Holtzman Vogel PLLC

Copyright Suit Filed Against Sharron Angle's Campaign

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "In a lawsuit filed Friday, Las Vegas-based Righthaven LLC says the Nevada Republican Senate nominee has violated copyright laws by posting two newspapers stories in their entirety on her campaign website....The two articles at issue — a pro-Angle editorial from July 21 and an Aug. 3 news story — both ran in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which has sold Righthaven the rights to its stories....Righthaven has launched 119 copyright infringement lawsuits against various websites, associations and bloggers in the past six months....Intellectual property law experts have dubbed companies such as Righthaven “trolls” — companies that own intellectual property solely to use the leverage of their legal rights to force defendants to pay up instead of going through with the inconvenience and cost of litigation."

Eliza Newlin Carney: Whither The FEC? The Agency Is Under Attack Again As Reformers Push For An Overhaul

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:00:00 GMT

Eliza Newlin Carney's latest op-ed at National Journal on the FEC is here.

If you ever need a sneak-peak at next week's Carney column, just take a quick look at the professional reform lobby's latest press releases. There is rarely any difference between the two.

This week, she cuts-and-pastes from three "reformer" press releases. Fred Wertheimer's comments on the FEC's coordination rules are here; the Campaign Legal Center's criticism of two recent Advisory Opinions is here; and the press release announcing CREW's lawsuit is here.

NYT: Congressional Charities Are Pulling In Corporate Cash

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "A review ... of federal tax records and House and Senate disclosure reports found at least two dozen charities that lawmakers or their families helped create or run that routinely accept donations from businesses seeking to influence them. The sponsors — AT&T, Chevron, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Eli Lilly and dozens of others — contribute millions of dollars annually in gifts ranging from token amounts to a check for $5 million."

Politico: Dems complain to 'Young Guns' publisher

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s attorneys sent Simon & Schuster a letter Thursday, hinting that the publisher may have violated several campaign finance laws that prohibit in-kind contributions by corporations by posting on its website a promotional video for a book penned by three top House Republicans. At issue: the publishing house’s promotion of 'Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders' by Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The DCCC’s attorneys at Perkins Coie sent the New York-based publisher a letter saying it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that directs viewers to a website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress."

Presumably the attorneys who sent the letter were already aware that the FEC's media exemption protects Simon & Schuster's promotion of the books its publishes, and also that when the media exemption applies, issues such as coordination and solicitations are irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Governors Association, also apparently unaware that the campaign finance laws don't apply to the media, has been taking on Fox News. See here and here.

The Hill: New details emerge in ethics probe of fundraising, vote on Wall Street bill

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports here.

Wash. Post: Maryland Sen. Currie indicted on charges of taking bribes from grocery chain

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "Longtime Maryland Sen. Ulysses Currie, one of the most powerful and popular figures in the General Assembly, was indicted Wednesday on charges that he took more than $245,000 in bribes to use his position and influence to do favors for a grocery chain."

Political Wire: $3 Billion in Political Ads

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From Political Wire: "Kantar Media/CMAG's Evan Tracey tells Ad Age that the nation's political ad spending is on pace to set a record. Said Tracey: 'Spending so far on political and issue TV ads is $864 million, $50 million more than 2008, and $185 million ahead of 2006 at the same period of time. Historically, two-thirds of all election spending comes during the final 60 days, so we are on track to approach $3 billion in total spending on political and issue ads.'"

Wash. Post: Mixed reaction to new FEC rules on candidates, interest groups working together

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:00:00 GMT

If one single, solitary person objects to something, does it warrant a newspaper report noting "mixed reaction"? If the subject is the FEC, then yes, a full report is apparently warranted.

The Washington Post reports that "[s]ome campaign finance reformers, however, say the rules don't go far enough and leave loopholes allowing broad coordination between candidates and outside groups that support them." Actually, the only public complainer, so far, is Fred Wertheimer, the one-man-band interest group known as Democracy 21. His usual allies - the Campaign Legal Center and Craig Holman at Public Citizen - haven't chimed in yet.

But we should listen to what Mr. Wertheimer has to say, because he offers a reasoned, expert analysis, right? Actually, he carps that the new coordination rules are nothing but a "huge loophole" and "[a]s a practical matter, it means we don't have coordination rules." So, the "mixed reaction" that the Post reports is little more than the hyperbolic letting-off-steam of one lobbyist feeding patently absurd claims to the media.

Bopp Challenges State Contractor Contribution Prohibition, PAC Requirements in Hawaii

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports here. "The lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court on behalf of A-1 A-lectrician Inc. seeks to strike down the state's ban on political donations by state and county contractors. The suit also challenges state law guiding corporations to register as political action committees before making donations, political advertising reporting requirements, political advertising attribution and disclaimer provisions, and the $1,000 donation limit for political action committees....But open-government groups -- Common Cause Hawaii, the League of Women Voters of Hawaii, Americans for Democratic Action/Hawaii and Voter Owned Hawaii -- said Bopp's intent is to dismantle campaign finance regulations nationwide."

NYT: 3 Congressmen May Face Further Inquiry

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "The Office of Congressional Ethics has found enough evidence of wrongdoing to recommend further investigation of three House members who held fund-raising events just days before they voted on financial regulatory legislation last year. The referrals to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct came as the office recommended dismissing investigations of five other lawmakers, whose fund-raising just before the December 2009 vote had also come under scrutiny. The investigation focused on lawmakers who raised money from lobbyists or executives of financial firms that had objected to provisions of the legislation. Each of the three House members — Representatives John Campbell, Republican of California; Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York; and Tom Price, Republican of Georgia — criticized the referrals on Tuesday, with two of them saying the quasi-independent ethics office had not produced evidence of wrongdoing."

An earlier report is here.

The Wall Street Journal reports here. One of the five lawmakers not referred by OCE released a statement submitted to investigators earlier: ""If holding a general fund-raiser while Congress was in session voting on legislation that went through one of my committees is in violation of House Ethics Rules, then that is a broad new limitation on members' fund-raising activities."

FEC Adopts New Coordination Rule, Effective Dec. 1

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Last Thursday, the FEC adopted a new rule on coordination, which was made necessary by a 2008 court ruling. The new rule goes into effect on December 1. After December 1, ads and other public communications issued outside the 90/120 day election windows may be deemed "coordinated" if there was sufficient collaborative conduct between the parties involved, and if the communication constitutes express advocacy or the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The "functional equivalent" standard is the new addition to the coordination test, and is also known as the Wisconsin Right to Life test.

The Commissioners also adopted a new rule defining "federal election activity."

Professional "reform" lobbyist Fred Wertheimer, who sometimes goes by the name "Democracy 21," has already publicly objected to the new coordination rule, so the FEC may be heading back to court. Wertheimer and a small handful of fellow travelers in the "reform" lobby have successfully deprived everyone involved in federal political campaigns of any stability on the matter of coordination since 2003 through their repeated court challenges.

We will have more on these developments shortly.

NYT: Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The New York Times examines the shift in Wall Street political giving: "Less than two years ago, Democrats received 70 percent of the donations from Wall Street; since June, when the financial regulation bill was nearing passage, Republicans were receiving 68 percent of the donations...."

But not to worry, they presumably still have the "[s]enior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC" locked up tight. This group "contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008.... The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744."

New Technologies = New Political Ads

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

CNN reports "Voters standing in line at polling places and searching for candidate information on mobile devices are increasingly becoming the target of Google advertisers hoping to pick up every last vote. Candidates have for years placed ads on Google platforms to attract the attention of searchers. But Tuesday's elections saw a large number of down ballot candidates buying Google mobile ads with the goal of capturing the attention of people waiting on line at the polling stations. While Google Mobile Ads have existed since 2007, this year candidates could target specific carriers and devices. Since mobile devices have become more sophisticated, users are searching more and more on mobile browsers."

MoveOn's Executive Director Explains The Target "Boycott"

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:30:00 GMT

MoveOn's Executive Director, Justin Ruben, explains his organization's call for boycotting Target over a recent political donation in this Los Angeles Times piece.

Ruben casts the boycott call as a stand against "pervasive corporate influence" in politics. What he fails to mention, though, is that MoveOn only called for boycotting Target after the company refused to be extorted into making political contributions to candidates that MoveOn supports. As Politico reported here, "despite pressure from MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights groups, Target declined to contribute $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates."

WSJ: Big Unions to Pool Money for Fall Elections

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "The leaders of the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have agreed to coordinate spending millions of dollars in the midterm elections to support pro-union candidates, most of them Democrats. The two labor organizations say they have a combined $88 million or more to deploy in this year's election cycle....The renewed alliance between the two big labor groups comes as Democrats are battling to retain control of both houses of Congress. The AFL-CIO and SEIU plan to target elections in 26 states, all but five of which they consider battleground territory, including California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio."

CRP: Not Just News Corp.: Media Companies Have Long Made Political Donations

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Center For Responsive Politics points out that News Corp. is not alone: "The parent companies of six major media outlets have all donated anywhere from five to seven figures to political organizations during the 2010 election cycle alone...." And those parent companies cover all the major television/cable news outlets.

Katrina vanden Huevel on "Citizens United aftershocks"

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Katrina vanden Huevel (of The Nation) has this op-ed in the Washington Post. She warns that "corporations might want to think twice before jumping deeper into political races, attracting more attention in the process."

Note: this op-ed refers to Target's recent contribution and the MoveOn.org boycott flap, which generated "angry institutional shareholders." Several media reports have suggested that Target is facing a shareholder revolt over its contribution to Minnesota Forward (here, for example). Rather than a widespread revolt, though, three institutional shareholders that own less than 1% of Target's stock sponsored a resolution calling for a review of Target's political activity.

NYT Editorial on "Tom Delay's Legacy"

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:30:00 GMT

The New York Times has this editorial on the Tom Delay and the Justice Department investigation that just ended. Predictably, the Times calls for more ethics laws.

But this one is a real puzzler: "Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House majority leader, crowed that he had been 'found innocent.' But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them" (emphasis added).

Makes you wonder who ghostwrites this stuff for them. Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 highlights the Times editorial here.

Wash. Post: Ruling sets up IRS as overseer of groups' gifts to campaigns

Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

According to the Washington Post, "The Supreme Court's decision this year in Citizens United, which lifted campaign spending restrictions for companies and interest groups, has indirectly thrust the Internal Revenue Service into the more prominent role of overseeing those expenditures....Long-standing IRS regulations require some groups to reveal their donors, and that is why the agency suddenly finds itself with what some might see as a more crucial watchdog role, stepping in to monitor disclosure in the absence of the FEC. But the IRS rules also have long-standing loopholes and, with limited resources and enforcement tools, the nation's tax collector is not set up to be a campaign regulator."

This article seems to focus on 501(c)(4) organizations, which have never been required to publicly disclose their donors. And what exactly the IRS should be doing about them is not explained. In addition, two recent FEC advisory opinions (not mentioned in the article) call for political organizations making independent expenditures (the subject of Citizens United) to register and report to the FEC as "political committees," which involves donor disclosure.

AP: Obama challenges GOP on campaign finance ruling

Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:00:00 GMT

AP reports "President Barack Obama says Republicans should join him in opposing a Supreme Court ruling that vastly increased how much corporations and unions can spend on campaign ads."

The comments come from the President's weekly radio address, and follow reports that Senate Democrats plan to bring the DISCLOSE Act up for another vote.

Wash. Times: Ethics office warns about waivers

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Times reports "The U.S. Office of Government Ethics is warning federal agencies against retroactively waiving ethics rules for federal employees who've taken actions that pose potential conflicts of interest. Saying it has learned of 'several situations' of employees getting waivers after making questionable moves, the government's independent ethics office issued a memo to agencies across government in April saying such after-the-fact practices are prohibited."

More on Target and the MoveOn.org Boycott

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Washington Post: Exercising new ability to spend on campaigns, Target finds itself a bull's-eye ("When Target gave money in July to a pro-business group in Minnesota, the company thought it was helping its bottom line by backing candidates in its home state who support lower taxes. Instead, the retailer has found itself in a fight with liberal and gay rights groups that has escalated into calls for a nationwide boycott and protests at the company's headquarters and stores.").

Politico: MoveOn calls for boycott of Target.

Politico: Firms think twice about political ads.

New York Times editorial: Voter (and Customer) Beware.

Los Angeles Times editorial: A distasteful move by MoveOn.org.

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org released this TV ad, which seems to badly misrepresent their actual position and grievance. The ad complains that "Target and other big corporations are trying to buy our elections." But what prompted MoveOn's call for a Target boycott was not the company's contribution, but it refusal to cough up an equal amount for candidates that MoveOn supports.

DISCLOSE Act, Part II?

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:30:00 GMT

According to Hotline, Senate Democrats are planning on bringing the DISCLOSE Act up for another vote. They hope to win a cloture vote with help from Senator Snowe, Collins, or Brown, perhaps by delaying implementation of the legislation until after the 2010 elections.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Contributed $1 Million to Republican Governors Association

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "News Corp., owner of the Fox network, Fox News and newspapers including the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, gave $1 million in late June to the Republican Governors Association, making it one of the largest corporate donors to the GOP group this election season. The donation, disclosed in Internal Revenue Service filings, marks a shift for the media giant, which traditionally has given smaller sums to candidates and committees and spread them relatively evenly between the two parties. News Corp. spokesman Jack Horner said the contribution was intended to promote the company's core beliefs. 'News Corporation has always believed in the power of free markets and in organizations like the RGA, which have a pro-business agenda and support our priorities at this most critical time for our economy,' he said. ... The Democratic Governors Association draws more of its large donations from unions, including the American Federation of State, City and Municipal Employees, which has given $3.2 million this year."

NYT: Blagojevich, Guilty on 1 of 24 Counts, Faces Retrial

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "After deliberating for 14 days, the jury found Mr. Blagojevich guilty of a single criminal count — making false statements to the F.B.I., which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one of the least severe penalties in the charges against him. The jurors also said they could not reach a unanimous verdict on 23 of the 24 counts against him, including an accusation that he had tried to sell an appointment to fill the Senate seat once held by President Obama. On that count, one juror said, the group was split 11 to 1 in favor of convicting him. Prosecutors immediately announced plans for a retrial...."

NYC's "Public Advocate" Bill de Blasio's Taxpayer-Funded Campaign Against Corporations That Exercise Their First Amendment Rights

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Bill de Blasio is New York City's "Public Advocate." He was elected citywide and is first in line to succeed the Mayor. (If de Blasio's job is to advocate for the public, it is unclear what is expected of New York City's other elected officials.)

Last week, we noted how de Blasio applied pressure to Goldman Sachs to extract a vow that the company would not spend money on elections.

Now, de Blasio's office has produced this webpage, which places the 100 largest corporations in the United States into one of three categories: (1) those who have pledged not to spend money in elections; (2) those who have no policy on electoral spending; and (3) those who are "prepared to spend corporate money in elections." There are currently seven in the first category, and four in the third category. The four in the latter category are Target, Best Buy, Massey Energy, and International Coal. They were placed in this category based on news reports that they either have or were willing to spend corporate resources on electoral matters.

At this point, the advocacy begins. If you move your cursor over, say, Target, you get a link to a news report of Target's political spending, and this message: "Demand that corporations stop taking advantage of Citizens United. Call Target at 1-800-440-0680."

If you highlight one of the middle category (no policy) companies, such as Alcoa or Apple, you find out whether the company has pledged not to spend and whether it has pledged to disclose all spending. Then, "Hold Alcoa Accountable: Call Alcoa at 412-553-4545."

Why is de Blasio doing this? After the Goldman Sachs announcement, de Blasio said, “This could be one of those moments that determines whether we are going to have a political system literally dominated by corporate money, or some ability by the people at the grass roots to determine the outcome of elections.” In other words, he's clinging to the anti-distortion rationale that the Supreme Court rejected in Citizens United. (Politico reports, "In an e-mailed statement, de Blasio says consumers can use the site to 'see which major companies are planning to distort our democracy.'")

de Blasio's website also includes a "Campaign Against Excessive Corporate Political Spending" page. So there's another theory rejected by the Supreme Court.

In sum, what we have here is a taxpayer-funded effort encouraging the non-exercise of constitutional rights for reasons the Supreme Court has found to be illegitimate.

WSJ: DeLay Won't Face Charges as Justice Department Ends Probe

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "The Justice Department has ended its six-year criminal probe of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay without filing criminal charges. One of Mr. DeLay's lawyers, Richard Cullen, said Monday that the Justice Department's public-integrity section informed Mr. DeLay's legal team early last week that it was ending the investigation of the former lawmaker's ties to onetime lobbyist Jack Abramoff."

Connecticut Lawmakers Override Veto, Resuscitate Public Funding Law

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:30:00 GMT

The Hartford Courant reports "Overriding a veto by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the state House of Representatives on Friday approved a bill that safeguards the state's landmark program of public financing for political candidates. The 106-30 vote clears the way for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dannel Malloy to access to $6 million in public campaign funds. The Senate passed an override vote last week....Malloy hailed Friday's vote, which will help him compete against his wealthy Republican opponent, Tom Foley."

The Center For Competitive Politics finds some humor in the vote.

Boston Herald: Jack E. Robinson sues FEC over Senate campaign fine

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:30:00 GMT

The Boston Herald reports "Failed U.S. Senate candidate Jack E. Robinson, trounced by Scott Brown in December’s Republican primary for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat, is suing the Federal Election Commission over a $6,050 fine for allegedly violating federal campaign finance law. Robinson said the penalty, imposed because he filed a required campaign finance report 81 days late, amounts to 'nitpicking' by the FEC, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Boston last week....The candidate’s campaign finance report for the Nov. 19 to Dec. 31, 2009, period was due Jan. 31. Robinson said he mailed the report on April 15, but the FEC received it on April 22. It levied the fine in March. 'It’s an outrageous decision,' Robinson said. 'Obviously we did use our best efforts (to timely file), but the idiots at the FEC don’t seem to realize how things work in the real world.'"

Mr. Robinson appears to have had the exact same filing problem back in 2000, but the fine then was only $250.

Wash. Post: Special-interest spending surges in state Supreme Court campaigns

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "While Washington politicians argue over the role of money in federal elections, a growing number of states are starting to grapple with their own challenge: a tide of special-interest money flowing into local judicial races. An exhaustive study scheduled to be released Monday shows that spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled over the past 10 years, to $207 million, mirroring the surge in contributions and expenditures for other kinds of political races during the same period."

The report, available here, was produced by the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Institute on Money in State Politics and the Justice at Stake Campaign.

California Regulators Vote To Use Expanded Definition of "Express Advocacy"

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:00:00 GMT

The Center For Competitive Politics has details here.

Huff. Post: White House Ethics Initiatives At A Crossroads

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Huffington Post writes, "The Obama White House's ambitious push for accountability and open government has lost steam, and the imminent departure of reform champion Norm Eisen is making some good-government groups anxious about the future....He is not being replaced. Instead, his portfolio, which includes transparency and accountability, campaign finance, lobbying, whistleblower protections and government ethics, is being redistributed both up and down the White House food chain."

