In the News
The Hill: Sentimental ex-senators lament impact of Buckley, forget history
Luke Wachob
What happens when you ask two octogenarian ex-senators to explain how wonderful things used to be? A predictably nostalgic fairy tale that bears no resemblance to the past, has no relevant impact on present policy, and provides no guidance for the future.
That’s the gist of a recent op-ed in The Hill by J. Bennett Johnston and William Brock. Drawing on their personal experiences in Congress, the two former senators argue that the 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo seriously damaged American politics and created today’s world of big donors and bigger super PACs.
Johnston and Brock prefer the system set up by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of the early 1970s, which was partially struck down by Buckley. That act included limits on campaign spending and a prohibition on independent expenditures. “This system worked,” they write, “and we’re extremely proud to have earned our seats in this manner.”
A quick look at the historical record, however, shows neither Johnston nor Brock ever actually ran a campaign during the short period when independent expenditures were banned and campaign spending was limited.
Baltimore Sun: Howard County Council members propose ‘citizen funded campaign system’
Fatimah Waseem
The price tag of publicly funded campaigns is a source of concern, said Wendy Underhill, a program manager for elections policy with the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan non-governmental organization that works with state legislatures.
“Proponents will suggest that having funds makes it more possible for competitive races to be run. It is tricky to keep up with the costs of campaigning,” said Underhill. “The impact of [matching funds] is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.”
David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, questioned the use of public funds for campaigning.
“Taxpayers wind up giving funds to a candidate they do not prefer,” said Keating. “Basically, it’s a subsidy for running campaigns.”
Campaign Spending Effectiveness
U.S. News and World Report: Bush Got Little Bang For His Buck in Iowa
Gabrielle Levy
The former Florida governor, once thought to be a strong contender for the Republican nomination, came up far short in the nation’s first contest of 2016: He earned just 5,238 votes, amounting to 2.8 percent — well behind Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the winner — and netted just a single delegate from the state.
That’s despite a campaign and a super PAC that spent $14.9 million in Hawkeye State advertising, more than any other candidate, according to data collected by SMG Delta. That works out to a whopping $2,845 per vote, by far the worst bang-for-the-buck performance of all 12 GOP candidates.
Free Speech
New York Times: The Conservative Case for Campaign-Finance Reform
Richard W. Painter
Social conservatives and faith-based voters should care about big money in politics because it drowns out their voices on issues from abortion and euthanasia to gambling and pornography. Churches and other charitable groups are prohibited from contributing to campaigns or even endorsing candidates. Politicians pay them lip service, but their influence pales in comparison to large for-profit enterprises. Values don’t pay for campaigns; health insurance companies, entertainment businesses, the gambling industry and its online counterparts do.
Remember the poor widow in the Gospel of Luke who contributed coins to the temple treasury? She is the values voter of today. If religious conservatives want to accomplish their goals, they first need to drive the big spenders out of the temples of our democracy.
Tax Financed Campaigns
Yale Books Unbound: Money and Politics in Polarized Times
Richard L. Hasen
Some scholars, such as Raymond LaRaja and Brian Schaffner, contend that limiting the fundraising ability of political parties through campaign finance laws has led to increased polarization in Congress and state legislatures. They argue that parties act as moderating political forces. According to this argument, ideologues spend money outside the parties to support more extreme candidates, while pragmatists act within broad-based parties to support more moderate and electable candidates.
Those seeing this campaign money-polarization connection argue that to decrease political polarization, we need to free political parties to raise more money from wealthy donors. Further, public financing plans which give multiple matching funds for small donors (as New York City does in its elections) can exacerbate political polarization, because even small donors tend to have more extreme views than average voters.
Solving political polarization by loosening up money to parties and ending a novel public financing programs like New York’s would be a cure worse than the disease.
Wisconsin ‘John Doe’
Wisconsin Watchdog: John Doe targets: Chisholm has no right to share illegally seized ‘evidence’
M.D. Kittle
In court filings, Chisholm and his fellow Democrat DAs who signed off on the multi-county John Doe probe informed the Wisconsin Supreme Court that Reed Smith LLP has agreed to represent them in their quest to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. That petition, according to the court’s order, is due by March 1…
Chisholm and his fellow intervenors – Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne, and Iowa County DA Larry Nelson – are asking the state Supreme Court to amend some of the secrecy orders in the John Doe case to allow the attorneys and an administrative assistant to view redacted documents.
