State of the Union
Politico: Obama: I’ll travel the country to push campaign finance, redistricting reform
Kyle Cheney
“We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around,” he’ll say, according to prepared text of his speech. “We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections — and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution. We’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now.”
Obama didn’t unveil any proposals or legislation on the subjects, but he issued a plea for citizens to help him rally behind fundamental changes to the political process that have largely been nonstarters in Washington.
Los Angeles Times: Obama’s State of the Union pledge to push for bipartisan redistricting reform was a late add
Javier Panzar
In recent days, aides to the president had said he was concerned about gerrymandering, the flood of money in politics and other barriers to voter participation.
In his speech, Obama declared that he plans to agitate for change, including reducing the influence of money “so that a handful of families or hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections.”
Obama did not specify how to institute such measures – but he promised to hit the campaign trail to promote them.
“This is America. We want to make it easier for people to participate,” Obama said. “And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do just that.”
IRS
Wall Street Journal: An IRS Class Action
Editorial Board
The case against the IRS for targeting conservatives isn’t over after all. On Tuesday a federal judge in Ohio certified a class-action lawsuit against the IRS by conservative groups whose applications for tax-exempt status were slow-rolled between 2010 and 2013.
The lawsuit by the NorCal Tea Party Patriots was filed in May 2013, shortly after the targeting came to light. It will represent more than 200 groups. In July 2014 Judge Susan Dlott dismissed parts of the lawsuit but allowed key portions to go forward. Those include claims that the IRS engaged in retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and that the tax agency violated Section 6103 of the U.S. Code, which protects confidential taxpayer return information.
Political Parties
Vox: A science-backed New Year’s resolution to help fix American politics
Jennifer Victor
Campaign finance laws directly affect the relative balance between pragmatists and purists in the parties. While there is considerable variance across the states, most campaign finance laws restrict the behavior of, and contributions to, the formal party organizations.
Ultimately, then, we’ve created systems of campaign finance that constrain the moderates — those who have incentives to compromise — while we’ve left the purists completely unregulated. Candidates, then, have incentives to court these purists because that’s where the money is. This creates incentives for increasingly ideologically extreme candidates to pursue, and win, office.
Independent Groups
Atlantic: An Election With the Shape of American Democracy in the Balance
Lawrence Norden
Could super PACs be banned if Citizens United and SpeechNow were reversed? In a word, yes. In fact, the first court to hear SpeechNow held to what had been the standard before Citizens United, noting that the Supreme Court “ha[d] never held that, by definition, independent expenditures pose no threat of corruption,” and that a group’s legal “independence” does not prevent it from forming close ties with officeholders that could lead to corruption. If a new Court were to accept this reasoning, it could restore the ban on super PACs by upholding the $5,000 limit on donations to political committees; Congress or the Federal Election Commission (FEC) could do the same if the Court overruled Citizens United.
Wisconsin ‘John Doe’
Wisconsin Watchdog: Supreme Court says no to John Doe prosecutors; Abrahamson lashes out
M.D. Kittle
Prosecutors of the political John Doe investigation into dozens of conservative groups and Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign will not be able to hold on to the mountains of documents they illegally seized, according to an order issued Tuesday by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The court filing also includes a vitriolic dissenting opinion from Justice Shirley Abrahamson that may set a new standard of bitterness for the liberal former chief justice.
Supreme Court
More Soft Money Hard Law: The Politician and the Gift
Bob Bauer
And this is what is also at issue in cases like McDonnell. No judgment on the merits of this particular case, or on the actions of the particular former official, is necessary (nor expressed here) to appreciate the significance of the issue it addresses. The hypothetical politician trying to “do the right thing” knows that the gift asked for and given puts him under some obligation, creates some expectation—of at least recognition. A routine “thank you” letter won’t usually do the trick. An apparent piece of public policy is illegal overpayment. This is why a tour of the office might be scheduled, or an invitation to an official event might be issued, or something is arranged to show that the support previously given was not taken for granted.
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: Ad Buys Position Marco Rubio to Dominate Iowa Airwaves
Jeremy W. Peters & Nick Corasaniti
Taken together, the ways the Rubio campaign and its allies are working in concert offer a striking contrast to how the campaign of Jeb Bush is working alongside a supportive super PAC. Mr. Bush’s unaffiliated group, Right to Rise — which amassed a nine-figure war chest last year — is doing almost all the advertising on his behalf, offering his campaign far less flexibility and efficiency.
But $100 million does not buy what it used to. While Right to Rise is spending $3.5 million in Iowa through the caucuses, the Rubio campaign’s own ads should still be seen by a significantly larger audience, because of the lower price Mr. Rubio’s campaign is paying for each one shown.