Target Targeted For Political Spending; Now Faces Shakedown Campaign

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From the Los Angeles Times: "Last week, faced with waves of protests, retailer Target Corp. apologized for its $150,000 donation to an organization backing a Republican candidate with a long record of opposing gay rights. But the controversy has not gone away. Though the public demonstrations have died down, the company is in closed-door discussions with the largest gay activist organization in the country, Human Rights Campaign, which is demanding that the company make an equivalent or greater donation to groups supporting gay rights candidates. The group has found a potential lever: the threat to come out against the construction of two new Target stores in San Francisco, where gay rights groups have exceptional political influence. As the talks with Target continue, activists on both sides of the political spectrum are trying to gauge whether the case will have a chilling effect on corporate participation in campaigns....Some analysts think Target's experience may make companies more reluctant to get involved, but many others — including prominent business lobbyists — say the more likely result is that more corporations will seek out ways to contribute anonymously."

Wash. Independent: Citizens United Frees Corporations to Spend on Elections, But Increases Scrutiny

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:30:00 GMT

From the Washington Independent: "When the Supreme Court decided Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission in Jan., 2010, supporters of campaign finance reform warned that a torrent of corporate money and corruption would soon flow throughout the country....Twelve weeks out from the midterm elections, the apocalyptic warnings are receding and the realities of the decision are becoming more apparent....For corporations such as Target, the Citizens United world offers mixed blessings. Companies can now spend more freely, but at the price of increased scrutiny."

Do Internet Search Engine Text Ads Require A Disclaimer?

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Do Google's "text ads" -- the paid advertisements that show up on your computer screen when you use Google's search engine -- require a disclaimer? Google has asked the FEC for an answer.

Google's advisory opinion request notes that "text ads" use up to 25 characters in the title, and up to 70 additional characters in the body of the advertisement. The purpose of a "text ad" is to get the viewer to click on its link and visit a separate web page.

The request seeks FEC confirmation that "text ads" are exempt from the full federal disclaimer requirements under the "small item" exemption (which historically has applied to items such as bumper stickers and buttons). A second exemption, likely also relevant in this matter, applies where including a disclaimer would theoretically be possible, but would be "impracticable."

As for current practice, many candidates pay for search engine text ads, and rarely is a "paid for by" disclaimer included.

Wash. Post: Group sues Federal Election Commission, saying its slow response limits appeals

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post has this piece on CREW's latest lawsuit. According to CREW, the FEC "routinely makes it impossible to appeal its decisions. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington identifies at least nine cases over the past two years in which the FEC dismissed complaints but did not provide enough information about the decision to allow a legal challenge. The FEC is required by law to provide details promptly so parties in such disputes can meet a 60-day deadline to file an appeal in federal court, according to the lawsuit. But the commission frequently defies this requirement by delaying or never releasing information about cases it drops, the lawsuit says."

The FEC has not yet responded.

WSJ: Target Discovers Downside to Political Contributions

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

From the Wall Street Journal: "Target Corp. sought to take advantage of new campaign-finance rules, but ended up putting a bull's eye on its back. The Minneapolis retailer recently donated $150,000 to a political group, Minnesota Forward, that backs pro-business candidates in statewide races, including a candidate for governor who opposes same-sex marriage. On Friday, hundreds of gay-rights supporters demonstrated outside Target stores in locations nationwide, and a petition promising a boycott, signed by more than 240,000, was delivered to Target....The campaign against Target was orchestrated by liberal-advocacy group MoveOn.org....'We made Target the target,' said Ilyse Hogue, the group's director of public advocacy. Ms. Hogue said MoveOn and its members plan to gin up bad publicity for any company venturing into political campaigning."

NYT: Corporate Money Aids Centers Linked to Lawmakers

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:30:00 GMT

From the New York Times: "Nearly a dozen current or former lawmakers have been honored by university endowments financed in part by corporations with business before Congress....The donations from businesses to the endowments ranged from modest amounts to millions of dollars, federal records show. And the lawmakers, who include powerful committee chairmen or party leaders, often pushed legislation or special appropriations sought by the corporations....Companies and lawmakers defend the donations as simply contributions to a good cause, but critics charge that they are a way for businesses to influence lawmakers in addition to campaign contributions, and without the limits or required disclosures."

Roll Call: Obama Withdraws FEC Nomination

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:00:00 GMT

Roll Call reports "President Barack Obama backed off Thursday on his Federal Election Commission nominee [John Sullivan], whose union work concerned Republicans and advocates of overhauling campaign finance law." The nomination was made in May 2009, and had been awaiting a full Senate vote since June 2009.

Sullivan was nominated to replace Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, whose term ended over 3 years ago, in April 2007.

The Roll Call article mentions that Sullivan's past union work "concerned Republicans," although this seems to be a new charge. Opposition to Sullivan came from the campaign finance reform lobby, and Senators Feingold and McCain responded with holds on Sullivan's nomination.

The Center For Competive Politics issued a statement, here.

The Center For Public Integrity issued this update in May.

Campaign Staff: Employees or Independent Contractors?

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:30:00 GMT

Harry Reid's campaign has raised the issue in Nevada with regard to Sharron Angle's campaign workers.

Wash. Post: Head of defunct lobbying firm PMA indicted on charges of illegal campaign gifts

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:30:00 GMT

The Post reports "Paul J. Magliocchetti, founder and owner of the now closed PMA Group, was indicted in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on eight counts of making illegal campaign contributions and three counts of making false statements....For nearly five years from 2003 to 2008, according to the 18 page indictment, Magliocchetti concealed campaign contributions from the Federal Election Commission....Magliocchetti now faces criminal charges. In some instances, prosecutors allege, Magliocchetti directed family members to make contributions and then paid them back. He also recruited two acquaintances who lived near his Florida vacation home to write checks to candidates, court papers allege. Magliocchetti reimbursed them by writing personal checks or company checks or by putting them on PMA's board of directors, even though they never worked as lobbyists and never attended board meetings, according to the indictment. Magliocchetti also instructed the firm's lobbyists to make political contributions, then repaid the employees with either personal or company funds, the indictment alleges."

The Washington Times reports here.

AP: Calif. campaign watchdog eyes new Internet rules

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:30:00 GMT

AP reports "Politicians' tweets and status updates should be held to the same standards as paid advertising that voters see on television, hear on radio or find in their mailboxes, California's campaign watchdog agency says in a report being released Monday. The Fair Political Practices Commission is considering how to regulate new forms of political activity such as appeals on a voter's Facebook page or in a text message."

IFJ: The Latest Unconstitutional Speech Restriction: The Shareholder Protection Act

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Institute For Justice has this entry on the Shareholder Protection Act, which we previously noted here.

According to the Institute, "The brainchild of Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), the Shareholder Protection Act would require corporations that wish to speak independently during elections to seek prior shareholder approval. The Act does not apply to unions, which would remain free to spend money on political advertising without seeking approval from dues-paying members. Nor does the Act require corporations to get preapproval for speech on any other subject—the law targets only political speech."

11th Circuit Rules Against Florida's Public Funding Program

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The 11th Circuit's decision is here. AP's story is here.

Miami Herald: Florida won't appeal campaign-finance ruling.

Wash. Post: GM donates $41,000 to lawmakers' pet projects

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Post reports "When General Motors went through bankruptcy last year, it suspended its political donations. Now that it's owned by the U.S. government, it's donating to lawmakers' pet projects again. The carmaker gave $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers, the vast majority of it -- $36,000 -- to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the company reported on a disclosure form last week. The CBC Foundation is a charity with 11 members of the Congressional Black Caucus on its board....GM's return to the business of donations remained small compared with the giving of some corporations. Overall, corporations and other entities that were registered to lobby Congress gave $10.7 million to honor politicians and military figures in the first six months of the year. That is down slightly from the $10.8 million spent in the last half of 2009. Donations were down 27 percent from the same period two years ago, but there were still 37 entities that gave at least six figures in the latest six-month period....General Motors has not reactivated its political action committee, which can give to election campaigns, according to the latest reports with the Federal Election Commission."

No Political Spending For Goldman Sachs

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Goldman Sachs, apparently aware of the political climate surrounding it, says it won't engage in any election spending. Or maybe it was just brow-beaten by New York City's "Public Advocate," Bill de Blasio. The New York Times reports, "The decision came after weeks of talks with the New York City public advocate, Bill de Blasio, who has lobbied for greater transparency from companies seeking to sway the outcome of elections."

Dueling Op-Eds on Fundraiser Timing Investigation

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The USA Today editors and Brad Smith have dueling op-eds on the Office of Congressional Ethics' investigation into House members' fundraising events held in the days leading up to the vote on the financial regulation bill last December.

We previously noted this investigation here.

USA Today's editors cite "the obvious conflict inherent in taking money from people seeking to profit from their votes," but also acknowledge that "the five Republicans had long opposed financial reforms and voted against them. The three Democrats voted for the measure, a move to rein in Wall Street."

Brad Smith notes that "To date, no information has surfaced indicating that anything illegal — or even improper — has occurred. Nonetheless, this investigation has imperiled the reputations of eight lawmakers of both parties....What's remarkable is that none of the members under investigation changed his vote because of a contribution, which would be unethical and illegal. There's no evidence that these contributions impacted voting decisions. As expected, the three Democrats supported the bill and the five Republicans voted against it. Where's the corruption? This investigation — slated to continue until at least the end of August — empowers the professional scandal industry in Washington: the so-called good government groups that use any excuse to demand more restrictions on political speech."

Holtzman Vogel's Summer 2010 Law & Policy Update Now Available

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:30:00 GMT

Here.

LA Times: Corporate campaign fundraising picks up speed

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From the Los Angeles Times: "Driven by increasing anger at Democratic policies and by recent Supreme Court decisions unshackling corporate contributions, business and conservative groups are preparing a flood of campaign money to try to wrest control of Congress from the Democrats."

Rep. Maxine Waters Will Also Go On Ethics "Trial"

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has chosen to go through an ethics trial, like the one lined up for New York Rep. Charles Rangel, rather than accepting charges made by an ethics subcommittee, a source familiar with the process tells POLITICO. The back-to-back trials of two black lawmakers represent an unprecedented use of an ethics adjudication system that has rarely been used by House members accused of breaking ethics rules. Waters's case revolves around allegations that she improperly intervened with federal regulators to help a bank that her husband owned stock in and on whose board he once served."

Rep. Alan Grayson Used Franking Privilege to Fund $73,000 DVD Mailing to His Constituents

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Orlando Sentinel explains that Grayson mailed a "90-minute disc features video highlights from his first term in office" to his constituents. "The DVD comes wrapped inside a mailer covered with promotional slogans: 'Congressman Alan Grayson, Hard at Work for You,' 'He works hard. He pays attention. He gets things done,' and 'Video DVD Inside: Watch Congressman Grayson in Action!' ... Thanks to perks given to all members of Congress, it's not Grayson's campaign but taxpayers who footed the nearly $73,000 bill to produce and mail the DVD to 100,000 homes in Grayson's district of Lake, Marion, Orange and Osceola counties. It's a stunt that drew howls from Republicans, who complained that Grayson was abusing the congressional privilege of franking that allows lawmakers to send taxpayer-paid newsletters and other mail to residents."

House Approves Tougher LDA Enforcement Measures

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Hill reports "Legislation passed by the House Wednesday would name all lobbying law violators for the first time. In addition, the bill — sponsored by Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio) — would set up a Justice Department taskforce to investigate cases referred to it by the House Clerk for potential violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA)."

Wash. Post: Democrat Rangel charged with 13 ethics violations

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "The House ethics committee charged Rep. Charles B. Rangel with 13 separate violations of House rules Thursday, saying his various financial dealings broke the "public trust." The long-awaited release of the charges against Rangel at an afternoon hearing was the first formal step toward a possible ethics trial in mid-September. After eleventh-hour settlement talks broke down, the committee announced that it had found "substantial reason to believe" that the New York Democrat had violated House rules or federal laws by soliciting donations from people with business before his committee to fund a center named in his honor at City College of New York, not paying taxes on a Caribbean home, improperly using a rent-stabilized apartment in New York as a campaign office, and not properly disclosing more than $600,000 in income and assets."

The Ethics Committee's "Statement of Alleged Violation" is available here, additional documents transmitted here, and Rangel's statement is here (exhibits here).

More coverage:

The Hill here.
Politico here ("The 41-page document offers a sweeping indictment of Rangel, painting the portrait of a legislator who abused his office to burnish his name, repeatedly failed to accurately account for his own income and assets and did not abide by the very tax laws he oversaw as the top Democrat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee.").
New York Times here.

Rangel "Trial" Today, 1 p.m.

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports "Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is ready to lay out his case to the public and thinks he can win, barring a last-minute deal in his showdown with the House ethics committee."

According to Politico, "Not even his colleagues know what Rangel will do Thursday, when the House ethics committee reveals what is expected to be a scathing slate of allegations of wrongdoing to open the congressional version of a trial."

House Financial Services Committee Reportedly Near Vote on Shareholder Approval Legislation

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

BNA Money & Politics reports "[Rep.] Capuano's Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790) would amend the 1934 Securities Exchange Act to mandate that companies allow their shareholders to approve political expenditures through an annual vote. The committee is scheduled to vote on the bill July 29, before holding a hearing on other, unrelated matters."

The Center For Competitive Politics details the legislation here.

CQ Politics: Independent Expenditure Groups Start Lining Up at FEC

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics notes that three independent expenditure organizations have already filed registration paperwork with the FEC in light of new guidance issued last week: "Californians for Fiscally Responsible Leadership was the first committee to take advantage of these new rules, filing new forms with the FEC within under 24 hours of the agency's new policy. Others were the Democratic group Commonsense Ten and Arizonans Working Together."

Cloture Vote on DISCLOSE Act Fails

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "Senate Democrats failed to attract a single Republican vote on the DISCLOSE Act Tuesday, effectively defeating the bill and casting doubts over whether any campaign finance measure can pass the upper chamber before the November elections."

Other coverage:

Washington Post here.
The Hill here.
New York Times here.
Washington Times here.

A Campaign Legal Center release noted that the DISCLOSE Act "has been the subject of an effective yet misleading disinformation campaign." The Center For Competitive Politics highlights a few pieces of "disinformation" coming from the bill's supporters.

Politico: Lobbyists call bluff on 'Daschle exemption'

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From Politico: "The American League of Lobbyists has teamed with the Sunlight Foundation in hopes of changing the law to require more of Washington’s influence class to register....Currently, the law requires people to register as lobbyists if they make more than one contact, spend more than 20 percent of their time lobbying and have more than $11,500 in expenses or $3,000 in income from lobbying per quarter. Sunlight is proposing to eliminate the 20 percent rule and to lower the thresholds to $5,000 in expenses or $2,500 in income per quarter, said Lisa Rosenberg, a Sunlight lobbyist. Right now, anyone who says they don’t clear the 20 percent threshold doesn’t have to register, a provision some insiders even call “the Daschle exemption.” [Former Senator Tom] Daschle, however, did not answer a question about whether he utilizes the exemption to avoid registering."

USA Today: 10 states add campaign-finance laws

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From USA Today: "Ten states have swiftly passed new laws requiring additional disclosure of political spending, following a Supreme Court ruling that lets corporations and unions pump unlimited amounts of money into certain campaign commercials....Among the states requiring new rules: Iowa, where the name of the corporation, along with that of its CEO, would have to appear in any independent ads it funds. Organizations also would have to certify to the state's ethics officials that its political spending was approved by a leadership body, such as its board of directors. The same rules apply to unions....Rules requiring disclosure of corporate and union spending also have become law in recent months in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, South Dakota and West Virginia....All had previously banned any corporate spending on independent ads and changed state law to comply with the high court ruling. A 10th state, Washington, broadened its existing disclosure rules. Efforts in Iowa and other states to impose tougher restrictions, such as requiring shareholder approval of political spending, have failed."

FEC Provides Guidance to "Independent Expenditure Committees"

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The FEC approved two advisory opinions yesterday, providing guidance to entities that wish to raise and spend unlimited sums to make independent expenditures. These new "independent expenditure committees" are the result of recent court decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC, and SpeechNow.org. v. FEC.

The Advisory Opinions are AO 2010-09 (Club For Growth) and AO 2010-11 (Commonsense Ten).

According to a FEC press release:

"In Advisory Opinion 2010-09 (Club for Growth), the Commission concluded that Club for Growth — a 501(c)(4) corporation — could establish and administer a political committee that will make only independent expenditures, that will register and report with the Commission, and that will solicit unlimited contributions solely from individuals in the general public, including contributions given for specific independent expenditures.

In Advisory Opinion 2010-11 (Commonsense Ten), the Commission concluded that Commonsense Ten, a registered nonconnected political committee that intends to make only independent expenditures, and that will report the contributions it accepts and the independent expenditures it makes, may solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations and labor organizations for the purpose of making independent expenditures."

The Hill: Rangel charged with multiple violations by House ethics panel

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:30:00 GMT

From The Hill: "Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will stand trial on ethics charges after a House panel accused him Thursday of multiple violations. The veteran lawmaker will challenge the findings in an open hearing....The House ethics committee stated it has launched a separate panel, called an adjudicatory subcommittee, in the wake of unspecified findings by a four-member panel of the ethics committee that Rangel violated House rules."

More reports:

Washington Post here.
Washington Times here.
New York Times here.
Wall Street Journal here.

The Hill: Schumer files new version of campaign-finance bill to court centrist votes

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT

The Hill reports "Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has filed a new version of a campaign-finance bill [the DISCLOSE Act] aimed at winning the support of Maine’s key GOP centrist senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The new version strips out several provisions included in the House-passed bill that conservative groups, as well as Collins, had said provides an unfair advantage to unions over corporations and other groups. Democrats are courting Snowe and Collins and could bring the bill to the floor for a vote as early as next week."

But, a separate report notes, "Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) latest effort to win over centrist Republicans for a campaign-finance bill is jeopardizing union support. The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, is taking issue with a new version of the Disclose Act that Schumer filed Thursday."

According to Politico, "Schumer has left intact a contentious provision exempting the National Rifle Association and several other large organizations from the reporting requirements of the legislation. But he has removed other language that had been backed by the AFL-CIO and other unions excusing the labor organizations from having to report money transfers between affiliates....Schumer also did not include a measure inserted into the House bill by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that bars any company holding leases for drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf from engaging in political activity. The Kucinich amendment was aimed at the U.S. subsidiary of oil giant BP. The Senate bill also requires campaigns to electronically file versions of their disclosure reports to the Federal Election Commission."

Maryland Now Regulating Candidate Use of Facebook, Twitter

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:30:00 GMT

Maryland became one of the first jurisdictions to begin micro-managing candidates' use of social networking services, such as Facebook and Twitter. The Baltimore Sun reports "Starting two weeks from now, candidates must begin including an authority line — a declaration of approval that lists their campaign treasurer — on the social networking sites run by their campaigns....Maryland's new rules also provide clarity on what a candidate must do if he or she wants to purchase an online ad with Facebook or Google or another provider. If the ad is too small to include the full authority line — which it often is — candidates will need to include a link to their official campaign site."

