supreme Court guidance on independent expenditures.
Independent Groups
Courthouse News Service: Watchdog Claims Bolton SuperPAC May Have Broken Law During Senate Campaign
By Tim Ryan
An elections law watchdog on Thursday filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission claiming incoming National Security Advisor John Bolton’s political action committee may have broken the law by illegally communicating with beleaguered data firm Cambridge Analytica during a 2014 senatorial campaign.
In a 14-page complaint, the Campaign Legal Center claims Bolton’s group used information from Cambridge Analytica to create advertisements for North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, whose 2014 campaign also worked with the data firm.
“Based on a Cambridge Analytica staffer’s online portfolio and other published reports, there is reason to believe that the John Bolton Super PAC used strategic information that Cambridge Analytica derived from its work for the party or campaign to develop advertisements expressly advocating for Tillis’ election, and thus made coordinated communications through the use of a ‘common vendor,'” the complaint states.
Disclosure
The Hill: Companies can expect political money grab ahead of midterms
By Bruce Freed
In the end, increasing pressure on corporations for donations to big spending outside groups is a recipe for increased risk, especially in today’s volatile political climate. Will a company be on the receiving end of an angry tweet from the nation’s chief executive? Will a donation support a candidate who ultimately goes off the rails in the heat of the campaign and brings blowback or worse for the donor and its brand? Or will a third-party group spend a company’s donation in a way that clashes with the company’s core values? How would the company weather media accusations of hypocrisy?
The sensitivities may be heightened when corporations spend political “dark money,” whose source is hidden because some recipient groups are not required to disclose. Today’s 24-hour news cycle and hyper-partisan politics fuel a “gotcha” atmosphere. It can quickly turn a leak about dark money into a bad news gusher. The Center for Political Accountability has advocated a series of methodical steps that companies can adopt voluntarily to ensure transparency and accountability of political spending and to mitigate the risks. In such high-stakes elections, these steps matter more than ever.
Trump Administration
Wall Street Journal: John Bolton to Exit Politics Ahead of White House Job
By Julie Bykowicz
The Office of the Special Counsel said Mr. Bolton cannot maintain the two political committees that bear his name. The committees had raised $6 million by the end of February and had a little more than half of that left in the bank, Federal Election Commission reports show.
The political groups are called John Bolton PAC and John Bolton Super PAC. A notice posted to their websites late Thursday said they were “suspending all political activities until further notice as of March 31, 2018.”
President Donald Trump gave Mr. Bolton the job just last week. One unanswered question is what will happen to the leftover money. One option could be for the groups to donate funds to like-minded political organizations…
Mr. Bolton also must resign his position as chairman of a nonprofit called the Foundation for American Security and Freedom, White House spokesman Raj Shah said.
The States
Newsweek: ‘Dark Money’ in the States: Arizona GOP Blocks Cities From Implementing Transparent Elections
By Josh Keefe
Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed a bill that protects anonymous political spending Thursday, less than a month after Tempe, Arizona, residents voted overwhelmingly to increase transparency on that type of spending in local elections. The battle between city and state opens a new front in the national debate over so-called “dark money” in politics; it’s also the first time a state has banned local governments from shining light on secret spending…
Unlike Arizona, other states have recently implemented measures to increase transparency in political spending by independent groups, which aren’t affiliated with parties or candidates. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, these groups can spend an unlimited amount of money on elections, so long as they don’t coordinate with candidates and their parties. Washington state governor Jay Inslee signed a disclosure bill into law earlier this month, and New Mexico’s Secretary of State implemented new disclosure rules in 2017. California passed a transparency bill in October, and Montana passed a bipartisan transparency bill in 2015.
The Nation: How a Small City Is Taking on the Big Power of Dark Money
By Jimmy Tobias
Over the last six months, Kuby and a small cohort of fellow election reformers launched and led a campaign to ban dark money in Tempe’s elections and thereby become a model for other cities across the state. They wanted to protect their city from the kind of anonymous outside meddling that is a specialty of the Koch brothers and their ilk.
“The ordinance will require those who independently spend $1,000 dollars or more in a city election to disclose the original source of those donations,” says Kuby. “We called it the ‘Keep Dark Money Out of Local Tempe Elections’ initiative, and it is simply meant to increase transparency between elected officials, candidates and voters.” …
On March 28, the Republican-led Arizona legislature passed a bill that explicitly prohibits cities like Tempe from requiring dark money groups to disclose their donors. The bill is meant to prevent Tempe’s good example from spreading across the state. Kuby says that she and her allies are ready to defend their achievement in court if need be.
“We are ready to ramp this up,” says Kuby. “We are ready to defend democracy, because democracy ain’t cheap.”
Spokesman-Review: Voters deserve more information on campaign backers
By Sens. Andy Billig and Joe Fain
Voters have the right to know who’s paying for a politician’s campaign. While campaign funders do not necessarily define a candidate or issue, we’ve seen throughout history how hidden campaign spending in other parts of the country has fueled a culture of corruption and self-dealing.
This is why we’ve sponsored the Washington DISCLOSE Act, which stands for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting a Light On Spending in Elections.” The bill requires public disclosure of donors by a nonprofit that spends more than $25,000 a year on election activities and receives donations of more than $25,000. If triggered, a nonprofit would be required to disclose the identity of its 10 largest contributors of more than $10,000 in a year…
It may not change your mind to know who’s spending what toward an item on your ballot. But the bottom line is, voters in our state have the right to information about a campaign’s finances.
Passing the Washington DISCLOSE Act strengthens campaign finance transparency, better informs voters, and reduces opportunities for corruption, altogether strengthening our democracy.
Los Angeles Times: L.A. councilman wants city to boycott companies with NRA ties
By Emily Alpert Reyes
A Los Angeles lawmaker wants the city to cut ties with companies that are linked to the National Rifle Assn., saying that its opposition to “common sense gun safety laws” is at odds with the city.
City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell introduced a proposal Wednesday asking city staffers to provide a list of all businesses and groups that have a “formal relationship” with the NRA and lay out options for boycotting them.
