CCP
Media Watch: How Not to Report the News
By Brad SmithBut why does the author feel compelled to note that this is a “party line vote”? It is, but not in the way implied – the 3 Republicans voted to allow the DGA to go forward, the 2 Democrats voted no. The implication is that the “party line” explains the outcome, when it does not. This fits the longstanding narrative that the Commission merely acts as partisan hacks defending their parties, which is really unsupported.One has to go over halfway through the story to find out that ”the three Republican commissioners voted to allow the DGA to create Jobs & Opportunity. Two Democrats opposed the idea.”The author appears to simply like the narrative – gridlock, party hacks, self-serving rulings – over something that might give a more honest understanding to readers. The article quotes no commissioners and gives no argument at all as to why the Republicans would vote “for” the DGA, while the Democratic commissioners voted “against” the DGA. The reader who is not familiar with the issue would be, we think, thoroughly confused.
Independent Groups
Politico: Tea party wants socialist treatment
By Byron TauIn a new request to the FEC shared with POLITICO, the group argues that tea party donors and activists are being targeted for harassment by government officials and private groups — and they cite derogatory comments by politicians and overbearing government investigations as evidence.“Nobody likes the communists and really for good reason,” said Dan Backer, the attorney for the group who wrote and filed the complaint. But, Backer said, the same legal principle that grants left-wring groups the right to hide their donors should also cover tea party groups.“As we very thoroughly document at almost three times the length of the socialist request, tea party supporters are subject to an unprecedented level of harassment and abuse,” Backer said.
USA Today: IRS list reveals concerns over Tea Party ‘propaganda’
By Gregory Korte“The web site, as we explained to them on multiple occasions, is really a blog” that members can submit commentary to, said Joanne Jones, the group’s vice chairwoman.“I’m not going to tell you we weren’t political. We were to an extent, but we were within the limits of the law. For example, there’s one clear-cut issue: We did not endorse candidates.” “To focus in on somebody saying something anti-Obama,” she said, “it’s almost like the speech police there. It’s disturbing. It’s the kind of overreach that leads into Obamacare.”
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Ballot Access News: Many Election Law Cases are Pending in the U.S. Supreme Court
By Richard WingerThe U.S. Supreme Court returns from its summer recess next month. There are several election law cert petitions before the court, and several more are likely to be filed in the coming month.The only election law case that the Court has already accepted for review is McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, 12-536, which will be argued on October 8. The issue is a federal law that limits how much money an individual may donate to all federal candidates combined.
AP: Court: Clicking “Like” on Facebook Is Free Speech
By Michael FelberbaumClicking “Like” on Facebook is constitutionally protected free speech and can be considered the 21st century-equivalent of a campaign yard sign, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed a lower court ruling that said merely “liking” a Facebook page was insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.
Lobbying and Ethics
Washington Examiner: No public tours, but 344 visits by lobbyists to the White House
By Luke RosiakRegular American citizens visiting the nation’s capital lost access to the White House in March as President Obama eliminated public tours to make a point in his battle with House Republicans in the sequestration debate over cutting spending or raising taxes.But hundreds of K Street lobbyists, including corporate advocates who are paid to influence policy on behalf of Fortune 500 giants, saw no change in their access to the chief executive and his senior aides, according to a Washington Examiner analysis of White House visitor logs and lobbying records.The analysis found that 200 lobbyists met 344 times with White House officials at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. between March and May.
FEC
Washington Post: Former FEC chairman Donald McGahn resigns from panel
Washington Post: Former FEC chairman Donald McGahn resigns from panel
By Reid WilsonDonald F. McGahn, the controversial former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, resigned from the panel on Tuesday to return to private law practice, ending what campaign-finance reform advocates and political practitioners called one of the most consequential tenures in the commission’s 38-year history.McGahn, a Republican who had served on the FEC since 2008, clashed frequentlywith Democrats as he helped push a conservative interpretation of campaign-finance laws and persistent skepticism about government oversight of political campaigns.McGahn will leave to become a partner at Patton Boggs, which has one of Washington’s leading election law practices.
State and Local
District of Columbia –– Washington Post: D.C. Council censures Marion Barry for taking cash payments from city contractors
By Aaron C. Davis and Mike DeBonisThe council voted 9 to 4 to strip Barry of his committee chairmanship, with some colleagues describing Barry’s lapse as another mark on the city’s dismal ethics record. In the past two years, three council members have pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges.
Montana –– AP: Judge rules Montana campaign disclosure law constitutional
HELENA – A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Montana’s requirement that political committees disclose their campaign spending is constitutional.U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen sided with the state in a new decision, and dismissed a case brought last year by the National Association for Gun Rights.