California Regulators To Consider Meaning of "Express Advocacy"

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:30:00 GMT

The San Francisco Chronicle reports "the Fair Political Practices Commission, will hold a meeting to explore whether to revisit its rules on an issue known as 'express advocacy.' The million-dollar question: If a political ad doesn't specifically advocate for or against a candidate or campaign - for example, say 'vote for' or 'vote against' - should it be considered express advocacy, and therefore should the donors be disclosed? And if those so-called 'magic words' are not part of an ad, is it legal to force that disclosure?"

The California agency will apparently consider whether or not to embrace a standard that includes both "magic words" express advocacy as well as language that is the "functional equivalent" of express advocacy (although lacking the "magic words").

Politico: Rocky road for campaign finance

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:00:00 GMT

While not quite labeling the DISCLOSE Act dead in the Senate, Politico writes that the bill "seems destined to stall in the Senate....Still, Majority Leader Harry Reid has made multiple guarantees — both in public and behind closed doors to top House officials — that he will bring the DISCLOSE Act to the floor before the August recess. Yet Reid keeps losing key moderates while he makes these promises....Democrats still may bring campaign finance legislation to the Senate floor, if only as a political bludgeon to portray Republicans as siding with the big corporate spending on political campaigns....But with [Sen. Scott] Brown's firm rejection of the bill and [Sen. Olympia] Snowe’s hesitations, the bill that Democrats say is 'vital' to pass could have to wait until September – or even a lame duck session for Senate floor time."

The Hill makes the same observations: "Democrats’ chances of passing campaign-finance legislation they had hoped would affect this year’s elections are dimming, as key senators have expressed concerns about the measure’s timing."

Senate Democrats Don't Have The Votes to Pass DISCLOSE Act

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Scott Brown won't support it, the Daily Caller reports, saying Senator Schumer "should look somewhere else."

You can follow the vote-chasing by tracking the campaign finance reform lobby's press releases. On Monday, they sent an open letter to Scott Brown. Yesterday, Tuesday, they sent pretty much the same letter to Senators Collins and Snowe. Who will it be today?

UPDATE: Senator Brown actually replied to the reform lobby's letter. The Boston Globe has the text here. The Senator explained, "I understand that your five groups support this legislation, and I respect your opinion, but more than 450 other groups from across the political spectrum – ranging from such ideological opposites as the National Right to Life Committee and the ACLU – oppose this bill. They recognize that it is based on partisan politics instead of sound policy. I could not agree more. When dealing with rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, we should look to adopt a higher standard than the one in this bill. The American people expect and deserve better."

Democrats Attended Fundraiser In Canada?

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:00:00 GMT

CNN reports that Harry Reid "attended a fundraiser hosted by the 'Committee for a Better Future,' a trial lawyers association based in Washington, D.C. that's raising money on behalf of Democrats in this year's Senate battles....According to a Democratic source, eight Democratic Senate candidates also attended the fundraiser, which was held in Vancouver, British Columbia."

It appears that the American Association for Justice's Committee for a Better Future held a convention in Vancouver, and included a fundraising event "to help protect the civil justice majority in the U.S. Senate." The proceeds were split among Reid, Michael Bennett, Richard Blumenthal, Roxanne Corbin, Jack Conway, Chris Coons, Brad Ellsworth, Lee Fisher, Alexi Giannoulias, Paul Hodes, and Charlie Melancon.

The Chicago Sun-Times has more details.

Fox News: Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:00:00 GMT

Fox News reports "The six-month election recount that turned former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota's Twin Cities. That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman. The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes -- fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority's newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records."

Minnesota Corporations Sue For Contribution Rights

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports "backers of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer are seeking to overturn a Minnesota law barring corporations from contributing directly to campaigns and parties. State law now allows corporations to spend money independently of campaigns on ads supporting or opposing candidates, an arrangement that the U.S. Supreme Court approved early this year. But the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life and Coastal Travel Enterprises seek to go beyond that ruling and allow direct contributions to candidates by corporations."

The lawsuit is backed by Jim Bopp's James Madison Center: "The case is before the Honorable Donovan Frank, District Judge in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in Minneapolis. The case number is 10-CV-2938 DWF/JSM, and is known as MCCL v. Swanson. The complaint may be viewed at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/."

Wash. Post on CRP Report on Lobbyist De-Registration

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post notes, "A new report on lobbyists shows there are fewer registered now than at any point during the last decade, a falloff that coincides with passage of new federal lobbying restrictions in 2007....The latest figures from the Center for Responsive Politics show that 3,627 lobbyists terminated their registrations in 2008, 1,467 in 2009 and 447 so far this year -- leaving 11,116 to patrol the halls of power as of April 25. The number of registered lobbyists has fallen by nearly 25 percent since 2007."

The Center's report is here.

CQ: Will business run the fall elections? The impact of a Supreme Court ruling is still unclear, but signs point to little change so far.

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From Congressional Quarterly: "After the Supreme Court ruled in January that corporations had the same rights to free speech as individuals, lawmakers warned a flood of corporate-funded advertisements would hit the airwaves before the November midterm elections. Democrats in the House and Senate began work on legislation that would curb the impact of the ruling, fearing that special interests could buy elections by pouring huge amounts of money into campaign ads. But it is unclear whether voters will actually see a significantly different political ad landscape than in years past. A recent Washington Post analysis of campaign filings showed no major increase in corporate spending yet this year. In many states, little will change: more than half already allow corporations and unions to spend funds on directly advocating for candidates and issues."

But some are not persuaded. CQ quotes Fred Wertheimer, a crusader for campaign finance regulation: "We are going to face a huge increase in the number of ads over time funded by these groups," said Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21 president. "There will be tens of millions of dollars of advertisements run, funded by donors the public has no knowledge of."

Sounding quite a bit like Mr. Wertheimer and the press releases his organization has produced over the past few weeks, the New York Times editorializes today on the need to pass the DISCLOSE Act, beginning its piece with: "When the Supreme Court opened the gates to unlimited corporate spending in federal elections...." The Times continues, "Forcing mystery donors to come forward on their ads is a tool voters badly need for the heightened attack ads and propaganda already being underwritten for the coming campaign." But the Times does little to mask its real fear, spending that aids Republicans: "The Chamber of Commerce, bitter foe of vital health care and Wall Street reforms, is reportedly upping its $36 million campaign kitty of 2008 to $75 million for the elections this year. And American Crossroads, the new Republican campaign vehicle engineered by Karl Rove, the Bush political guru, raised a fast $8.5 million in June."

George Will: In Disclose Act, Democrats Are Muzzling Free Speech

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:00:00 GMT

In his latest column, George Will writes, "Democrats have not yet put the final blemishes on their proposal for restricting political advocacy, the Disclose Act (a clunky acronym - Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections), but already it is so awful it is excellent. Its nakedly partisan provisions, and the squalid process of trying to ram it into law, illuminate the corruption that inevitably infects what is supposed to be a crusade to purify politics: When constitutional rights are treated as negotiable, the negotiations corrupt the negotiators....McCain-Feingold was at least evenhanded: It favored incumbents but did not contain provisions overtly intended to secure partisan advantage. Democrats are rushing to enact Disclose to control this November's elections and before the Supreme Court can adjudicate its dubious constitutionality. They are betting that Republicans will be unable to get quick injunctive relief....Beware when the political class preens about protecting us from 'special interests.' The most powerful, persistent and anti-constitutional interest is the political class."

Liberal Interest Groups Say They Will Begin Public Financing Campaign

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "Two interest groups plan to spend as much as $15 million this year on a nationwide campaign in favor of new public-financing legislation aimed at limiting the influence of wealthy donors and large corporations in congressional races. Common Cause and Public Campaign are making the push on behalf of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow lawmakers to qualify for public matching funds by raising money exclusively from small donors. On Thursday, the two groups plan to unveil details about the campaign, which will include TV ads targeting wavering lawmakers and grass-roots efforts in 24 states."

St. Petersburg Times: Rick Scott sues to block public funds from going to rival campaigns

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The St. Petersburg Times reports "Rick Scott, the deep-pocketed Republican front-runner for governor, is suing the state in an effort to prevent his personal wealth from helping his primary rival, Attorney General Bill McCollum. Scott filed suit in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee Wednesday challenging part of Florida's public campaign financing system known as the 'millionaire's amendment.' The provision lets traditional candidates such as McCollum get tax dollars to subsidize their campaigns when they are being vastly outspent by independently wealthy candidates like Scott. Scott must agree to limit his campaign expenditures to $24.9-million in the primary or else the state will give McCollum $1 for every dollar Scott spends over the cap."

This report refers to the provision at issue as a "millionaire's amendment." The federal "Millionaire's Amendment" that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in 2008 did not involve any public matching funds. Rather, once the self-funding "millionaire" crossed a spending threshold, his or her challenger could raise funds under higher contribution limits. The Florida case here is a matching funds case.

The Times notes, "Scott's lawsuit comes on the heels of a similar case in Arizona, McCormish v. Bennett, where a trial court ruled that matching funds are a violation of the First Amendment. An appeals court reversed the decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court, without making a ruling in the case, issued an order blocking further disbursements of state matching money to candidates."

Wash. Post: Unions outspending corporations on campaign ads despite court ruling

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "Labor unions have dominated spending on independent campaign ads so far this election season, despite a recent Supreme Court decision that freed spending by corporations, a Washington Post analysis shows. The findings are an indication that corporate money is not flooding into campaigns as many predicted would happen after the landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. So far this year, $24.7 million in independent spending has been reported to the Federal Election Commission, campaign filings show. Unions have spent $9.7 million (or 39 percent of the total), compared with $6.4 million (26 percent) spent by individuals and $3.4 million spent by corporations."

The Hill: Momentum builds toward November 2010 W.Va. special election

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports "Democrats and Republicans in West Virginia say political momentum is moving toward a November 2010 special election to fill the late-Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat but there are several questions about how to make that happen....The election is set for November 2012 and several strategists believe the state legislature would have to change the law in order to move it up to November 2010."

Holiday Weekend Roundup

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico: More union disclosure woes ("A Center for Public Integrity inquiry shows that for the past five years, disclosure forms filed by the 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers have failed to detail the group’s specific lobbying activities, as required by law. In May, the Center revealed that the American Maritime Officers union had violated disclosure laws for nearly a decade without detection by the two congressional offices tasked with oversight.")

Wall Street Journal: State Lawmakers Move to Limit Corporate Clout ("State lawmakers in New York and Massachusetts are advancing legislation that would put hurdles in front of companies engaging in political activity.")

Chicago Tribune: Lawsuit attacks Mich. limit on some political cash ("A Republican political strategist has asked a federal judge to strike down some of Michigan's limits on campaign donations, saying First Amendment rights are being violated by the restrictions....The $500 limit on contributions by individuals to House candidates hasn't changed in more than 30 years, making it worth about $132 when adjusted for inflation, according to the lawsuit filed this week in federal court in Grand Rapids.")

Boston Globe: Ruling widens the meaning of ‘media’ ("A little-noticed Federal Election Commission ruling that expands the definition of “media’’ to include a partisan film production group is the latest in a series of actions eroding legislative limits on the influence of money in politics.") This "little-noticed" Advisory Opinion was widely reported, and we noted it here on June 11. The first half of the Globe's article is essentially an editorial, parroting the "reform" community's comments focusing on the partisan nature of Citizens United (which is irrelevant under long-standing "media exemption" precedent at the FEC), and ignoring the limited nature of the FEC's decision. The second half of the article actually explains the FEC's opinion, and makes clear that the FEC did not decide that all political organizations are now the "media." ("The latest FEC ruling left it unclear precisely what a political group has to do to qualify as a media organization.")

Washington Post: Democratic campaign committees losing big Wall Street donors.

Center For Responsive Politics report: The Deregistration Dilemma: Are Lobbyists Quitting the Business as Federal Disclosure Rules Tighten?

Supreme Court Issues Summary Affirmance in RNC v. FEC; National Party Soft Money Ban Survives

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Supreme Court issued a summary affirmance of the D.C. Circuit's decision in RNC v. FEC, upholding BCRA's soft money ban as it applies to national party committees. (In other words, the Court did not have 4 votes to hear the case, and simply affirmed the result reached by the lower court.)

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas would have taken the case.

Florida Times-Union: GOP donors sue Crist

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Times-Union reports "A Jacksonville businessman who once was one of Gov. Charlie Crist's strongest allies in Northeast Florida is suing on behalf of Republican donors who feel cheated that Crist left the GOP without refunding campaign contributions. John Rood, a former U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas who runs The Vestcor Cos., is one of two lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit asking a judge to block Crist from using Republicans' money to finance his U.S. Senate run."

The complaint is here.

Wash. Post Writer Recognizes Mixed Message of Doe v. Reed

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post's Robert Barnes wrote yesterday that "The court's ruling was deceptively lopsided: It held 8 to 1 that, in general, people who sign referendum petitions should not expect the First Amendment to protect disclosure of their names. The majority reasoned that there are legitimate reasons that states allowing referendums and initiatives would want to require the disclosure of names on a petition forcing the government to do something. But the decision could be more of a beginning than an end. That's because the other way to look at the decision is that a majority of the court decided that signing one's name to a petition also is a form of political expression that, in some cases, warrants First Amendment protection. The decision could carve out a much more active role for the judiciary in determining in certain instances whether disclosing names brings a reasonable probability of 'threats, harassment or reprisals' from government officials or from other members of the public."

DISCLOSE Act: Will The Senate Get To It? Is The Sense of Urgency Lost?

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Hill writes, "Despite a hard-fought victory in the House, supporters of the Democratic campaign finance bill are now confronting a more dispiriting reality: the dwindling chances the legislation will affect the fall elections. Advocates of the Disclose Act have long pointed to July 4 as a deadline for enacting the law so that its provisions could be implemented and enforceable during the hotly-contested midterm congressional campaign. But with the Senate bogged down in fights over tax legislation, a Supreme Court nomination and energy proposals, that marker will almost surely pass without action on campaign finance."

A representative of one left/liberal interest group, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) is quoted in The Hill piece: "'It’s fair to say we’re not seeing the corporate flood that people were talking about,' said Lisa Gilbert, research advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, which supported the Disclose Act before the exemption tailored for the National Rifle Association was added."

White House Avoids Lobbyist Transparency by Crossing Street and Using Personal Email Accounts

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reports that "the Caribou Coffee across the street from the White House has become a favorite meeting spot to conduct Obama administration business. Here at the Caribou on Pennsylvania Avenue, and a few other nearby coffee shops, White House officials have met hundreds of times over the last 18 months with prominent K Street lobbyists — members of the same industry that President Obama has derided for what he calls its 'outsized influence' in the capital....But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors’ log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the 'most transparent presidential administration in history.' ... Attempts to put distance between the White House and lobbyists are not limited to meetings. Some lobbyists say that they routinely get e-mail messages from White House staff members’ personal accounts rather than from their official White House accounts, which can become subject to public review. Administration officials said there were some permissible exceptions to a federal law requiring staff members to use their official accounts and retain the correspondence."

Supreme Court Limits Reach of "Honest Services Fraud" Law

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Washington Post: "All nine justices said prosecutors have stretched too far a federal statute that makes it a crime to deprive the public or a company of the 'intangible right of honest services.' Three justices thought the statute was so vague as to be unconstitutional. But six said it could be saved by limiting its use to those involving bribes or kickbacks, not the self-dealing or conflict-of-interest schemes previously prosecuted....Since it was passed in 1988, the honest-services fraud law has been used in the lobbying scandals involving Jack Abramoff, the charges against former Louisiana congressman William J. Jefferson (D-La.) and prosecution of state officials such as former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (D)....Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court majority, said that upholding the law meant excluding the 'amorphous category of cases' involving conflict of interest and self-dealing. The legislation, she said, 'criminalizes only schemes to defraud that involve bribes or kickbacks.'"

The cases are Skilling v. US, Black v. US, and Weyhrauch v. US.

Wall Street Journal editorial: Conrad Black's Revenge: The Supreme Court reins in a vague and often abused law.

New York Times: Justices Limit Use of ‘Honest Services’ Law Against Fraud.

DISCLOSE Act Approved By House, 216-206

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:00:00 GMT

The House of Representatives passed the DISCLOSE Act, 216-206. The vote is here.

Washington Post: "The bill -- which passed 219 to 206, with three dozen Democrats joining all but two Republicans in opposition -- took an unexpectedly difficult path to approval in the House and now faces an uncertain fate in the Senate....The Senate version has 50 co-sponsors and it is not clear whether they could muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome a likely GOP filibuster."

Democracy 21 (aka Fred Wertheimer) responds here, and the Center For Competitive Politics responds here. CCP logs some other responses here.

Supreme Court Holds That Disclosure of Referendum Petition Signers' Names Does Not Generally Violate First Amendment Rights

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:30:00 GMT

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Doe v. Reed today, regarding the constitutionality of publicly disclosing the names and addresses of those who sign ballot referendum petitions. (A group of petition signers argued that the public disclosure of their names and addresses would subject them to harassment by political opponents.) Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts summarized, "The issue at this stage of the case is not whether disclosure of this particular petition would violate the First Amendment, but whether disclosure of referendum petitions in general would do so. We conclude that such disclosure does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. We leave it to the lower courts to consider in the first instance the signers’ more focused claim concerning disclosure of the information on this particular petition, which is pending before the District Court" (emphasis added). (Thus, it is still possible that lower courts, or even the Supreme Court down the road, may rule for the petition signers.)

The Court found that the state's interest in "preserving the integrity of the electoral process by combating fraud, detecting invalid signatures, and fostering government transparency and accountability" was sufficiently strong an interest to justify any First Amendment burdens on petition signers.

The Court did not rule on the plaintiff's more particularlized argument, namely that the defendants do not want access to the petition signers' names and addresses so that they can combat fraud or detect invalid signatures, but rather so that they can identify them on the Internet and encourage others to seek them out. It will be up to the lower courts to decide whether the plaintiffs can show "a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure [of personal information] will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties." If the plaintiffs can make such a showing, the courts could block the public disclosure of their personal information.

Justice Alito notes in his concurring opinion that "the plaintiffs in this case have a strong argument that [Washington's disclosure law] violates the First Amendment as applied to the Referendum 71 petition."

Justice Scalia, who does not find disclosure to be especially burdensome or violative of First Amendment rights, appeals to the National Anthem in his concurring opinion: "There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave."

The speech-regulators at the "reform" group Campaign Legal Center quickly issued a statement, tying the Court's decision in Doe v. Reed to the DISCLOSE Act. Their statement evidences a remarkable disregard for the First Amendment, even for them. The group's Executive Director, J. Gerald Hebert, states, "Opponents of campaign finance laws, including disclosure provisions, repeatedly claim that Congress can make 'no law' that regulates political speech and have used that argument to claim that campaign finance laws, including disclosure provisions, are unconstitutional. Today’s ruling flatly rejects this overbroad claim."

As some know, the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (emphasis added).

So, the argument that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is not exactly novel or the product of creative lawyering. Hebert is correct, though, that Congress can, and does, make laws that regulate political speech - Congress is doing so right now, as a matter of fact. Perhaps our real quarrel is with the Congress that enacts these laws, and the Supreme Court that upholds them, rather than with a small, but noisy, interest group.

