In the News
Washington Post: The man who helped create super PACs says they’re here to stay
Matea Gold
Conservative activist David Keating, who launched the case that created super PACs, is not concerned a new legal effort will succeed in shutting down the big-money groups.
“I think they’re here to stay, because it’s basically Americans getting together and speaking about the government,” Keating said.
Super PACs are the product of SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a 2010 federal appellate court decision that allows individuals and corporations to pool unlimited sums of money to spend on independent political activity. A bipartisan team of attorneys including Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, and Richard Painter, who was the chief ethics lawyer for former president George W. Bush, announced a new attempt this week to overturn the case.
Independent Groups
Huffington Post: This Could Be The Beginning Of The End For Super PACs
Paul Blumenthal
Now a team of high-powered lawyers is seeking to overturn that lower court decision and upend the legal basis for super PACs.
They filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday on behalf of a bipartisan group of congressmen, congressional candidates and advocacy groups. It’s the first step in what will likely be a multiyear legal effort challenging SpeechNow.org v. FEC, ending up before the justices.
“For years, campaign finance defenders have been on the defensive in court,” Ron Fein, a member of the legal team, said at a Capitol Hill press conference on Thursday. “Today that changes.”
Washington Post: When politicians turn censor (LTE)
Paul Sherman
It is not surprising that incumbent legislators and failed political candidates have teamed with campaign finance activists in an attempt to overturn SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the federal court decision that led to the creation of so-called super PACs. Politicians have always wanted to control who can talk about them, which is why so many of them seek limits on “outside” spending on political speech.
These efforts are an affront to the rights of political speakers and the rights of every American who would listen to and consider that speech. Super PACs are just groups of people pooling money to spend on political speech. Whether that speech is effective depends entirely on voters, who are free to accept or reject it.
Election Law Blog: It the Attack on Super PACs Through the FEC a Mistake? I Now Think Yes
Rick Hasen
I’ve thought more about this and I think this critique is correct, and my earlier enthusiasm for this particular path to SCOTUS review misplaced…
What’s the downside of the FEC strategy? First, it eats up resources of the reform community. Second, it will lead to an almost certain defeat, which will allow the anti-regulation folks to claim victories at both the FEC and in the courts. Think of the headline: “Court rejects challenge to legality of Super PACs.” It is not the end of the world, as it would not set a precedent to preclude another SCOTUS run, but it doesn’t seem like the strategy will yield positive dividends.
The Guardian: ‘Politics are corrupt’: fears about money and its influence on elections loom large
Ben Jacobs and David Smith
Indeed, for all the attention that the consequences of Citizens United has received in the presidential campaign, the race for the White House is the one where Super Pacs are the least consequential. Howard Dean, a former presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee chair, said: “At presidential level, Super Pacs don’t matter that much. They spend most of their money on television, which is one of the worst way to reach voters.”
FEC
Pro Publica: FEC Looking at Super PAC That Hyped Penny Stock
Robert Faturechi and Derek Willis
But the Roanoke, Virginia, couple discovered that Voters for Hillary hadn’t spent any money at all in support of Hillary Clinton, or any other candidate for that matter. The PAC, it turned out, was mainly funded by loans, not donations. Its main effect had been to fuel a sharp spike in the penny stock of a questionable company with close ties to the PAC’s officials.
Now the PAC’s activities, which were reported in May by ProPublica, have caught the attention of the Federal Election Commission. Ann Ravel, one of the FEC’s commissioners, said she’s barred from disclosing whether the PAC is under investigation, but added, “It is definitely on our radar.”
Free Speech
Kansas City Star: Protect free speech, not political parties, during presidential nominating conventions
Editorial Board
It is important that government restrictions on free speech serve compelling interests — public safety and security, primarily — and are as narrowly tailored as possible to serve those interests in the least restrictive ways.
That is even more essential when the speech in question is over an issue as vital and fundamental as who will be elected to serve as president of the United States.
The two major political parties do not want protests to dominate the coverage of their conventions. Too bad. That should not be the concern of local police departments, the Secret Service or local governments. Their duty is to keep people safe and to allow the free exercise of political expression.
Supreme Court
New York Times: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term
Adam Liptak
Asked if there were cases she would like to see the court overturn before she leaves it, she named one.
“It won’t happen,” she said. “It would be an impossible dream. But I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”
Lobbying
Common Dreams: The Democrats Ignore the 500-Pound Lobbyist in the Room
Michael Winship
In all of the 35 single-spaced pages of the Democratic Party’s platform draft, there is just one mention of lobbying: One.