The Media
Boston Globe: John Kasich’s campaign of light
Scot LeHigh
In a normal political year, John Kasich would be on a remarkable roll.
He has won the editorial-endorsement primary by a knockout. The newspapers recommending him include the Portsmouth Herald and Foster’s Daily Democrat (a joint nod), the Concord Monitor, The Telegraph of Nashua, The Keene Sentinel, and the Valley News, in Lebanon. The Boston Globe and The New York Times have also nodded his way…
Here, however, is the question: In this year of antiestablishment acrimony, do those traditional political cues matter? After all, in Iowa, Ted Cruz, bête noire to the establishment, carried the day, followed by Donald Trump, whom Republican regulars see as almost anathematic
Candidates and Campaigns
FiveThirtyEight: Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan
Nate Silver
The disproportionate media coverage of Trump played a large role too, though. Most Republican voters like several candidates. How does a Republican voter who likes (for example) Trump, Cruz and Chris Christie choose among them? The answer seems to have a lot to do with which candidate is getting the most news coverage.
In Iowa, however, the media environment wasn’t as lopsided in Trump’s favor. Voters were blanketed with ads from all the candidates. And they sought out information on their own before settling on their vote. There was a late spike in Google searches for Cruz and Rubio in the state Monday, bringing them almost even with Trump, even as Trump continued to dominate in search traffic nationally.
New York Times: Hillary Clinton Leads in Fund-Raising From Lobbyists
Nicholas Confessore
Registered lobbyists raised more money for the Democrat Hillary Clinton than for any other presidential candidate of either party during the three months ending in December, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
All told, Mrs. Clinton has taken $2 million so far from donors rounded up by lobbyists, most based in Washington. Lobbyists raised another $236,000 for a joint fund-raising committee Mrs. Clinton set up with the Democratic National Committee
Politico: Trump didn’t repay campaign for corporate lawyer’s activity
Isaac Arnsdorf
Donald Trump stepped up his own funding for his campaign last quarter, but that didn’t include repaying his company for the threatening letters its lawyer sent his political opponents…
One of the recipients of Garten’s letters, Charlie Spies, the lawyer for the super PAC supporting Jeb Bush, complained to the FEC in December that Garten’s work counted as an impermissible in-kind contribution to the campaign. The maneuver might be allowed if Trump personally reimbursed the company for the lawyer’s time, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Atlantic: Ben Carson’s Campaign Is Spending Like Crazy
David A. Graham
Watts is no longer with the campaign, having quit in frustration in December, but Carson’s year-end FEC report, released Sunday, suggests that far from decreasing its reliance on these methods, the campaign has only become more reliant on them. The campaign raised $22.6 million, but it spent $27.3 million, and closes out with just $6.6 million cash on hand. (For comparison, Ted Cruz has $18.7 million on hand; Hillary Clinton has $38 million.) Among the largest spending areas, a couple stick out: fundraising phone calls ($2.4 million), and postage and printing ($7.3 million).
The States
Mississippi Watchdog: Mississippi campaign finance overhaul targets unitemized expenses
Steve Wilson
Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann wants to close a campaign finance loophole that allows candidates and elected officials to record disbursements to credit cards and online payment services such as PayPal on their campaign finance statements without any itemization.
Alaska Dispatch News: Political groups that supported Walker violated law, settlement says
Alex DeMarban
The agreement between APOC staff and the groups recommends a fine of $6,370 for Your Future Alaska and $1,338 for Alaskans First for violating campaign finance law. The violations occurred as they raised money on behalf of Walker and Democratic candidates in the fall of 2014. As independent groups, they didn’t coordinate their efforts with Walker’s or other official campaigns.
The groups were involved in an illegal “pass-through technique” that obscured the actual funding sources to Your Future Alaska, the agreement says.