Incidentally, the Institute For Justice has a new free speech blog at www.MakeNoLaw.org.

Politico: Did Dems exempt unions from DISCLOSE Act?

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:30:00 GMT

From Politico: "A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night appears to exempt big labor unions from proposed disclosure requirements. The change, inserted by Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the committee charged with handling the bill and a key union ally, would also affect other groups funded by members who pay dues of less than $50,000. While the move may satiate liberal Democrats who had become uneasy with an exemption for the National Rifle Association, a union loophole will certainly cause big business to cry foul."

The Center For Competitive Politics has more: "Already exempt from the ban on speech by government contractors (unions receive government grants, not contracts), exempt from having to certify that they don't have 'too many' foreign members, and exempt from having to disclose their membership in most cases because their membership dues are generally below the disclosure threshold, it appears that unions have managed to get yet another special deal to exempt them from some of the onerous and intrusive burdens on their First Amendment rights."

DISCLOSE Act Advances Through Rules Committee; Will the Full House Vote Thursday?

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports "House Democrats moved closer to a Thursday vote on their signature campaign finance bill despite ongoing concerns from liberal members of their caucus. Democratic leaders were whipping votes throughout Wednesday and proclaimed the Disclose Act 'on track' for passage Thursday. The House Rules Committee was meeting Wednesday to finalize floor guidelines for the bill."

BNA Money & Politics: "The House Rules Committee voted along party lines June 23 to advance a new campaign finance bill (HR 5175) with a limited number of amendments in order to be debated on the House floor."

The Center For Competitive Politics details the rule adopted and how floor consideration will proceed.

CNN: Utah court says e-signatures acceptable for ballot petitions

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

CNN reports "Voters in Utah can now go online and sign a petition to qualify candidates for public office, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday. The unanimous decision ordered state officials to accept e-signatures on otherwise valid applications for a place on a ballot....The ruling could have an impact nationwide, and could prove a boost for office-seekers not affiliated with the two major political parties. No state currently allows e-signatures on election petitions and ballots. The ruling also could open the door for allowing e-signatures for getting issue referendums on the ballot....The ruling noted [independent gubernatorial candidate Farley] Anderson used the website https://www.i-sign.us to solicit support for his candidacy. A similar petition is online for his running mate for lieutenant governor, Steven Maxfield."

The court's opinion is here.

DISCLOSE Act Reportedly Advancing

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

According to The Hill, the House Rules Committee will consider the DISCLOSE Act on Wednesday, June 23. The full House "could vote on the bill as early as Thursday and leadership is confident they will have the votes to pass it, according to a House aide."

Senate leaders issued a letter to House members on Tuesday promising to take up the Act once the House passes it.

DISCLOSE Act's Republican Sponsors Having Second Thoughts

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports that "Rep. Mike Castle (Del.), one of just two Republican sponsors of a sweeping campaign finance bill, is so upset about late changes to the measure he is considering withdrawing his support and voting against it. 'He’s absolutely opposed to the [NRA] exemption,' Castle spokeswoman Kate Dickens told The Hill. 'The exemptions are getting bigger and bigger. I don’t think they are even done yet.'"

Why support the bill in the first place? According to Castle spokeswoman Kate Dickens, "It’s just disclosure, for God’s sake...."

The Hill also notes that "The other Republican co-sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), is also wavering. He told The Hill on Tuesday that 'the concessions could impact' his vote. 'I can’t confirm how I would vote before I see the details,' he said. 'I would rather have not seen any exceptions made.' He said he supported the bill conceptually but planned to meet with Van Hollen’s office on Wednesday before committing his vote."

Nonpartisan Campaign Finance Reform Interest Groups Urge Lawmakers to Support DISCLOSE Act By Appealing To Their Partisan Interests

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:00:00 GMT

Campaign finance reform interest groups Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, and the League of Women Voters issued a press release/letter to House members urging them to support the DISCLOSE Act.

It is no secret that Republican supporters of the bill are, and will be, very few in number, so the letter is obviously addressed to a Democratic audience.

With this in mind, note two of the reasons given by the interest groups for supporting the Act when it comes up for a vote:

If the DISCLOSE Act is not enacted, voters will not know the identity of the corporate donors that are funding the Chamber of Commerce’s reported $50 million campaign to influence the 2010 congressional elections, and the amounts those corporate donors are giving.

Voters also will not know the names of and amounts given by the wealthy individuals that are funding c4 groups such as American Action Network, recently formed by political operatives to spend a reported $25 million to influence the 2010 congressional elections.

The Chamber, of course, has long been regarded as "Republican friendly," while the American Action Network was created by a number of well-known Republicans to "create, encourage and promote center-right policies based on the principles of freedom, limited government, American exceptionalism, and strong national security."

(To be fair, the interest groups did acknowledge that left-of-center voices also engage in political spending: "Voters also will not know the names of and amounts given by the wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions that are funding other c4 groups making campaign-related expenditure to influence the 2010 congressional elections, This includes undisclosed contributions to c4 groups run by political operatives from both parties and to c4 groups formed to serve as front or conduit groups for hidden donations.")

DISCLOSE Act Update

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Hill reports that Democrats began "a coordinated effort to rebuild momentum for the Disclose Act, with the hope, the aide said, of passing it in the House by the end of the week." The White House issued a statement in support of the Act, see below, along with a memo from a pollster purporting to show public support (according to The Hill report above). While the White House statement says the Administration "strongly" supports the DISCLOSE Act, BNA Money & Politics reports "President Obama did not have plans to call individual House members privately to urge them to vote for the DISCLOSE Act."

BNA Money & Politics also reports "The legislation is now tentatively scheduled for a House floor vote June 23, according to a weekly agenda released by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)."

Washington Post: Van Hollen and White House optimistic about controversial campaign finance bill. The Post reveals a previously unnoticed aspect of the NRA exemption: "Most of the opposition to the NRA deal focused on its exemption as a large-membership group, but another facet of the compromise has gone largely unnoticed: Contractors receiving $10 million or more annually from the federal government would be barred from making political expenditures, a figure that had been set at $7 million. Legislative aides said Monday that the NRA could have been eligible under the lower amount because of firearms training that it conducts for soldiers and federal peace officers."

The White House statement:

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 5175. The Administration believes the DISCLOSE Act is a necessary measure so that Americans will know who is trying to influence the Nation's elections. H.R. 5175 also prevents those who should not interfere in the Nation's elections - like corporations controlled by foreign interests - from doing so. Unless strong new disclosure rules are established, the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case will give corporations even greater power to influence elections. This bill is not perfect. The Administration would have preferred no exemptions. But by providing for unprecedented transparency, this bill takes great strides to hold corporations who participate in the Nation's elections accountable to the American people. As this is a matter of urgent importance, the Administration urges prompt passage of the DISCLOSE Act.

USA Today Notes Campaign Finance Developments Overshadowed by DISCLOSE Act

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

USA Today notes that the DISCLOSE Act has "faltered," and draws attention to three overshadowed campaign finance developments of recent weeks:

"Attempts to place more restrictions on campaign spending have been unsuccessful in recent weeks.

The Supreme Court, for instance, barred the state of Arizona this month from distributing public funds to candidates running against wealthy, self-funded opponents. The move blocks a key component of the state's 12-year-old 'Clean Elections' law while the high court decides whether to hear a challenge from the law's opponents.

Last week, acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argues the government's cases before the Supreme Court, decided not to appeal a lower court ruling that allows independent groups to raise as much as they want to support or oppose candidates.

In addition, the Federal Election Commission recently sided with Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, and ruled that it would not have to publicly disclose its spending on movie projects. It was the second major victory for Citizens United this year. The legal battle over the group's critical film about Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign led to the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in January to allow unlimited corporate and union funding on political ads."

More on the Supreme Court's decision is here. The Court's order in McComish v. Bennett is here.

The second item above concerns the government's decision not to appeal the D.C. Circuit's decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC. More information on that decision is here.

Finally, we noted the FEC's decision in Advisory Opinion 2010-08, granting a limited media exemption to Citizens United, here.

PA Patriot-News: Mike Veon sentenced to 6-14 years in prison in Bonusgate case

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Patriot-News has this update: "Former Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Veon will spend six to 14 years in jail for his role in a public corruption case that involved using public money and employees for campaign work. Veon, sentenced this morning before Dauphin County Judge Richard A. Lewis, also was ordered to pay a $37,000 fine and $100,000 in restitution."

Removed From the Ballot Because of One Penny

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Ledger reports that Neil Combee was denied a place on the ballot because the check for his qualifying fee was one cent short. "The qualifying fee to get one's name on the ballot for a House seat is $1,781.82. Combee's check was for $1,781.81, 1 red cent short of the required fee....Combee said he will appeal his removal Monday. The irony, he said, was that he had always conducted every aspect of his past campaigns, but he agreed to family and friends' advice that he hire a professional treasurer, Jacquelyn Schall of Tallahassee, who made out the check for the filing fee."

DISCLOSE Act Update

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

On Thursday morning, it appeared that House leaders might attempt to advance the DISCLOSE Act through the Rules Committee, and possibly even bring it to the floor for a vote. Now, it seems the bill is on hold again, due to expanding exemptions and growing opposition on the left.

Eric Brown (Political Activity Law) has a nice summary of yesterday's developments here.

Washington Post: Disclosure Act in jeopardy after interest groups balk at NRA deal; Bill would exempt more interest groups from disclosing top donors ("One of President Obama's top legislative priorities is in serious doubt after top House Democrats' attempt to satisfy the National Rifle Association backfired badly. Top Democrats abandoned plans for a Friday vote in the House on the legislation, known as the Disclose Act, after liberal groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus rose up against the deal with the NRA. A lobbying blitz by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups also undermined support for the legislation, aides said. ").

Politico: How a campaign finance deal backfired (" But while the maneuver was effective in getting the NRA to back down, the deal sparked a backlash that pitted big-money special interest groups, including some traditional allies, against each other, and turned fence-sitters and even some supporters of the bill into opponents.").

New York Times: Loopholes Grow in Bill to Offset Ruling on Campaigns ("The resulting uproar over special treatment for the pro-gun group led Democrats on Thursday to expand the exception to cover even more interest groups as they tried to secure votes for the measure, which is opposed by most Republicans. But with other powerful groups also weighing in and no assurance that Democrats had the votes they need, House leaders decided late Thursday to put off a planned Friday vote on the campaign bill, increasing doubts about whether Congress can enact it in time for this year’s elections.").

Kim Strassel op-ed in Wall Street Journal: The NRA's Political Sellout; Why is the gun rights lobby helping Chuck Schumer help unions?

The Campaign Legal Center, which lobbies/advocates for more campaign finance regulation, and which has been a leading proponent of the DISCLOSE Act, now claims that the exemptions - which began with the NRA and have now expanded to include additional groups - are consistent with the Supreme Court's discussion of disclosure in the Citizens United decision. As they explain, "requiring these few large groups to put their own names and CEOs on their ads, and fully report the amount of their spending, without requiring the listing of their enormous donor lists, does not deprive the voters of the information the court believed was essential to a functioning democracy. We know who these large groups are, and what their agenda is. That is not necessarily true of the hundreds of smaller groups that raise funds and run political advertising in elections--which is why requiring the listing of their political donors makes sense." Left unexplained is why, if this is true, was the bill not written with these principles in mind in the first place.

The Center for Competitive Politics notes how the reformers have changed their tune in this post: I thought the NRA was the reason we needed campaign finance ‘reform’?
The Campaign Legal Center's lastest effort to prop up the DISCLOSE Act begins, "Despite the histrionics of the special interests in Washington, the core of the DISCLOSE Act is about disclosing the individuals or entities spending huge amounts of money to impact elections. It is not about suppressing free speech." We're not sure which part of this paragraph is more unbelievable -- that CLC actually seems to think that it is not one of "the special interests in Washington" or that the DISCLOSE Act "is not about suppressing free speech."

CQ Politics: House Vote Set For Friday on Campaign Finance Bill

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports "House Democrats plan to vote Friday on a White-House backed measure that would impose strict disclosure rules on campaign advertising by independent groups. Aides said that leaders are confident they have sufficient Democratic votes to pass the measure in spite of what is expected to be overwhelming Republican opposition. The decision came after the bill’s sponsors agreed to broaden an exemption from key parts of the bill that drew heavy criticism for benefiting the National Rifle Association and few, if any others. Under the change, groups that have been in existence for at least 10 years and have 500,000 members or more will be exempt from key requirements — a reduction from what had been a million-member requirement."

Wash. Times: Pastor tests IRS by endorsing candidate; Hopes to undo tax code rule

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Washington Times reports "Rev. H. Wayne Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, last month endorsed GOP state Sen. Gordon Howie in the South Dakota governor's race, in defiance of the Internal Revenue Service and a federal court ruling and in hopes of producing a landmark constitutional test case....The ban on political campaign activity does not restrict leaders of organizations from expressing their views on political matters if they are speaking for themselves as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization."

Office of Congressional Ethics Now Investigating Lawmakers Based on Timing of Their Fundraising Events

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "The Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating eight lawmakers who held fundraisers within 48 hours of a major House vote on a Wall Street reform bill or received substantial donations from business people with a financial stake in the bill, according to congressional sources and letters. The probe is focused on whether the timing of accepting the campaign checks created an unacceptable appearance of a conflict, according to sources familiar with the investigation and letters sent by the OCE to lobbyists requesting information....The House ethics manual instructs members to steer away from accepting campaign donations if the timing creates an unacceptable appearance of a conflict of interest."

The Hill: Office of Congressional Ethics focuses on auto amendment offered by Rep. Watt ("The OCE is reviewing an amendment offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), which was withdrawn within two days of a fundraiser held in his honor.").

DISCLOSE Act Update

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

CQ Politics: NRA Deal in Campaign Reform Measure Draws Fire:

"The deal that House Democratic leaders cut with the National Rifle Association to earn the gun lobby’s neutrality on a campaign finance bill came in for harsh criticism from across the political spectrum on Tuesday, presenting new challenges for the package even as leadership pushes for floor action this week.

***

The NRA — a fearsome grass-roots force with a solid House majority eager to maintain its support — was in a position to single-handedly sink the package. Hence Democratic leaders and government reform groups eager to see the broader bill enacted into law hatched a carve-out that exempts groups that are at least 10 years old, claim more than 1 million members, have operations in all 50 states and take no more than 15 percent of their money from corporate or union sources. The NRA pledged Tuesday to remain neutral on the bill as long as the exemption remained."

Wall Street Journal editorial: Guns and Free Speech; The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment ("By erecting what amounts to a grandfather clause of First Amendment rights, the bill creates a sort of interest-group incumbency, concentrating the power to speak freely among a handful of large and longstanding groups. Established organizations like the NRA provide important representation for their members, but their lobbying cause is specific and limited. Left vulnerable by the special treatment are the smaller grassroots outfits that often pop up in response to new and immediate policy challenges. The ability of these groups to count on the full protection of the First Amendment is critical to diverse and responsive political debate....Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run.").

USA Today: NRA campaign-finance exemption sparks criticism.

AP: Liberals Balk at NRA Concession in Campaign Bill.

Rep. Van Hollen, the main sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act in the House, is now claiming that without the DISCLOSE Act, we will all be at the mercy of BP-funded "sham organizations." In an interview with the Huffington Post, Van Hollen said, "What would happen is that corporations could dump millions of dollars into campaigns without revealing their identity and hiding behind sham organizations and dummy corporations....And so under this bill if you have got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. We believe voters have the right to know who is spending this money because there are lots of organizations who hide behind nice-sounding names, like Americans for Cleans Oceans funded by BP."

Meanwhile, "Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.) became the first Democratic lawmaker to publicly come out against the NRA deal, in a statement provided to the Huffington Post." Sen. Feinstein says, "This is bad policy. The law should apply to the NRA, just like any other group. If the NRA, or any similar group, is going to spend millions on political ads, the American public has a right to know who is funding them."

CNN: Democrats want investigation into surprise Senate primary winner

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From CNN: "As political newcomer Alvin Greene calls on South Carolina's Democratic establishment to get behind him, party leaders are calling for an investigation into his surprise win in the state's Democratic Senate primary. Greene, 32, is an unemployed veteran who came out of nowhere to win last week's election. Despite running no ads, Greene toppled former state legislator Vic Rawl with almost 60 percent of the vote....South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn said Sunday that he has no plans to get behind Greene and repeated his suspicions that the Democratic nominee is 'someone's plant.' ... Clyburn has called for an investigation into the source of funds that Greene used to pay his state party's $10,440 filing fee. He has also asked the S.C. Democratic Party to request that the federal government investigate the matter, said Kristie Grecko, a spokesperson for his office."

Washington Post: Election speculation comes from all corners after S.C. primary.

WSJ: Texas Democrats See Red Over Green Party's Ballot Coup

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "Texas Democrats have filed a lawsuit after learning that an out-of-state Republican consultant helped the Green Party qualify for the state's general-election ballot for the first time since 2002—a surprising turn of events Democrats claim is a plot to hurt their gubernatorial candidate in November. The Texas Democratic Party filed the suit Thursday against Arizona-based consultant Timothy F. Mooney, a Missouri group called Take Initiative America Inc., the Texas Green Party and 'unknown conspirators,' alleging a slew of state election-law violations. The state suit followed a June 6 report in the Dallas Morning News that detailed how Mr. Mooney had hired a signature-gathering firm to collect nearly 92,000 voter signatures to get the Green Party on the Texas ballot, with Take Initiative America bankrolling the effort."

In other Green Party lawsuit news, Ballot Access News reports "On June 11, Ralph Nader sued the Federal Election Commission in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C....Nader’s complaint is that the FEC never investigated the failure of the Democratic National Committee and its allies to report their expenses when they spent millions of dollars to keep him off the ballot in 2004. Also, certain legal corporations appear to have illegally made large contributions to the Democratic Party, by their legal services to the Democratic Party, in violation of federal campaign law. Here is the 31-page Complaint."

NRA Secures Exemption For Itself, Drops Opposition to DISCLOSE Act

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:00:00 GMT

Politico reports "House Democrats have reached an agreement with the National Rifle Association on campaign-finance legislation that would roll back the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, removing a major obstacle on the bill, according to House sources....The deal would exempt the NRA and some other large organizations from strict campaign finance disclosures in the bill, which is being pushed by Democratic leaders in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case....Under the original bill, offered by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, groups like the NRA would have to disclose their top donors if they chose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election....The new agreement would exempt organizations that have over one million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states, and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations, from the disclosure requirements. The NRA, with four million members, would fall into the exempted category and will not oppose the DISCLOSE Act now, according to Democratic sources."

NRA statement (via CCP): Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said, "This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us... This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us..."