Oh, it says some fine uplifting things about voters lacking a proper voice in government, about money and politics and the need to overturn Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, two of the Supreme Court decisions that unleashed a deluge of dollars into our electoral system.
But the word “lobbying” is only in there once. And that’s in reference to regulating our financial system.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Examiner: Clinton’s K Street Campaign
Timothy P. Carney
Behind the appearances with Elizabeth Warren, behind the populist promises and behind the rhetorical jabs at special interests and “millionaires and billionaires,” is a Hillary Clinton campaign funded and directed by Wall Street bankers, K Street lobbyists and other corporate bigwigs. This is nothing unusual, but it undermines her woman-of-the-people rhetoric…
Among the dozens of meetings Clinton omitted from her official calendar as secretary of state, in apparent violation of open-records laws, were meetings with donors, including Saban. In addition to Saban’s $10 million given to Clinton super PAC Priorites USA Action, he is a top-tier bundler (a volunteer fundraiser) for Clinton.
Comb through Clinton’s donor files, and you see plenty of gifts from people describing their occupation as “government relations,” “lobbyist” or “government affairs.”
American Prospect: Trump’s Shaky Shakedown
Eliza Newlin Carney
But the bigger question now facing Trump is whether, having waited till the last few months of the contest to ask supporters for money, he can possibly raise enough to run even a barebones campaign. In the last presidential election, Barack Obama spent $721 million and GOP nominee Mitt Romney spent just under $450 million. Add in political party and outside group spending, and teams Obama and Romney each spent a little over $1 billion apiece.
The RNC has raised a healthy $150 million so far, well ahead of the DNC—but that’s still far short of the hundreds of millions it typically takes to run a national campaign.
Salon: Following the Trump money: He’s running his campaign just like his casinos — as a big scam
Heather Digby Parton
If his recent FEC Reports are to be believed, he’s running his campaign in similar fashion. The May report showed that just as he always paid himself first in his failed businesses, he is also funneling millions from his campaign back into his own companies and family enterprises. He paid himself $350K or the use of his personal jet and $125K for Trump restaurants. Meanwhile, $65K went for golf and 4K to his son’s wine company. His largest single expenditure for staging went to his own resort Mar-a Lago. He also paid for his family’s travel expenses, which seems unnecessary since they are all multi-millionaires.
CNN: Senate Republicans cash in on donors who aren’t giving to Trump
Theodore Schleifer
But even with more national cash, Trump has undoubtedly made their task harder: More vulnerable Republicans from Mark Kirk in Illinois to Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire have taken pains to distance themselves from their presumptive nominee, and Democrats are branding Republicans with Trump’s imprimatur in states where he is expected to be a significant drag on downballot candidates.
The States
New York Daily News: NYC Council are pursuing legislation to close fund-raising loopholes
Jennifer Fermino
City Councilman Rory Lancman — a staunch de Blasio critic — said he has begun drafting a bill that would forbid pols from taking cash above the limits set by the finance board for their issue advocacy groups.
The board, which sets limits for political campaigns, only allows donations of up to $4,950 for citywide office from individuals, and just $400 if the person has business before the city.
The Campaign for One New York, a now-disbanded nonprofit that de Blasio set up to push his agenda on issues like universal prekindergarten, routinely accepted six-figure donations, including from groups with business before the city.
New York Times: Mr. de Blasio and the Spirit of the Campaign Finance Law
Editorial Board
But disclosure of donors does not cure a corrosive culture in which deep-pocketed special interests funnel boatloads of cash to elected officials — if not directly, then through organizations that the politicians create and control.
If the mayor were serious about ending the influence of “pay to play” in politics — as he used to be when he was the city’s public advocate — he would endorse recommendations by the Campaign Finance Board and good government groups like Citizens Union, which have called for the City Council to make groups like the Campaign for One New York subject to the city’s campaign-finance law, with strict spending limits, full public disclosure and no connection to anybody trying to do business with the city. If Mr. de Blasio cares about ethics and accountability, he should be proposing this change.
Denver Post: Political consultant files legal challenge to stop Denver campaign finance reform proposal
Jon Murray
His request for court intervention, filed June 27, alleges that the initiative is so wide-ranging that it violates a single-subject rule for ordinances. The challenge also says the ballot title approved by the Denver Elections Division inadequately summarizes the measure and includes words intended to sway voters, including that the initiative “increases transparency in political campaigns.”
Responses by the petitioners’ committee and the city attorney’s office defend the city’s approval of the measure for petitioning on June 22 and ask the court to dismiss Kenney’s other claims as invalid, including the fact the city alleges his court filing wasn’t properly served on the city.