Bloomberg: Marco Rubio’s Team Outpaces Bush on TV as Attacks From Rivals Pile Up
Michael C. Bender
The jump in spending during the past two weeks also comes as Rubio is increasingly under fire by presidential rivals, including Bush. Critics have taken aim at the senator’s propensity for missing roll call votes, and, in one of the more bizarre twists of an already strange election season, at his his choice of footwear.
Rubio’s sleek, stacked-heel boots grabbed the attention of the political world last week in a way few moments—aside from the presidential debates—have this election cycle. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush all weighed in on Rubio’s stylish kicks, which didn’t seem to square with the everyman image that Rubio has painted of himself with a stump speech that relies heavily on his upbringing as the son of a bartender and hotel maid.
Right to Rise USA added its voice to the Great Boot Debate of ’16 with a 82-second web video that spoofs Nancy Sinatra’s video of her 1966 pop song, “These Boots Are Made for Walking.”
Huffington Post: Bernie Sanders Nabs Endorsement From MoveOn.org
Alana Horowitz Satlin
“This is a massive vote in favor of Bernie Sanders, showing that grassroots progressives across the country are excited and inspired by his message and track record of standing up to big money and corporate interests to reclaim our democracy for the American people,” said MoveOn.org Political Action Executive Director Ilya Sheyman. “MoveOn members are feeling the Bern.”
The States
Salem Statesman Journal: Constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform goes to Legislature
Gordon Friedman
A task force on campaign finance reform voted Tuesday to recommend changes to the Oregon Constitution that would allow limits to political campaign donations.
The task force urged the Legislature to approve a constitutional amendment that would allow limits enacted by the Legislature or by the people via the initiative process. It also would override Ballot Measure 47, which capped campaign contributions but could never be enacted because the state constitution prohibits those caps.
Arizona Daily Star: ‘Dark money’ reform, open primaries could be on ballot
Howard Fischer
Organizers of a campaign to force disclosure of “dark money” in campaigns and a companion measure to open up primaries hope to collect $10 million — and possibly as much as $13 million — to put the issues on the November ballot and get them both approved.
The disclosure comes as two former gubernatorial hopefuls have formed campaign committees, a necessary legal step before they can raise money. But voters will have to wait until later this month days before actually seeing the language they hope to add to the Arizona Constitution.
Politico New York: Reform rhetoric in past addresses rarely translated to action
Bill Mahoney
Very few of the reforms suggested by the Moreland Commission under Mario Cuomo have been enacted over the past quarter century, and most are still talked about as potential cures for what ails Albany in the aftermath of an unprecedented streak of corruption convictions.
They’ve all appeared, to varying degrees, in State of the State messages in the years since. If 2016 plays out in similar fashion, it’s likely that Andrew Cuomo will demand reforms in Wednesday’s address and then will settle for a mild compromise that leaves most of the boxes on his original wish list unaddressed, particularly those that would dilute some of his own power.
Atlanta Journal-Constitutional: Bill would give local officials a way out of ethics fines
Chris Joyner
The bill is spawned by years of computer and management problems at the state ethics commission, formally called the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, that made filing required campaign contribution reports difficult, if not impossible, for office seekers.
Marietta Councilman Griffin Chalfant calls the situation “unbelievable.”…
“I have confirmation numbers for the reports you are talking about. I think I’m in the right,” he said. But he said trying to deal with the ethics commission is “like trying to deal with Comcast or the phone company.”
Event Reminder: CCP-Cato Institute Conference on January 26, 2015: The Past and Future of Buckley v. Valeo
On January 30, 1976, the United States Supreme Court handed down Buckley v. Valeo, still its most important decision at the intersection of campaign finance and the First Amendment. The Court brought forth a per curiam opinion that invalidated significant parts of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Buckley Court denied Congress the power to limit campaign spending. But not completely. The same Court decided Congress could restrict contributions to candidates to prevent quid pro quo corruption or “the appearance of corruption.” Giving citizens an “equal voice” in elections, however, could not justify suppressing speech.
Buckley remains a vital precedent that restrains and empowers Congress. But should Buckley be considered a First Amendment failure? Or did it embrace inevitable compromises that were both worse and better than everyone desired? How does Buckley affect the law and American politics and campaigning today? Does the decision have a future? Please join us to discuss these essential questions of First Amendment law and politics.
The January 26 event is free of charge and will be held at The Cato Institute at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW in Washington, DC. The program will begin at 9:00 AM and conclude at 12:30 PM with a luncheon to follow. Speakers are still being finalized, but CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith will be speaking. More information, including an agenda, can be found here. All those interested in attending should RSVP at the following link.