CQ Politics: House Leaders Strike Deal With NRA on DISCLOSE Act ("Nan Aron, president of the left-leaning Alliance for Justice, blasted [the NRA deal]. 'We can’t have two tiers of free speech in this country, with one set of rules for the big guys and another for everyone else,' Aron said in a statement. 'This outrageous attempt to garner support for the bill does nothing more than make the already powerful even more powerful and undermines both the stated purpose of the legislation and fundamental Constitutional principles.' ... But Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer [and longtime champion of campaign finance reform] blessed the deal. 'This exemption has been deemed necessary to pass the bill, but since it is so narrow it will not open a major loophole in the legislation,' he said in a statement. At least one group was considerably less supportive. 'This proposal is so outside the spirit of what Congress says it is trying to do that any supporter of real reform should be embarrassed to vote for it,' Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement.")

Washington Post: House Democrats reach deal on campaign spending exemptions for businesses, other groups.

Campaign finance "reform" groups still support the bill, even with the special NRA carve-out that makes a mockery of the alleged "urgent need" for disclosure and transparency. See Fred Wertheimer quote above, and this letter from the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.

The Center For Competitive Politics provides a lengthy catalog of the reformers' hypocrisy when it comes to the NRA.

Another Chapter in the Washington Post's Examination of Members' Investment Holdings

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post has another article about Members of Congress and their stock portfolios. (An earlier article is here.) The Post writes:

In both houses of Congress, a host of other committee chairmen and ranking members have reported that they have millions invested in business sectors that their panels oversee, according to a Post analysis of financial disclosure records through 2008, committee assignments and lawmaker investments by industry.

The disclosure reports covering 2009 will be made public in the coming days. But because lawmakers still use a pen-and-paper method of reporting, it will be months before the information is entered into a database by the Center for Responsive Politics and then made available for analysis by The Post.

(Note that the Post - Washington DC's newspaper of record - is apparently unable to conduct its own independent review of Congress' public financial documents, and must instead wait until an interest group with a clear agenda provides it with the information.)

The Hill: Pelosi considering rewriting ethics rules

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Hill reports "Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately indicated she is willing to rewrite some of the the ethics rules that House Democrats implemented two years ago."

FEC Concludes That Documentary Films Produced by Citizens United are Entitled to Media Exemption

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Yesterday, the FEC voted 4-1 to approve Advisory Opinion 2010-08, concluding that Citizens United was entitled to the "media exemption" for its documentary film productions. The group's other activities are not exempt under the Advisory Opinion. (The Commissioners approved Draft A, available here.)

What does this mean? It means that the group's movies, such as Hillary: The Movie, are not subject to any campaign finance regulations. If you recall, the Supreme Court concluded in Citizens United v. FEC that Hillary: The Movie could be disseminated by Citizens United using corporate funds. However, the Court also concluded that the movie could still be subject to various disclosure requirements. Under the FEC's new determination, because the media exemption applies, Citizens United will not be required to include any "paid for by" disclaimers on their movies (or advertisements for their movies), and they will not be required to report the movies' costs and funding sources to the FEC. In addition, questions of coordination with candidates are now irrelevant, as are questions of content (e.g., is there express advocacy?). Simply put, Citizens United's political documentary movies will be treated just like a New York Times editorial, a Bill Moyers PBS production, or a Michael Moore film.

We previously noted the Advisory Opinion Request here.

The FEC's press release is here.

Commissioner Walther's dissenting statement is here.

CQ Politics reports here: Citizens United Wins Again.

Politico: Lawmakers seek to gut ethics office

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From Politico:

"The Office of Congressional Ethics, a powerful symbol of Democrats’ promise to 'drain the swamp' in Washington, is in danger of having its power stripped after the midterm elections.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have led the charge, airing complaints about the aggressive, independent panel in a private session with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last month, and they’ve drafted a resolution that, if approved, would severely curtail the panel’s power.

But there’s hot competition between the CBC and the official House ethics committee over who has less regard for the Office of Congressional Ethics, also known as the OCE. And the rest of the House doesn’t appear to be far behind in its disdain. Privately, Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and even some congressional leaders, acknowledge that there’s a strong sentiment to change rules that empower the office to publicize investigations and wreak havoc on lawmakers’ political lives."

California Voters Opt For Open Primaries

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and many other moderates in California say a ballot proposition passed Tuesday that puts in place an unusual 'top two' primary election process could lead to a renaissance for centrist lawmakers. But it's almost certain to face a legal challenge -- and its impact remains an open question. Proposition 14, modeled on a similar law in Washington state, was approved by 8 percentage points. The measure will create a single, open primary in which the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election runoff, paving the way for Republican-vs.-Democrat, Democrat-vs.-Democrat or Republican-vs.-Republican contests."

New York Times "news analysis": Calif. Voting Change Could Signal Big Political Shift.

Congress.org: Facebook raises franking questions

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From Congress.org: "Facebook pages created and run by a lawmaker's staff can promote official activity, but they can't raise money. Campaign-run pages, meantime, have to be careful about conducting official business....When they sign up for Facebook, Members must designate whether their page is official, and therefore governed by franking rules, or a campaign page, which isn't subject to the rules of conduct for Congressional communication....Both types of page allow politicians to highlight television appearances, update followers on travel schedules and post videos of committee hearings and floor speeches. And some Members maintain two pages to be able to have the best of both worlds."

N.H. House Rejects New Disclosure Requirements

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

AP reports "In a fight pitting free speech against disclosure, free speech won Wednesday when the New Hampshire House killed legislation that would have required corporations and some other groups to file with the state when they spent large amounts of money to influence elections. The bill was sought by leading Democrats in response to a January U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts on elections. The bill would have applied the filing rules when a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other organization spent $10,000 or more on political advertising. Certain nonprofits were exempt. Led by the Democratic majority, the Senate passed it 14-10 along party lines. But the House killed it in a bipartisan vote, 184-135."

Politico: GOP lags in early redistricting race

Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From Politico: "Outmaneuvered by the GOP during the last round of redistricting a decade ago, Democrats appear to have an early advantage as the two parties gear up again for the expensive and high-stakes battle over redrawing state legislative and congressional districts....Applying the lessons gleaned after the 2000 census, Democrats have moved more quickly to adapt to new rules on the types of fundraising available to finance redistricting efforts. They have also built a network of groups, with the blessing of the Obama White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that appear to be better positioned for the complex task that will begin next year in state capitals and courtrooms across the country after the 2010 census is complete."

AP: Md. board backs rules for campaigns, social media

Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:00:00 GMT

AP reports "Political candidates in Maryland would be required to clearly identify their campaign when using social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, under regulations endorsed Thursday by the state board of elections. A panel of state lawmakers must approve the rules before they can take effect; an elections official said members of the Maryland General Assembly's Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review committee are expected to consider the regulations by the end of July."

Wash. Examiner: Has Lobbying Derailed the DISCLOSE Act? Bill to Mitigate Citizens United Decision Put on Hold

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Examiner reports that campaign finance reform advocates fear the DISCLOSE Act may be on life support. (We made a similar observation a few days ago.)

"Last Thursday afternoon, hours before the House Rules Committee was set to take up a measure aimed at mitigating the fallout from Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision — which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of campaign cash — the meeting was scrapped. Democratic aides depicted the delay as a consequence of a packed legislative calendar, predicting that the money-in-politics bill would come to the House floor after the recess. But some government watchdogs backing the majority’s effort saw a more dire sign in the Rules Committee postponement: that behind-the-scenes lobbying by some of Washington’s biggest campaign spenders, on both the left and the right, had spooked enough Democrats to make the legislation impossible to pass in its current form."

NYT: 20 in Black Caucus Ask for Curbs on Ethics Office

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "Twenty members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including its chairwoman, are asking the House to severely restrict the powers of an independent ethics office that has spent much of its first full year investigating accusations of wrongdoing among black caucus members. A resolution introduced late last week by Representative Marcia L. Fudge, Democrat of Ohio, and co-sponsored by 19 other black caucus members, would prohibit the release of most investigative reports prepared by the Office of Congressional Ethics. It would also prevent the office from initiating its own inquiries, unless a sworn complaint was filed by an individual with personal knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing."

Wash. Post: Political ads are tough sell for image-conscious corporations

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

A Washington Post article today claims that "All over the country, corporate CEOs and trade groups are asking their lawyers the same question: How can we get our companies involved in this political election season without leaving tracks? After a landmark Supreme Court ruling this year freed executives to spend unlimited corporate cash on campaigns, some predicted that businesses would flood television airwaves with pro-industry political ads -- but that just hasn't happened yet. Image-sensitive corporations are still trying to make sure that, if they jump into 2010 politicking, they do so as anonymously as possible, according to Republican political operatives and trade group leaders."

Meanwhile, the Michigan Messenger takes a look at the effect of the Citizens United ruling on Michigan politics.

SEIU Attempt to Create Third Party in North Carolina Fails

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:30:00 GMT

In April, we noted reports that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was attempting to create a third party in North Carolina as part of an effort to defeat Democratic Congressman who voted against the health care bill. Today, the Washignton Post reports that that effort has failed because the union "did not gather the 85,000 signatures by Tuesday's deadline, meaning the third party, North Carolina First, will not be recognized on the general election ballot." The union will run independent candidates instead.

Wash. Post: New records show some lobbyists are top fundraisers for political candidates

Mon, 31 May 2010 21:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post examined the lobbyist bundling filings at the FEC and came up with this report. From the report: "For the first time, the records provide a clear public view into one of the most influential subcultures in Washington: lobbyists who moonlight by bundling campaign contributions for candidates and their political parties. The fundraising occurs even as the same lobbyists attempt to shape legislation to benefit their clients, including energy firms, insurers and other corporations with major financial stakes in the outcome of federal legislation."

The Hill: Critics cheer missed deadline on campaign finance legislation

Sun, 30 May 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From The Hill: "House Democrats have handed ardent opponents of a new campaign finance bill an extra week to lobby against it....Opponents cheered the delay while supporters winced. The decision to push the vote off gives the bill’s aggressive opponents at least one more week to make their case and bend lawmakers’ ears about their complaints....Conservative and business groups already had begun a pre-vote 24-hour lobbying blitz against the bill late last week, sending a flurry of letters to lawmakers’ offices late Wednesday and Thursday, declaring dire warnings about the bill’s 'chilling effect' on free speech and unequal treatment of corporations and unions....A chorus of watchdogs attempted to counter the onslaught of attacks with a letter of its own. The Campaign Legal Center joined with Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen in defending the bill as simply 'providing timely and effective disclosure of campaign-related expenditures' by unions, corporations, trade associations and non-profit advocacy groups."

National Right To Life Committee press release: "The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, today urged the U.S. House of Representatives to reject the "DISCLOSE Act" (H.R. 5175), which it called a "bullying political power grab," which is "not a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption -- a corruption of the lawmaking process, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves." NRLC said that it would include the dispositive roll calls on the measure in its scorecard of key votes for the current Congress."

Washington Times: Business chief slams campaign finance law ("U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue decried the Democratic-sponsored measure, which imposes stiff disclosure requirements on groups that run campaign ads funded by corporations and unions, as an overt effort to 'basically cut a number of people out of the political process' ahead of this fall's midterm elections. Mr. Donohue also said there was a lack of people working in the Obama White House who understood the business world.")

Why has the House vote been delayed? The bill's House proponents have said it is simply a matter of a crowded legislative calendar -- "when negotiations with Senate Democrats broke down over a massive tax/healthcare/jobs bill, leaders were forced to punt the vote until after the recess, Democratic aides said." But, a blog posting from Public Citizen (which supports the bill), indicates there is more to it than that. According to the posting, "Congressional leaders have suggested they will revisit the DISCLOSE Act following the Memorial Day recess – all the while resuming further negotiations with the NRA and other advocacy groups who want to rein in the disclosure requirements." Of course, this may just be a ploy to attempt to rally supporters to save the bill. Stay tuned.

DISCLOSE Act Update

Fri, 28 May 2010 11:00:00 GMT

Roll Call: House Won’t Consider DISCLOSE Act Until After Recess ("A new campaign finance bill will not get a House vote before the Memorial Day recess, a House Democratic source said Thursday afternoon....With jobs legislation preoccupying Members for the duration of the week, the source said the House Rules Committee postponed a Thursday afternoon hearing to finalize the DISCLOSE Act.").

Politico: A GOP reversal on disclosure? ("For years, Republicans who opposed efforts to restrict campaign spending had a sure-fire alternative they said would be more effective in fighting corruption: disclosure. Now that the Supreme Court has dealt a serious blow to the campaign finance regulations they opposed, Republicans are fighting again, this time against what the White House and its allies argue is the best way to guard against the effects of the decision: more disclosure.")

The Center For Competitive Politics released this policy briefing on the version of the DISCLOSE Act reported out of the House Administration Committee, accompanied by this press release.

CQ Politics: FEC Deadlocks on Soft Money

Fri, 28 May 2010 11:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics has this report on yesterday's 3-3 split at the FEC on an advisory opinion concerning federal candidate and officeholder fundraising for a ballot initiative committee.

From the report: "The fourth time was not the charm: the Federal Election Commission could not agree Thursday on whether members of Congress could raise unlimited funds for organizations pushing state ballot initiatives. On three separate previous occasions, the FEC issued various opinions on whether federal candidates could raise soft money for such groups and each time the agency reached different decisions....The sticking point was whether soliciting on behalf of a state ballot or proposition would be considered raising money for an election. Republicans supported allowing federal candidates to raise unlimited funds for state balloting initiative organizations while Democrats stood opposed to any such lawmaker unlimited third-party fundraising."

The matter is Advisory Opinion 2010-07.

The Hill: House Democrats say they have votes to pass new campaign finance legislation

Thu, 27 May 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports, "Despite opposition from the left and the right, House Democratic leaders are cautiously optimistic they have enough votes to pass a new campaign finance bill....[I]n the last week alone, the bill aimed at suppressing the Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling has picked up 14 co-sponsors, The measure now has 114 backers, including 11 members of the business-friendly Blue Dog Democrat Coalition....Campaign finance watchdog groups and the legislation’s main sponsors, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), are still wary about last-minute lobbying blitzes."

DISCLOSE Act Update

Wed, 26 May 2010 11:00:00 GMT

House leaders hope to vote on the bill this week, although no vote has been scheduled yet.

Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce's lobbyist predicts that the DISCLOSE Act will not get through the Senate: "'They clearly lack the necessary votes in the Senate,' [Chamber lobbyist Bruce] Josten said Tuesday morning....While Josten said the DISCLOSE bill may pass the House, he predicted that it will wither in the Senate. He said the motivations of the bill’s primary authors, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and ex-Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.), are clearly aimed at the chamber and other Republican-leaning organizations that invest heavily in political spending."

Unions Argue DISCLOSE Act Should Treat Corporations More Harshly

Wed, 26 May 2010 11:00:00 GMT

The Hill has this article on the assertion that the DISCLOSE Act favors unions over corporations. While some have argued that that is not the case (Rep. Van Hollen's spokesman, for instance), union officials seem to concede the point, and even argue that this disparate treatment is proper.

An excerpt:

A union spokesman said lawmakers and labor lobbyists are still discussing details of the legislation, but labor officials feel that the bill should take a tougher line against corporations because of their "disproportionate influence."

“We do agree that the final bill should treat corporations different than democratic organizations such as unions,” said Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO. “We hold the position that, among other things, the legislation should counter the excessive and disproportionate influence by big business and guarantee effective disclosure of who is paying for what.”

(It seems the reporter gave Mr. Goldstein the benefit of the doubt and attributed to him the "small d" "democratic.")

It's Campaign Season, Which Means We Have Artists Unhappy With Politicians Who Use Their Songs

Wed, 26 May 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The latest lawsuit involves Florida Governor Charlie Crist's use of the Talking Heads' song "Road To Nowhere" in a campaign ad. The New York Times notes, "The suit, which was filed on Monday in Federal District Court in Tampa, and first reported by Billboard, accuses Mr. Crist of copyright infringement and false endorsement, and seeks $1 million in damages." (David Byrne of the Talking Heads is represented by the same lawyer who handled Jackson Browne's suit against John McCain for his use of "Running On Empty.")

The Hill: Rules Committee preparing to finish work on campaign finance bill

Tue, 25 May 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Hill reports "The House Rules Committee is expected to meet this week to report a rule that would send a bipartisan campaign finance bill to the floor. The Rules Committee has put a deadline of Wednesday morning for adding amendments to the 'Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act,' or 'Disclose Act,' the bipartisan campaign finance bill sponsored by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Mike Castle (R-Del.)....Despite a lack of bipartisan backing for the bill, Democrats have included the legislation among their list of top priorities still left over for this year."

(Note: Rep. Castle is the sole Republican sponsor of this "bipartisan" bill.)

WSJ: GOP Takes Aim at Sestak

Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT

From the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog: "some GOP lawmakers are intensifying accusations that the White House may have broken the law by offering [Rep. Joe] Sestak a job to get him to drop his Senate bid....The White House was indisputably eager to clear the Democratic field for Specter, who had changed parties in part to avoid a likely defeat in the GOP primary. Sestak said several months ago the administration offered him a post if he dropped out, and he has repeated that several times since, including on Sunday’s talk shows....Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) says he or another lawmaker will file an ethics complaint against Sestak by July 4 if an outside group doesn’t do so first. In a letter to White House counsel Robert Bauer, Issa cited three provisions of Title 18, the federal criminal code, that he says may have been violated."

Rep. Issa's letter to Robert Bauer is here.

The Department of Justice will not appoint a special prosecutor, as requested by Rep. Issa.

Maryland AG Says Ehrlich's Radio Show Not A Campaign Contribution From the Radio Station

Mon, 24 May 2010 14:30:00 GMT

Back in April, the Maryland Democratic Party filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections claiming that "former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s weekly radio show should be considered an in-kind campaign donation." (See previous post here.)

Today comes word that "[t]he Maryland Attorney General's Office is advising state elections officials not to treat former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s weekly radio show on WBAL as an illegal campaign contribution by the station."

The letter from the Attorney General's office is here.

Boston Globe Notices the Political Party Provisions of DISCLOSE Act

Mon, 24 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Boston Globe reports "Nervous lawmakers anticipating an unstoppable flood of corporate and union money into the fall political campaigns have found one way to fight back: by loosening the rules for the major political parties, allowing them to exert more influence of their own. Little-noticed language in campaign finance bills would help parties and their candidates get around restrictions on working together on political campaigns — essentially allowing parties to tap into their deep well of funds to more directly help their favored candidates. Another provision would require broadcasters to offer political parties the same low advertising rates they give to candidates."

The Globe article quickly strays into campaign finance litigation territory, and it is clear that the authors have read the Campaign Legal Center's latest press release, which continues pushing the story-line that there is "a systematic, long-term litigation offensive mounted by deep-pocketed interests who are opposed to any type of regulation of political spending." (CLC's press release was emailed to "Editorial Board Writers and Editors and Interested Reporters" in the form of a memorandum last Friday.) The Campaign Legal Center's press release neglects to discuss the existence of a systematic, long-term litigation (and media) defensive mounted by deep-pocketed interests who support any type of regulation of political spending.

Wash. Post: Corporate PACs betting on Republicans to regain control of Congress

Sat, 22 May 2010 10:30:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "Corporate America is gambling on the minority in its political giving this year, assuming that Republicans will win big in the November midterm elections, an analysis of campaign finance reports shows. The pattern represents a distinct change from a year ago, when President Obama was sworn into office. Back then, corporate political action committees made a shift to the Democrats, giving 58 percent of their donations to the party. So far this year, 48 percent of the contributions from big business are going to the Democrats."

