By Bradley A. SmithBut the left seems to think it is somehow illegitimate for management to speak to its own employees about how different candidates, and the policies they espouse, could affect the company. The left has two main fears: First, that corporations will say things it doesn’t like; and second, that employees will listen.
By Sarah LeeWhile New York City – the reported model for what Soros et al has in mind — is no stranger to campaign finance corruption, the state of Connecticut may be living closer to the outcome of what these systems actually lead to. Using a report released by The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) entitled “Meet the New Legislature, Same as the Old Legislature: A Quantitative Analysis of Connecticut’s Citizens Elections Program”, the case can be made that New York, like Connecticut, may find that public financing programs actually lead to, contrary to Soros’ stated goal, incumbency protection and do little to curb a problem that, at least in the case of Connecticut, may not even exist at all.
A quantitative analysis of the Connecticut Citizens’ Elections Program
By Floyd AbramsWell-established principles like these are what led the court in Citizens United to strike down legislation that made it a crime for any corporate or union money to be spent within 60 days of an election on material that appears on television, cable or satellite that endorses or denounces a candidate for federal office. It was not new for the court to apply the First Amendment to speech of corporations; Justice Kennedy cited 25 prior cases (including ones involving the corporate owner of The New York Times) involving just such First Amendment protection. The opinion, as well, made clear that Congress was fully empowered to require disclosure of who made what expenditures and in what amount.
By Janie LorberThe former head of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations division accused the conservative nonprofit American Legislative Exchange Council of lying about its assets in its federal tax filings in a letter sent to the agency Wednesday.
By DEREK WILLISLate spending on Congressional races from outside groups is nothing new, but the combination of redistricting and the proliferation of “super PACs” has helped to drive a recent explosion of money into competitive House districts around the nation.
By Alison FitzgeraldVoters in Ohio listening to the radio last week likely heard an ad accusing Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of joining President Barack Obama in waging a “war on coal.”
By James Kelleher(Reuters) – A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that an Illinois law limiting contributions to political campaigns can remain in force at least until the November 6 election.
By Aaron BlakeHill accepted the funds the day after a federal judge lifted the limit on the amount of money candidates can accept from their state party — the existing limit was $22,600 — but by Oct. 9, a federal appeals court re-instated the limit. (This week, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear an appeal of that decision, meaning the limit remains in place through Election Day.)
By Chris MegerianThe legal action could become a test of a new state regulation requiring nonprofits to disclose the identity of their donors if they know the money is going to be used in a California campaign.
By Adam CotterellIdaho’s Secretary of State wants a court to order a group campaigning for Idaho’s ballot referenda to reveal its donors.
By Sean GardinerMr. Baldeo reported that he received a total of $47,803 in campaign donations and sought matching funds on about $15,000 which, under the city’s complicated calculation system, would have resulted in him receiving about $90,000 in matching public funds. However, the Campaign Finance Board ruled that Mr. Baldeo was ineligible for those matching funds “due to serious, unresolved questions about the validity of various contributions to the campaign,” the complaint states.