OMB Watch: Americans United Files IRS Complaint Against L.A. Church for Electioneering Through Social Media

Sat, 22 May 2010 10:30:00 GMT

OMB Watch has this piece on a recent complaint filed with the IRS against a church that encouraged its members to vote for a specific candidate: "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Oasis Church in Los Angeles. Americans United alleges that the church encouraged visitors to its website and followers on Twitter to support a specific political candidate. According to the complaint, one of the messages on the website said, "Our very own Alex Jones-Moreno, Director of Social Justice, is running for reelection. We are asking everyone who attends, serves, gives or is a part of Oasis Church to please cast your vote for Alex Jones-Moreno during the upcoming elections.'"

A Link Between the DISCLOSE Act and Unions' Planned Campaign Spending?

Fri, 21 May 2010 19:30:00 GMT

Yesterday, Democrats on the House Administration Committee defeated Republican proposals to extend the DISCLOSE Act's restrictions on corporate spending to labor unions via the Act's government contract and foreign control provisions. Today, The Hill reported that "[t]he American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund 'a massive incumbent protection program,' according to Gerry McEntee, president of the union," while "[t]he Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend $44 million in total on its 2010 election program."

The Daily Caller notes here that "Republicans are pointing to big union midterm spending budgets as the primary reason House Democrats refused to implement new campaign finance restrictions for labor groups on Thursday."

Committee on House Administration Amends DISCLOSE Act, Sends Bill to House Floor

Fri, 21 May 2010 09:30:00 GMT

On Thursday, the Committee on House Administration took up the DISCLOSE Act, considered amendments, and voted 5-3 (along party lines) to send the bill to the House floor. Some highlights:

The Committee adopted the "manager's amendment" mentioned here yesterday.
The Committee adopted an amendment raising the government contractor threshold. Reports vary as to what the revised amount is - one account reported $7 million, while another reported $1 million. (The original version of the bill prohibited corporations with government contracts worth $50,000 or more from engaging in election spending.) Republican amendments to extend these restrictions to government employee unions were defeated.
The Committee adopted an amendment requiring additional disclosure in robo-calls.

Video of the session is here. OMB Watch has additional details here.

The Hill: Vulnerable Democrats defend support for campaign finance legislation

Fri, 21 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From The Hill: "Several vulnerable Democrats are defending their support for a new campaign finance bill in the face of vigorous opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests....The House version of the bill [the DISCLOSE Act], which was marked up in the Administration Committee on Thursday afternoon, has 100 co-sponsors, nearly two dozen of whom face competitive races, according to The Cook Political Report....While the measure will likely pass the House, it could get hamstrung in the Senate, where it takes 60 votes to agree to move forward to consider a bill on the floor. Because of such strong opposition from business groups, if it gets stymied in the Senate, vulnerable House Democrats who co-sponsored or voted in favor of the bill could end up paying a political price without receiving any real net benefit from the measure this cycle."  

Mr. Citizens United, David Bossie, Opposes Kagan's SCOTUS Nomination

Fri, 21 May 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The President of Citizens United, David Bossie, has this op-ed in the Washington Post. He writes, "I oppose Kagan's nomination because I believe that every American has a fundamental right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to speak out for or against their elected representatives. Anyone who does not feel that way should not be put in a position of authority where she can restrict that right."

Bloomberg: Republicans Push Lawsuits to Unshackle Corporate Campaign Cash

Fri, 21 May 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From Bloomberg News: "The Republican Party and conservative advocacy groups, seeking to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s January decision throwing out a ban on corporate political spending, are urging judges across the U.S. to strike down other campaign-finance restrictions."

DISCLOSE Act Update

Thu, 20 May 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Center For Competitive Politics has information on a "manager's amendment" which will be introduced today to replace the current version of the DISCLOSE Act. CCP details the changes.

The Committee on House Administration will consider the bill this afternoon in a "mark-up" session. Republicans on the Committee issued The Hidden Consequences of the DISCLOSE Act.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are split on the behind-the-scenes politics of the DISCLOSE Act. According to Roll Call,

"Democratic top brass agree on the urgent need for a legal bulwark against what could be an unchecked flood of spending by outside groups this election season after a divided high court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, striking down many restrictions on televised political advertising.

But while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and most of her lieutenants want to pass the measure before the Memorial Day recess, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is urging caution. The Maryland Democrat’s camp is on edge that without some targeted fixes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association, in particular, will oppose the measure and exact political revenge on moderate Democrats who supported it.

What’s more, Hoyer has argued privately that there is no clear path forward for the bill in the Senate, raising the specter of forcing vulnerable Members to take a tough vote only to see the measure stall in the other chamber. That view gained credence in a Tuesday huddle of House and Senate Democratic leaders when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said he doesn’t believe the bill has the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster."

WSJ editorial: Chuck Schumer vs. Free Speech; The 'Disclose' Act would make election law even more incomprehensible and subject to selective enforcement for political gain.

Wed, 19 May 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal publishes this editorial today, which is co-authored by eight former FEC Commissioners (all Republican appointees), including Holtzman Vogel partner Tom Josefiak. They write:

"As former commissioners on the Federal Election Commission with almost 75 years of combined experience, we believe that the bill proposed on April 30 by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to 'blunt' the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC is unnecessary, partially duplicative of existing law, and severely burdensome to the right to engage in political speech and advocacy.

Moreover, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, or Disclose Act, abandons the longstanding policy of treating unions and businesses equally, suggesting partisan motives that undermine respect for campaign finance laws."

The former Commissioners also submitted these comments to the Committee on House Administration, which has initial jurisdiction over the DISCLOSE Act. More from the Center For Competitive Politics here.

Brad Smith & Jeff Patch: From Banning Books to Banning Blogs; How the DISCLOSE Act will restrict free speech

Wed, 19 May 2010 07:30:00 GMT

Brad Smith and Jeff Patch, both of the Center For Competitive Politics, have this piece in Reason.

The Hill: Democrats to tweak campaign bill after complaints over PACs

Wed, 19 May 2010 07:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports "House Democrats are planning changes to a campaign finance bill in response to attacks from business groups that argue the measure will sound the death knell for political action committees (PACs) run by foreign-owned companies like Anheuser-Busch. In a flurry of letters sent to members of the House Administration Committee, business groups are targeting a provision in the measure they argue would prevent thousands of Americans citizens from making voluntary contributions to their employers’ PACs. . . . House Democrats hope to mark up the bill in committee this week or next with the goal of passing the bill on the House floor by Memorial Day and the entire Congress by July 4 so the legislation can affect this year’s election."

House Democrats are also making changes to exempt bloggers and other Internet activities from their legislation. The change will fix an "unintentional error."

WSJ op-ed: The IRS Cracks Down on Small Charities

Wed, 19 May 2010 07:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal has this op-ed on the just-passed May 17 "deadline for charities with annual revenues of less than $25,000 to file Form 990 with the IRS....Until now, the smallest charities did not have to file 990s. But thanks to a seemingly minor provision of the 2006 Pension Protection Act, more than 400,000 additional nonprofits—nearly half of public charities registered with the IRS—now have to do so. If not, the IRS will take steps to revoke their tax-exempt status."

Kagan Tells Sen. Specter She Disagrees With Supreme Court's Citizens United Ruling

Tue, 18 May 2010 08:30:00 GMT

AP reports that Elena Kagan had a "closed-door exchange last week with Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., who voted against Kagan's confirmation as the government's top lawyer [Solicitor General] last year on the grounds she wouldn't talk about her legal views. Kagan made clear that she disagreed with a recent Supreme Court ruling [Citizens United] that has provoked intense partisan debate, according to Specter. 'She said she thought the court was not sufficiently deferential to Congress,' Specter said."

Can it be a coincidence that that is exactly what Sen. Specter wanted to hear? He has argued in the past that Congress deserves substantial deference when it comes to campaign finance legislation. See here, for example, in a Supreme Court brief submitted by Sen. Specter and other Senators in the Randell v. Sorrell (2005) case (regarding Vermont's contribution and expenditure limits, among other things):

"As both elected representatives and seasoned participants in the electoral process, amici believe they are entitled to broad deference in the regulation of federal elections. The Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), properly accorded legislatures such deference with regard to contribution limits. The Court should clarify that equivalent deference is warranted with respect to the expenditure limits at issue here and extend it to campaign finance reforms in general."

***

"[L]legislatures should be given substantial deference in the design and enactment of campaign finance laws."

WSJ: Advocacy Groups Lift Ad Spending

Mon, 17 May 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "Outside political groups have spent three times as much on political advertisements for the 2010 midterm elections as they had at the same point in 2006—an early sign both liberal and conservative groups plan to play a bigger role than ever in this year's congressional races. The nonpartisan Campaign Media Analysis Group reports that advocacy groups seeking to influence elections have spent a total of $62 million thus far in the 2009-10 election season....The spending rise by outside groups is largely the result of the proliferation of conservative advocacy groups in the last year. In the past few months, a half-dozen new conservative organizations have announced plans to raise tens of millions of dollars to try to influence this year's congressional elections....The spending generally isn't related to the Supreme Court decision that removed restrictions on corporate and union spending in campaigns, because most of the groups, with the exception of the Chamber of Commerce, rely on individual donors."

The Economist: Elena Kagan and free speech

Mon, 17 May 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Economist takes a look at Elena Kagan, her views on free speech, and Citizens United.

AP: Md. may regulate campaign use of social media

Mon, 17 May 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The AP reports "Political candidates in Maryland may be required to clearly identify their campaign when using social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. Jared DeMarinis, candidacy and campaign finance director for Maryland's Board of Elections, said he is drafting regulations now to require candidates clearly label their campaign's social media accounts, as they do with other forms of communication. DeMarinis said such rules will help protect the public from misinformation and candidates from people who may try to tarnish their reputation by establishing false accounts in their name....The Federal Election Commission has ruled that campaign regulations do not apply to most Internet activity, except for financial issues like paid political advertising on someone else's website. Several other states, however, are also considering whether they need new rules governing the use of social media in campaigns."

The Baltimore Sun approves of the effort to regulate.

USA Today Editorials on Financial Regulation and the Senators' Stock Ownership

Mon, 17 May 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From USA Today: "When senators act this week on financial regulations, the public has a right to expect they'll be voting purely on what's in the best interests of the nation. But how can the public be certain when 20 senators also have interests of their own, based on holdings — some in excess of $100,000 — in banking stocks? ... The simplest way to do away with lawmakers having to vote for or against their financial self-interest? They could shun individual stocks— as House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., does — and confine their equity holdings to diverse mutual funds. At a minimum, they should file electronic disclosures of holdings every 90 days. In an era of sky-high skepticism about Congress, voters could use more assurance that lawmakers are acting to pad the nation's prosperity, not their own portfolios."

The opposing view: "Instead of distorting conflict-of-interest principles and applying them to Congress in an attempt to fit round pegs in square holes, a better solution is to promote transparency. Currently, members of Congress (as well as all candidates for Congress) file annual reports of their assets and income. Those reports, due each May 15, disclose financial information for the previous calendar year. Perhaps earlier and more frequent disclosure is desirable, but it should be closely studied to determine whether it's practical and will be complete. In the Internet age, personal financial disclosure reports should be filed electronically and be publicly available in searchable and downloadable format....Online public disclosure will promote ethical behavior and educate voters when they next vote for their representative."

New York Times editorial on FEC Redistricting Decision

Sun, 16 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Last week, the FEC gave federal officeholders the green light to raise funds not subject to the limits and prohibitions of campaign finance law (i.e., "soft money") for their parties' redistricting efforts. (See here.)

Unsurprisingly, the New York Times editors denounced the decision. The Times editorial, though, gives us an interesting glimpse into the mindset of the FEC's harshest critics. It turns out that the real problem with the FEC is that it has never lived up to its reason for being: according to the Times, "The F.E.C. was created to protect the public interest in elections."

So, what is the role of the FEC? Is it supposed to enforce and administer the campaign finance laws, as they are written, making policy judgments to the extent that is required because Congressional instructions (i.e., the statute) are unclear? Or is the FEC supposed to serve as some sort of "public interest" watchdog, protecting us all from "party insiders" so that we don't have to be "cynical" about the election process? The New York Times says it's the latter. Or perhaps it's nothing more than a "good rant," as Allison Hayward suggests.

Does the DISCLOSE Act Reverse the FEC's "Internet Exemption"?

Fri, 14 May 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Supporters say no, it doesn't. Opponents say yes, it does. And if it does, was it intended to do so?

The Center For Competitive Politics has a run-down of this latest dispute. Rick Hasen notes the matter here.

WSJ: Congress Reins In Its Perks for Travel

Fri, 14 May 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "House leaders are revamping the rules for lawmakers and aides who travel overseas on official government business, forbidding them to fly in business class on shorter trips, use taxpayer funds to buy gifts or pocket unspent cash, among other changes. The new travel rules, proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, also strengthen accountability and oversight for taxpayer-funded trips. But the rules don't require lawmakers to disclose some of the biggest costs of such trips, including travel by military plane, which can double or triple the total costs....Senate aides said that chamber isn't planning amendments to its travel rules, which are comparable to the old, looser House rules."

Wash. Post: Disclose Act could deter involvement in elections

Thu, 13 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

In this "Influence Industry" column, Tim Farnam notes:

"If the legislation, called the Disclose Act, lived up to its name, it might be uncontroversial....

The problem is that the bill in Congress goes beyond disclosure, and even its authors say that it could, in practice, limit the involvement of corporations and unions in elections. 'The deterrent effect should not be underestimated,' Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in unveiling the bill.

The bill would also create a number of expensive barriers for corporations, unions and other outside groups....

The bill would require groups putting ads on the air to include a database of spending on their Web sites, an expense that could deter smaller groups. The same information is reported to the government and is available to the public....

The bill would become effective 30 days after enactment, and sponsors hope it would change rules for the midterm elections in November. That would allow little time for the FEC to write regulations....

The effect will be great uncertainty about the law ahead of the election, however, and corporations that are often risk-averse when it comes to politics will probably stay on the sidelines -- which detractors say is precisely the point."

The Hill: Capuano bill puts ‘Citizens fix' at risk

Wed, 12 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Hill reports "House Democrats are scrambling over how to handle legislation forcing companies to hold a shareholder vote to approve annual corporate political spending. The bill is backed by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), who would like it added to campaign finance reform legislation Democrats are moving through the House in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which removed restrictions on corporate and union political spending. But doing so could cost the campaign finance bill the support of one of its few Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Mike Castle (Del.), who is running for the Senate in his state this year. GOP support for the campaign finance bill is crucial to Democrats if the legislation is to go anywhere....Castle, who is also a member of the Financial Services panel, said he would 'almost certainly' back away from the Disclose Act if it were added to that legislation. 'I think the federal government needs to stay out of corporate governance,' Castle said."

Where Does Elena Kagan Stand On Campaign Finance Issues?

Wed, 12 May 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "neither Elena Kagan’s oral argument in the case [Citizens United v. FEC], which the court rejected in its sweeping January decision, nor her limited scholarly writings on the subject, have given supporters of strict campaign finance rules much confidence that she shares their views — or Obama’s — on the subject....They have fixated on a largely overlooked passage in a 1996 article in the University of Chicago law review in which Kagan seems to diminish as anomalous the Supreme Court’s ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the 1990 case [overruled in Citizens United], which allowed governments to bar corporations from paying for ads supporting or opposing candidates."

The Wall Street Journal examines Kagan's role in Citizens United.

CCP on Disclosure Requirements

Tue, 11 May 2010 11:30:00 GMT

The Center For Competitive Politics has this piece on the disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act. Included is an extensive analysis of the proposed legislation, along with a series of revealing blog comments posted by current White House Counsel Bob Bauer in 2006-2007 (when he was in private practice, and maintaining his "Soft Money Hard Law" blog) that question the value of campaign finance disclosure.

Federal Judge Applies Citizens United Decision To Minnesota's Campaign Laws

Tue, 11 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports "In a ruling with broad implications for political advertising, a federal judge on Friday declared unconstitutional Minnesota's restrictions on spending by corporations to support or oppose state and local political candidates....The ruling was widely expected because it conforms with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision clearing the way for such corporate spending in federal races."

We previously noted the case (MN Chamber of Commerce v. Gaertner) here.

Wash. Post Editorial on DISCLOSE Act

Sun, 09 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post's editors "enthusiastically support" the DISCLOSE Act's new disclosure requirements. As they assert, "Corporate money in politics is bad enough. Secret corporate money is intolerable."

NYT: States Move to Allow Overseas and Military Voters to Cast Ballots by Internet

Sun, 09 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "Nearly three million overseas and military voters from at least 33 states will be permitted to cast ballots over the Internet in November using e-mail or fax, in part because of new regulations proposed last month by the federal agency that oversees voting....The coming election will be the first in which Internet voting will play a major role, now that 33 states have passed measures to allow their voters to cast ballots over the Internet. Critics of the increased use of Internet voting say the commission is violating federal law by not allowing enough time for public comment on the guidelines and by circumventing the technical board that is supposed to review any such new regulations....Some lawmakers have vowed to slow the shift toward Internet voting. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, are working on legislation to establish a two-year moratorium on the electronic submission of ballots until stronger security standards are established. Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has a bill pending that would in effect ban Internet voting."

FEC Allows "Soft Money" Fundraising For Redistricting Efforts

Sat, 08 May 2010 10:00:00 GMT

For the first time since BCRA became effective in November 2002, federal officeholders have the FEC's approval to raise funds not subject to the limits and prohibitions of campaign finance law (i.e., "soft money") for their parties' redistricting efforts.

The FEC issued Advisory Opinion 2010-03 to the National Democratic Redistricting Trust, unanimously concluding that "the Trust's proposed activities are not in connection with an election and therefore Members of Congress may solicit funds on behalf of the Trust that do not comply with the Act‟s amount limitations and source prohibitions." In a series of prior Advisory Opinions, the FEC had declined to conclude that redistricting matters were not "in connection with an election." (Several Democratic Commissioners previously took the position that such matters are "in connection with an election.")

However, in the new opinion, the six Commissioners state, "not all activities that may have some indirect effect on elections are encompassed by the 'in connection with' standard of BCRA." (This statement is a rejection of a position long-taken by the pro-regulatory, campaign finance "reform" voices.)

The FEC further explains, " The Trust seeks to engage in litigation over the electoral process that will govern how future elections are conducted, but its activities will not be a means to participate in those elections. BCRA does not explicitly address whether redistricting activities are 'in connection with' elections. Although the outcome of redistricting litigation often has political consequences, the Commission concludes that spending on such activity is sufficiently removed that it is not 'in connection with' the elections themselves."

The bottom line? "[A] Member of Congress may solicit unlimited funds on behalf of the Trust to defray the legal expenses associated with the Trust's redistricting efforts."

The New York Times reports here. The Washington Post reports here.

CQ Politics/Roll Call: FEC: Members Can Raise Soft Money for Redistricting Activities.

The Campaign Legal Center, whose arguments the FEC rejected, objects to the AO here. (The CLC's post notes that the group's Executive Director, Gerald Hebert, did not participate in the CLC's efforts to urge the FEC to reject the advisory opinion request. Mr. Hebert "served as General Counsel to IMPAC 2000, the National Redistricting Project for Congressional Democrats.")

BNA Money & Politics: FEC Advisory Ruling Allows Lawmakers To Raise ‘Soft Money’ for Redistricting.

Brad Smith on Citizens United, the DISCLOSE Act, and Corporate Spending

Sat, 08 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Professor Smith's article appears in the American Spectator: "The fact that virtually all of these proposed 'fixes' have been sponsored by Democrats, with the aim of silencing what they perceive to be the pro-Republican voices of the business community, merely illustrates once again the basic problem with campaign finance reform that Citizens United sought to alleviate: the desire to manipulate the law for partisan purposes."

BNA: Republicans Strongly Oppose DISCLOSE Act At Initial Congressional Hearing on Measure

Fri, 07 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

BNA Money & Politics reports "Republicans on the House Administration Committee May 6 expressed vehement opposition to new campaign finance legislation (H.R. 5175) responding to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission....'The sections of the bill dealing with government contractors and TARP recipients exclude unions, thereby treating corporations and unions differently,' [GOP Rep.] Lungren said in an opening statement at the hearing. He and other Republicans also charged that a $600-per-year threshold for disclosure of donors to an organization spending money on campaigns was written deliberately to exclude disclosing most union members, whose annual dues are below that mark. Committee Democrats, on the other hand, said the Republicans were raising such issues on details of the measure because they did not support the larger goal of disclosure."

Video of the hearing is available here (via Eric Brown's Political Activity Law).

The Hill: Multinationals wary of Citizens ‘fix’

Wed, 05 May 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From The Hill: "Lobbyists for a number of multinational corporations with headquarters outside the United States says language in the Democrats’ proposed campaign finance reform bill could send a 'chilling signal' to foreign investors and infringe upon legitimate electoral participation....While foreign nationals cannot contribute to campaigns or coordinate political spending, Democrats are worried that U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies will now give vastly more....Accordingly, Schumer and Van Hollen included a provision in the bill that bans political spending by companies with 20 percent or more of their voting shares controlled by a foreign entity; whose corporate boards’ majorities are made up of foreign nationals; or that have a foreign national directing their U.S. operations....Among foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries, that specific measure in the bill has raised constitutional concerns as well as calls for equal treatment alongside U.S.-owned companies."

John Sullivan's FEC Nomination - Still on Hold

Tue, 04 May 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Center For Public Integrity has this update on the status of John Sullivan's nomination to the FEC. Senators Feingold and McCain have maintained their holds on the nomination, preventing a Senate vote.

IBD: Unions, Liberal Groups Grumble About Dems' Campaign Ad Bill

Tue, 04 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Investors Business Daily reports "Liberal groups are experiencing buyer's remorse over Democrats' proposed campaign finance bill. Restrictions they thought would hit only corporations are broad enough to include them too. Those groups, led by Big Labor, had clamored for new legislation. While still publicly supportive, they are quietly lobbying lawmakers to have themselves excluded from the bill....Another Big Labor source explained that they just don't think the same rules should apply to them. 'We're all for disclosure, but we don't think corporations should be treated as individuals or in the same regard as labor unions as membership organizations,' the source said. 'We speak for our members. CEOs don't speak for anybody but themselves.' ... [Sen.] Schumer openly conceded that a core goal is to simply discourage corporations and other politically active groups from running ads at all."

DISCLOSE Act Includes Expansion of "Lowest Unit Charge" Rules

Mon, 03 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports "Television station owners are mobilizing against a new Democratic campaign finance bill that would force them to slash prices for many political advertisements. The National Association of Broadcasters confirmed late last week that it will oppose provisions of the DISCLOSE Act, an attempt by House and Senate Democrats — and a handful of House Republicans — to roll back elements of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission....The bill would require television, cable and radio outlets to offer the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee and other political party committees the same deeply discounted price — the 'lowest unit rate,' in industry jargon — that television stations are now required to offer only to political candidates. Although advertising rates fluctuate dramatically, veteran media buyers estimate that candidates’ campaigns often pay two-thirds of the retail price that regular television advertisers such as McDonald’s and Coca-Cola pay."

WSJ editorial: Free Speech for Some; Unions get a pass from new campaign finance disclosure rules.

Mon, 03 May 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal editorializes: "Backers say the measure [the DISCLOSE Act] will force disclosure of corporate money in politics, but the real goal is to muzzle criticism—at least from some people. The legislation, sponsored by Democrats Charles Schumer in the Senate and Chris Van Hollen in the House, would prevent government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of the Troubled Asset Relief Program from spending money on U.S. elections. It would also ban U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies from making political contributions if a foreign national owns 20% or more of the voting shares in the company, or if foreign nationals comprise a majority of the board of directors....But, under the bill, unions with government contracts would not be subject to the same restrictions as corporations....The legislation also fails to impose limits on the foreign involvement of unions with global reach, such as the Service Employees International Union or the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers....[D]espite the good governance rhetoric, this legislation is not about muzzling spenders generally so much as specific spenders who don't always salute the Democratic agenda."

AP: Obama: Pass campaign finance rules

Sun, 02 May 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From the AP: "President Barack Obama on Saturday pressed Congress for swift action on measures to restrict political advertising by corporations and labor unions, saying that 'no less than the integrity of our democracy' is at stake....With the November midterm elections looming, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that it was important that Congress act swiftly to ensure that the voices of the American people aren't drowned out by deep-pocketed corporations and other special interests....'Now, of course, every organization has every right in this country to make their voices heard,' Obama said. 'But the American people also have the right to know when some group like 'Citizens for a Better Future' is actually funded entirely by 'Corporations for Weaker Oversight.'' ... [L]awmakers said their goal is to have the legislation on the books by July 4, to take effect before Nov. 2 election."

WSJ op-ed: The ACLU Approves Limits on Speech; On campaign contributions, a dramatic about-face.

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:00:00 GMT

Floyd Abrams, Ira Glasser, and Joel Gora have this comment in the Wall Street Journal on the ACLU's new campaign finance policy. They write:

"for almost 40 years the ACLU was the one major liberal organization that opposed campaign finance restrictions as violating the First Amendment. Although it supported disclosure of large contributions to candidates and public financing of campaigns to facilitate more speech, it resolutely opposed any limits on campaign giving and spending—including limits 'voluntarily' accepted as the price of taking public funding....Until now. Over the objections of some key senior staff and by a very narrow vote, the ACLU National Board of Directors rejected core aspects of that longstanding policy earlier this month. The organization will now accept 'reasonable' government limitations on contributions to candidates....Incumbents love contribution limits and public financing schemes that require challengers to accept contribution limits because the less speech challengers have, the better off incumbents are. In effect, under the ACLU's new policy, insurgent candidates will be forced to waive their right to more speech as a condition of accepting public financing, which will never be set at levels sufficient to generate a viable challenge....[W]e've come to this: The premier First Amendment organization in America now favors limitations on the First Amendment in the area in which all agree it must have its most powerful application—political speech during election campaigns."

More Media Coverage of DISCLOSE Act

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Los Angeles Times: Democrats' campaign-finance plan: Put the donors on camera ("If corporate and union officials want to pour money into election campaigns, they would have to disclose who they are -- and perhaps appear in an ad -- under legislation introduced in Congress on Thursday.").

USA Today has "for" and "against" editorials.

CNN: Campaign finance proposal targets corporations.

Brad Smith, AOL News: Campaign Finance Bill -- A Striking Display of Partisanship ("The legislation would ban government contractors from spending on politics (but not public employee unions dependent on government funds). It would restrict U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies from airing candidate ads (but not unions with heavy international membership). The bill gives candidates a windfall subsidy to respond to independent ads -- often by local, grassroots groups -- by forcing television stations to sell candidates and parties the cheapest ad rate available.").

NPR: Democrats Introduce Campaign Finance Bill.

CQ Politics: FEC Delays Redistricting Ruling

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:30:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports "A deadlocked Federal Election Commission has postponed a decision on whether members of Congress can raise soft money for a partisan redistricting committee. They’ll try again May 7. At issue is whether the National Democratic Redistricting Trust will be banned from raising uncapped 'soft money' with the help of federal lawmakers and candidates. The commission’s Republicans said they favored allowing that kind of fundraising."

We previously noted the NDRT advisory opinion request here and here.

Politico: Dems launch Citizens United bill

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:30:00 GMT

From Politico: "Democratic senators took to the steps of the Supreme Court on Thursday morning to introduce legislation intended to blunt the impact of the court’s January decision, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which they said will open the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special interest spending on campaign advertising in the 2010 congressional midterm elections....The legislation includes provisions to limit political ad spending by companies that received government bailouts from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as well as those with government contracts or that are more than 20 percent foreign owned. The legislation will also give political parties access to reduced rate air time to respond to special interest ads, and heighten disclosure requirements, forcing groups airing certain ads to name their top five donors on screen and on their websites, as well as possibly forcing corporate CEO’s to appear in the ads....Citizens United’s president David Bossie, who lingered outside the crush of reporters gathered to hear the Democratic lawmakers, afterward proclaimed the bill a cynical effort to tamp down advertising targeting their reelection campaigns. 'This should be seen by the American people — and will be seen by the American people — as nothing than that – an incumbent protection bill,' said Bossie, adding that the bill also 'chills free speech. And this is all about free speech.'"

The Senate bill is here.

The House bill is here (via Rick Hasen).

Los Angeles Times: Senators seek corporate campaign rules.

Broadcasting & Cable: Senators Introduce Bill to Toughen Disclosure Rules For Special Interest Campaign Ads.

Citizens United Legislation To Be Released Today

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico reports that Sen. Schumer and Senate supporters "are planning to unveil their bill at a press conference Thursday morning in front of the Supreme Court, and have set the goal of passing their bill by July 4 — which still might make it difficult to enact the legislation in time to affect spending on the 2010 midterm congressional elections. The House sponsors, who will introduce their bill inside the Capitol a few hours later, have set no such timeline, but [Rep.] Van Hollen has said he’s hopeful the bill could be implemented in time to affect newly legal ad spending in 2010 congressional races."

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Doe v. Reed; Petitioner Privacy Debated

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Wednesday that the Constitution offers protection to individuals who fear harassment over their signature on referendum petitions, with the toughest questioning coming from Justice Antonin Scalia....In a turnabout from the court's usual deliberations, Scalia teamed with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor as Bopp's sharpest inquisitors. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. were more challenging of Washington Attorney General Robert M. McKenna, who said the state had a legitimate interest in making sure the petition process was open to the public."

The session's most-quotable moment came from Justice Scalia: "The fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," Scalia said. "And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls."

A transcript of the oral argument is available here.

Colorado's Response to Citizens United: "Independent Expenditure Committees"

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:30:00 GMT

Law Week Colorado and the Denver Business Journal have reports on Colorado legislators' Citizens United response.

"The proposed bill would force corporations and unions that make independent expenditures of $1,000 or more to register an 'independent expenditure committee' with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. These committee’s finances would be made searchable on that agency’s website."

CQ Politics: FEC Leaves Redistricting Question Open

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:00:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "The Federal Election Commission is keeping its options open as it heads into a Thursday meeting when it is slated to decide whether members of Congress can raise soft money for a partisan redistricting committee. On Monday, the FEC released two opposing draft advisory opinions - one that would allow and one that would forbid - the National Democratic Redistricting Trust from using federal lawmakers and candidates to raise unlimited funds for the organization."

WSJ: Disclosure of Donors Draws Fire from Left

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports:

"Passing a new campaign-finance law before November's elections is a top priority for the White House and Democrats, but they are running into objections from some of their own supporters.

The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.

Democrats say the disclosure provision has a particular target: It aims to discourage companies from funding election efforts by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. . . .

But advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.

The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed."

Seattle Times: Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:00:00 GMT

From the Seattle Times: "The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public. The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants 'everything but marriage' benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed. Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act."

Politico: Campaign bundlers shake money trees

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Politico surveys the top five lobbyist "bundlers," who "together raised at least $1,720,550 in just over a year."

Are these the top five bundlers overall? Probably not, but only federal lobbyists who bundle money for candidates and parties are subject to mandatory disclosure, and the prying eyes of "watchdog" groups and reporters.

Politico Outlines Dems' Citizens United Bill, the DISCLOSE Act

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Politico: Democrats move to undercut Citizens United ruling.

DOD Regulations Add Another Disclaimer Wrinkle To Campaign Ads

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Sen. Arlen Specter argues that Rep. Joe Sestak's first TV ad violates Pentagon regulations by using pictures of the former Navy admiral in uniform without a disclaimer. Those rules allow retired soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to discuss their service and display uniformed images of themselves in political communications - as long as they attach a label that says 'military images and information do not imply endorsement by DOD [Department of Defense] or service branch.' ... Sestak dismisses the flap over a few words on a TV screen as a trivial distraction....Pentagon regulations have long barred use of government video or still pictures in political ads, and active-duty personnel cannot participate in politics in uniform. In 2008, a directive said retired military personnel could use their service in political material as long as they stipulated that the Pentagon was not endorsing them, and as long as the military experience was not the primary focus of the ad."

USA Today: U.S. Chamber lashes out at Democrats' campaign-finance restrictions

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:30:00 GMT

From USA Today: "A bill requiring more disclosure of campaign spending by corporations and unions hasn't been introduced yet, but it already is drawing fire from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which plans to pump at least $50 million into November's congressional elections....In a statement issued Friday, Chamber President Tom Donohue called Van Hollen's proposal a 'thinly veiled attempt to hijack the political playing field to his advantage on the eve of midterm elections.'"

OMB Watch: Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From OMB Watch: "On April 15, the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two volunteer groups challenging part of Washington State's grassroots lobbying disclosure law as a violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and petition. In Many Cultures, One Message v. Clements, the groups claim that having to register as grassroots lobbying organizations is burdensome, and revealing information about their financial supporters could leave donors open to threats from opponents."

John Fund in WSJ: Wisconsin and the Voter Fraud Agenda

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:00:00 GMT

John Fund has this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: "An attempt to hijack the state's election laws and open the door for voter fraud failed at the last minute this week in Wisconsin's legislature. But threats to ballot integrity continue in other states, and Congress may rush to pass ill-conceived legislation this year that would only sow confusion and increase the potential for chaos on a national level....Sadly, it looks as if Congress could follow Wisconsin's example instead. The Milwaukee Police Department's report on the 2004 election concluded 'the one thing that could eliminate a large percentage of the fraud' would be to end same-day registration. Today, eight other states have some form of Election Day voter registration: Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wyoming. Montana began Election Day voter registration in 2006, North Carolina in 2007, and Iowa in 2008. But Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, a Democrat, has introduced federal legislation to mandate same-day registration in every state, claiming the system has worked well in his state. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is readying a bill to override the election laws of all 50 states and require universal voter registration—which would automatically register anyone on key government lists. This is a move guaranteed to create duplicate registrations, register some illegal aliens, and sow confusion."

Huff. Post: An Independent Look at Campaign Finance Regulation

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:30:00 GMT

Harry Kresky has this piece at Huffington Post: "Independents, now more than forty percent of the American electorate, are challenging the domination of our politics and government by the two major parties. They seek full participation and structural solutions to the hyper-partisanship in Washington and state capitals across the country. A series of recent federal court decisions reflect the progress that is being made to reposition 'non-party' players who seek the right to compete effectively in the political process."

CQ Politics: House Campaign Overhaul Strategy Taking Shape

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:30:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "With their campaign finance bill due to be introduced next week, House Democrats revealed on Thursday how they plan to sell it to colleagues and the public. According to a memo obtained by Roll Call, legislation by Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would beef up campaign finance disclosure, political coordination and disclaimer requirements, while imposing new limits on political involvement by government contractors and foreign governments. 'Due to the appearance of corruption and possible misuse of taxpayer funds, government contractors with a contract worth more than $50,000 will not be allowed to spend money on elections,' the memo states. 'Similarly, [Troubled Asset Relief Program] recipients who have not paid back government funds are also banned from spending.' The memo dubs Van Hollen’s bill the DISCLOSE Act, an acronym for 'Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.'"

Rose Institute Report on State Redistricting Processes

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Rose Institute of State and Local Government recently published this report, Redistricting in America: A State-by-State Analysis, which "provides a comprehensive and up-to-date survey of legislative and congressional redistricting systems in each of the 50 states." Their website also includes an interactive map for quick reference.

Radio Shows and Maryland Candidates

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:30:00 GMT

From the Baltimore Sun: "The state's attorney general's office will review whether former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s weekly radio show should be considered an in-kind campaign donation, a spokeswoman said. The State Board of Elections requested an opinion Tuesday after Maryland's Democratic Party accused Ehrlich of breaking campaign finance rules by continuing to host a WBAL talk show after announcing his candidacy for governor. The airtime should be viewed as a campaign donation from station owner Hearst Radio, according to a letter from the party....[Mark S.] Miller [WBAL Radio's news director] also noted that [current Maryland Governor Martin] O'Malley regularly appeared on the twice-monthly 'Ask the Mayor' show in 2006 when he was Baltimore's top elected official and also running for governor. He did not report that time as an in-kind donation, campaign finance reports show. [Susan] Turnbull [the chairwoman of the Maryland Democratic Party] drew a distinction between O'Malley's previous show and Ehrlich's current program, arguing that O'Malley was providing factual information related to his job as mayor while Ehrlich provides political commentary to promote his candidacy."

Miami Herald: Ethical question forces Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to cancel fundraiser

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:30:00 GMT

From the Miami Herald: "Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, scrapped an upcoming fundraiser after a Capitol Hill newspaper questioned the invite that asked participants to join an advisory council -- for a $2,500 campaign contribution....Watchdog groups say the offer appears to violate House ethics rules that say a lawmaker should not 'sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the member in the member's official capacity.'"

CQ Politics: Campaign Finance Bill Finds a GOP Cosponsor in House, but Not in Senate

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:30:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "Legislation aimed at limiting the impact of a Supreme Court decision that rolled back campaign spending constraints on corporations has attracted one Republican cosponsor in the House — but no joiners so far in the Senate. Rep. Michael N. Castle, R-Del., joined Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., in a joint statement Monday endorsing legislation expected to be introduced as soon as this week."

The Hill: "Senate Democrats have been unable to find a GOP co-sponsor of highly anticipated campaign finance reform legislation, delaying the rollout of a measure aimed at counteracting a landmark Supreme Court ruling."

Unions Seek to Qualify Third Party in North Carolina

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:30:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "Frustrated liberals and labor organizers are taking aim at the Democratic Party, rushing to gather enough signatures to start a third party that they believe could help oust three Democratic congressmen....The nascent third party, North Carolina First, could endanger the Democratic congressional majority by siphoning votes from incumbent Democrats in November's midterm election, potentially enabling Republican challengers to pick up the seats....SEANC [State Employees Association of North Carolina] and its parent group, the Service Employees International Union [SEIU], possibly the nation's most politically powerful labor union, are funding the effort, which was announced April 8. In the days since, they have hired more than 100 canvassers who are rounding up the signatures needed to qualify as a third party on the general election ballot....The unions are giving voice to progressive activists across this state who say they feel betrayed by Reps. Larry Kissell, Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre, Democrats who sided with Republicans against the health-care bill....Establishing the new party will be difficult, however. The group must gather signatures from 85,000 registered voters by June 1 to qualify for the November ballot. Then it has one month to nominate candidates; organizers said they had not identified any."

NYT editorial: The Court, Money and Politics

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The latest from the New York Times editors, this time on RNC v. FEC.

CQ Politics: Citizens United Foes Seek a McCain Stand-In

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "With the usual GOP suspect — Arizona Sen. John McCain — on an apparent hiatus from the cause, the hunt is on for a new Republican campaign finance champion in the Senate, where a soon-to-be-introduced Democratic counterpunch to a recent Supreme Court decision faces its stiffest competition. By early next week, House and Senate Democrats are expected to introduce a bill designed to blunt Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which tossed out most restrictions on corporate political ad buys. While language is still being finalized, the measure will more than likely expand disclosure requirements for corporations and nonprofit organizations looking to take advantage of the more liberal regulatory landscape."

Politico: Citizens United answer almost ready

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) are putting the final touches on a bill that would restrict the types of companies that could air campaign ads and require those that did to disclose precisely how much they spent on such ads – and possibly force their CEO’s to appear in them."

Unlike many reports, the author includes the unstated motivation behind the bill: "Their goal is partly to discourage the types of previously prohibited spending legalized when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in January ruled in favor of the conservative non-profit group Citizens United, which had argued that its free speech rights were impinged by decades of law restricting political spending by corporations, unions and other organizations."

Senate Candidate Removed From PA Ballot After Signature Challenge

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports "In his challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter, Rep. Joe Sestak will get the one-on-one matchup he wanted after knocking another Democratic Senate contender off the primary ballot. Commonwealth Court Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt ruled Tuesday that Joseph Vod Varka, a retired machinist from Robinson, was ineligible for the May 18 primary after finding that he had not submitted enough valid signatures. His nominating petitions were filed with 2,590 signatures, but the Sestak campaign successfully argued that nearly 700 of them were invalid. That left the long-shot challenger, who said he was funding his campaign solely with his Social Security payments, short of the 2,000 needed to secure a spot on the ballot."

USA Today: Technology, social networking transforms giving

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:30:00 GMT

From USA Today: "The success of the Red Cross text-messaging program is part of a potentially dramatic shift in the way charities and non-profit groups organize and raise money. They are experimenting with smart phone applications, social media such as Twitter and Facebook and other emerging technology. Some are finding younger, first-time donors who are more likely to give via messaging or Facebook than by writing a check after opening a traditional solicitation delivered to a mailbox outside their door."

CQ Politics: Vacancy Reignites Campaign Finance Battle

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "Long the stuff of dry inside-the-Beltway machinations, campaign finance law may take center stage this summer during the confirmation of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee .... Obama signaled that he will be looking for a nominee who shares his disdain for the Citizens United case. Following Justice John Paul Stevens’ announcement that he will retire at the end of this term, Obama said that he would look for a candidate with 'an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of the law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people' and who understands that 'powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.' ... Republicans, meanwhile, generally support the [Citizens United] decision — and will do their best to keep anyone who would overturn it off the Supreme Court."

An Independent Expenditure Campaign - Paid for by the Candidate's Brother

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports "Tennessee House candidate Ron Kirkland (R) will report a whopping $857,600 in receipts in his first fundraising report this week, but that filing won’t cover the most interesting campaign account devoted to getting Kirkland elected. Kirkland is benefiting from a robust independent expenditure effort that so far has spent more than $135,000 on his behalf. It’s being led by Kirkland’s brother, Robert."

While much of the scrutiny here will likely fall on whether the effort is truly "independent," it is also worth asking why a candidate's brother would need to undertake an independent spending program in the first place. Would there really be a risk of corruption if the brother, or any other immediate family member, contributed the same amount of money directly to the candidate?

NYT: Democrats Push to Require Corporate Campaign Disclosure

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "The White House and leading Democrats in Congress are close to proposing legislation that would force private companies and groups to disclose their behind-the-scenes financial involvement in political campaigns and advertising, officials involved in the discussions said Monday. One provision would require the chief executive of any company or group that is the main backer of a campaign advertisement to personally appear in television and radio spots to acknowledge the sponsorship, the officials said....Democrats in Congress, led in the Senate by Charles E. Schumer of New York and in the House by Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, could announce details of the plan as early as this week. They are trying to get a Republican in each chamber to sign on as a co-sponsor but plan to move ahead even without bipartisan support, the officials said....The Democrats’ proposal would require corporations or groups like labor unions, advocacy groups and so-called 527 organizations that are involved in political expenditures to identify all their financial donors or set up separate accounts to handle political spending and identify the donors to that account....One proposal would have required a company to get approval from its shareholders before spending money on political advertisements or campaigns. For jurisdictional and political reasons, officials said, Democrats decided to leave that issue out of the legislation being drafted."

NYT editorial: Big Money’s Alarming Political Edge

Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The New York Times has this alarmist editorial promoting new campaign finance legislation: "Time is short for Congress to deal with the damage from the Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations and unions to spend without limit in attacking or boosting candidates for federal office. To avoid an unbridled flood of cash in this year’s elections, Congress must impose full transparency on precisely where the money comes from — so corporations and unions can no longer hide behind euphemistic labels to finance candidate drives....Proponents of the deep-pocketed special-interest spending invited by the high court’s Citizens United ruling already are complaining that the legislation is a free-speech encroachment. But that argument does not wash constitutionally, especially since the court, in its ruling, endorsed mandated disclosure as a healthy alternative."

Apparently the Times does not recognize the possibility that new disclosure legislation could be both constitutional and an encroachment on free speech.

Two New Tools To Track Political Spending

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Center For Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) is tracking independent expenditures, and the Sunlight Foundation has combined databases of federal and state-level contributions.

Iowa Enacts Post-Citizens United Law

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:30:00 GMT

IowaPolitics.com reports "Iowa on Thursday became one of the first states in the nation to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which found that corporate spending in elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment....The law requires corporations to obtain an affirmative board vote before ads can run for or against a candidate or issue. The ad must also contain information on who paid for it, the name and address of the corporation, and the name of the chief executive officer. Expenditures over $750 must be filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board within 48 hours of the time the cost is incurred, and violations are serious misdemeanors."

Governor Culver's press release is here. The bill, Senate File 2354, is available here.

While the press account above focuses on the new law's impact on corporations, the law applies to "entities" making independent expenditures, which includes labor unions.

Center For Individual Rights Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Center For Individual Rights announced that it "filed suit today on behalf of a group of Kinston, North Carolina voters and prospective candidates in local elections who claim Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 exceeds Congress' authority under the Fifth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to approve a Kinston voter referendum to switch to non-partisan voting and the Kinston City Council voted not to appeal that ruling. Holder blocked the change on the basis of his authority under Section 5. Section 5 prohibits certain state and local jurisdictions (mostly in the south) from implementing changes in voting procedures unless they first obtain federal pre-clearance that the proposed changes do not have the purpose or effect of reducing the ability of citizens to vote on the basis of their race."

National Review's blog, The Corner, has more.

GAO Publishes "2009 Lobbying Disclosure" Report

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The GAO has published its report on lobbying disclosure in 2009, and it is available here. These reports are required annually by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA), and focus on compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

The Center For Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) has some observations on the report here. And, as Eric Brown noted at Political Activity Law blog, the U.S. Attorney's Office has not pursued any civil actions or settlements with non-complying lobbyists since 2005, "although it is following up on hundreds of referrals each year."

Bloomberg: Secret Funding of U.S. Chamber’s Political Ads May Be Outlawed

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From Bloomberg News: "U.S. companies would lose their ability to secretly finance political advertising run by organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce under a bill being considered by Democratic lawmakers. The proposed legislation is a response to a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on political ads."

RNC Seeks Supreme Court Review of "Soft Money" Decision

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:00:00 GMT

The Daily Caller reports that the Republican National Committee will file paperwork seeking Supreme Court review of the "soft money" case it recently lost at the district court level (RNC v. FEC): "The Republican National Committee and Chairman Michael Steele are continuing their push to allow corporations and individuals to make unlimited donations known as 'soft money' to national committees. On Friday, Steele and the RNC appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal court denied the RNC permission to raise soft money for state elections and congressional redistricting, according to Federal Election Commission records."

The RNC's Notice of Appeal is here. More from USA Today here.

New Campaign Finance Law in Arizona

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:00:00 GMT

The Arizona Capitol Times reports "Gov. Jan Brewer on April 1 signed a bill that requires extensive disclosure of campaign spending by corporations and labor unions....The bill, H2788, requires corporations and labor unions to file campaign finance reports with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office within one day of spending an aggregate of $5,000 on a statewide race, $2,500 in a legislative race and $1,000 in a local or county race."

The new law is available here.

Tea Party Group as Grassroots Lobbyist?

Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Baltimore Sun reports "A Democratic blogger is stirring an online discussion over whether Maryland's main tea party group is operating out of bounds by pushing for state legislation without having registered as a lobbying organization....Dave Schwartz, the Maryland state director for the organization, draws a distinction between the work of his group and the activities of mainstream lobbyists that he decries....But Maryland law includes a category for "grass-roots lobbying," which requires groups to register if they spend more than $2,000 on organizing people to talk with lawmakers about specific bills....Schwartz, who used to raise money for former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., said he conferred with an attorney for the organization's national umbrella and determined that his group had not spent the $2,000 that would trigger disclosure."

Citizens United Seeks FEC's Media Exemption

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Citizens United submitted an advisory opinion request to the Federal Election Commission, asking if it qualifies for the "media exemption." (Media exempt entities are not subject to any campaign finance laws, including reporting and other disclosure requirements.)

The organization sought media status in 2004, but was denied. Since then, Citizens United has produced quite a few political documentaries, and this, they claim, now entitles them to the media exemption, at least with respect to their documentary activity.

The Washington Post reports here.

The Hill: Advocates: Earmark database needed

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From The Hill, "Congressional appropriators aren’t meeting the White House’s goal of creating a searchable earmark database, according to transparency advocates. A group of watchdogs called EarmarkData.org is pressing lawmakers to follow through on the administration’s push to make it easy to search for requests and awards of earmarks, which are the provisions members of Congress insert into spending bills to steer federal money to specific projects."

BNA: Focus Seen Shifting to Campaign Finance After Health Care Reform Finally Enacted

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

According to BNA Money & Politics, "Coming off a victory in a bruising battle over health care legislation, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are expected soon to turn to a new subject: proposals to try to control unrestrained campaign spending in the wake of a key Supreme Court decision that President Obama said would 'open the floodgates' for greater special-interest influence in federal elections."

NYT: Ethics Report Faults Ex-Congressman

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "Nathan Deal, a former congressman who is running for Georgia governor, resigned from the House last week in a move that seemed certain to end an ethics investigation that could have caused him political embarrassment. But on Monday, the Office of Congressional Ethics released its report anyway, concluding that Mr. Deal appeared to have improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue a state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business....Normally, reports by the ethics office — which essentially serves as a grand jury that does preliminary investigations — become public only when the House ethics committee formally takes up a matter and votes to punish members or to clear them of allegations....Once Mr. Deal resigned, the formal ethics office investigation was apparently terminated, because the office generally has jurisdiction over only sitting members of congress....Unwilling to be outmaneuvered, the Office of Congressional Ethics — created in 2008 to serve as an independent ethics watchdog on Capitol Hill — decided by a 6-to-0 board vote on Friday to release its findings anyway."

This matter should lead to debate on the propriety of the Office of Congressional Ethics' actions, and whether their jurisdiction somehow differs from the House Ethics Committee's.

Holtzman Vogel Memo on SpeechNow Decision

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Available here.

CQ Politics: Ramping Up for Redistricting

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "party operatives on both sides are solidifying their strategies behind the scenes for the upcoming redistricting fight that will have an impact on congressional politics for the next decade."

"Legally Qualified Candidates" and the FCC

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Kansas City Star reports "The program director of KMBZ radio in Kansas City says the station has no choice but to air commercials with racially biased and anti-Semitic claims from a write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate from Missouri....The Missouri secretary of state’s office said Miller has filed required papers to qualify as a write-in candidate in the 2010 Senate race. Under Federal Communications Commission rules and federal law, a 'legally qualified candidate' must be given reasonable, uncensored access to broadcast airtime if he or she can pay the cost."

Wash. Post: Ruling allows contributions to activist groups for campaigns

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post has this article on yesterday's SpeechNow decision. More details on the case are here.

According to the Post article, "The SpeechNow decision effectively widens the field of organizations that can raise and spend money on politics more freely in light of the Citizens United decision, which swept aside decades of legislative restrictions on the role of corporations in political campaigns. In a similar vein, SpeechNow and other independent political groups -- also known as 527 organizations, for their designation under the tax code -- are now free to solicit unlimited contributions as long as they do not donate directly to candidates or coordinate with their campaigns."

The Wall Street Journal opines here.

New York Times: Courts Take On Campaign Finance Decision.

Two Important Court Decisions Rendered Today

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:00:00 GMT

This morning, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided SpeechNow.org v. FEC (opinion here), ruling that contribution limits cannot be imposed on individuals wishing to give money to organizations that make independent expenditures. However, the court also held that such organizations may still be required to register and file financial disclosure reports with the FEC if the organization is a "political committee."

A few hours later, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Republican National Committee in its case against the FEC (opinion here), challenging aspects of BCRA's soft money restrictions.

UPDATE: As expected, the RNC will seek Supreme Court review.

More inside.

ABC News: Senators and House Members Can Keep Campaign Funds on the Way Out; No Campaign? No Problem: Retiring Members of Congress Can Find Creative Ways to Keep Unspent Contributions

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:30:00 GMT

From ABC News: "While the F.E.C. clearly says campaign committee cash can't be tapped for personal use, there are no such stipulations for certain political action committees, most controversially 'leadership PACs' that elected officials can use to support various political causes other than their own....Even though a retiring lawmaker can't personally tap into authorized campaign committee funds upon leaving office the way they can leadership PACs, there nevertheless are some options for the clever and the determined. For example, it is perfectly legal for leftover war chest money to be donated to a charity, including, say, a brand new charity a politician may be moved to create."

Wash. Post: States try to adapt to Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:30:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "Many states are scrambling to react to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling this year that loosened restrictions on corporate and union spending in elections. But rather than simply accepting the ruling, some states are looking for ways to increase public oversight of political ads run by corporations -- or are defying the high court altogether....Some of those states are simply working to remove language in their statutes that might run afoul of the Supreme Court's decision. Nearly a dozen, however, are also debating whether to require companies to disclose their spending on political ads or, in some cases, to seek approval from corporate boards or even shareholders....States considering new disclosure laws include Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Iowa legislature has approved a bill requiring company directors to approve of political spending."

What Does the Post-Citizens United World Look Like?

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Rick Hasen recently posted what is believed to be the first corporate advertisement run under the rules established by Citizens United. The ad is available here, and the Sunlight Foundation has a blog posting about the ad here. Contrary to some predictions, the world did not end when the ad appeared, but it is still too early to know how many politicians were corrupted.

Florida Revives Its Electioneering Communication Law

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The AP reports here on the bill being sent to the Governor.

CQ Politics: Senate Lawyers Wait on Menendez Case

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports "The Senate has no immediate plans to send the chamber’s attorneys into the tussle over a Tea Party effort to recall Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a legal case that could potentially address whether voters can recall federal lawmakers....The lawsuit centers on an effort to recall Menendez under a New Jersey law. The measure, enacted in 1995 as part of the state’s constitution, allows for the recall of any House or Senate lawmaker, or state or local official."

CBS News: GOP Lawmaker Darrell Issa Poised to Call for Special Prosecutor to Investigate White House

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From CBS News: "Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, told CBS News Wednesday that he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate the White House if it does not address Rep. Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary....Issa said the move may have violated anti-bribery provisions of the federal criminal code as well as prohibitions on government officials interfering in elections and using federal jobs for a political purpose. Violation of each provision is punishable by up to one year in jail."

CQ Politics: In-House Underreporting Obscures Millions in Lobbying

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports "More than 1,200 companies, unions and other groups have underreported at least $338 million worth of lobbying during the past 12 years, according to a CQ MoneyLine study.... Florida Citrus Mutual appears to have made the common mistake of reporting only its in-house expenses on its lobbying disclosure reports. But the Lobbying Disclosure Act requires that lobbying entities with in-house lobbying operations disclose all lobbying costs on their in-house filings, including money spent on outside firms, even though the outside firms must also separately disclose the revenue they receive from the clients. Companies, unions and other groups that seem to have made a similar error have underreported at least $338 million worth of lobbying during the past 12 years, according to the study."

Pennsylvania "Bonusgate" Case Decided

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports "Former [Pennsylvania state] Rep. Michael R. Veon, once among the most powerful politicians in the state Capitol, was convicted tonight of masterminding a scheme to have the public underwrite the campaigns of House Democrats. He was found guilty on 14 counts of theft, conflict of interest and conspiracy. He was found not guilty on 45 counts....The case that gave the Bonusgate corruption scandal its name centered on a secret scheme to award $1.4 million in government bonuses to legislative staffers as rewards for working on the campaigns of Democrats running for House seats between 2002 and 2006."

NY Times Declares Office of Congressional Ethics a Success

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The New York Times published this "article" on the Office of Congressional Ethics yesterday, asserting that "in the weird world of Capitol Hill, by losing, [OCE director] Mr. [Leo] Wise may actually be winning."

NY Times Favors Felon Voting

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The New York Times has this editorial in favor of restoring voting rights to released felons.

Wash. Post: Democrats counter Republicans' pre-redistricting push

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "Hoping to counter a series of Republican efforts aimed at winning governorships and state legislatures in advance of the decennial congressional redistricting process, the Democratic Governors Association is launching its own venture, led by veteran party strategist Harold Ickes. Ickes, who served as one of the top operatives in Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, characterized his role as fundraiser in chief ('I don't do strategy,' he says wryly) for the effort, which is being called Project SuRGe (Stop Republican Gerrymandering)."

Boston Globe: High court ruling leaves states scrambling to close gaps on spending limits

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:00:00 GMT

The Boston Globe has this AP piece on state responses to Citizens United: "The Supreme Court’s rejection of decades-old campaign spending limits gives states scant time to face an election-year dilemma: brace for a flood of new money in politics, or find new ways to rein it in. Within days of the ruling, state legislatures started reacting. At least eight states are pushing for greater disclosure of political spending by corporations and unions. At least three states, led by West Virginia, would go further by requiring corporations or unions to get permission from their shareholders or members before they can spend money on elections....The most common state response is to require disclosure of donors behind the advocacy groups that often pop up in election years. Among states pursuing that approach are West Virginia, Alaska, Minnesota, Kentucky, Arizona, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Maryland."

NY Times on New Type of Campaign Ads in California

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:00:00 GMT

From the New York Times: "A new chapter of campaign attacks is unfolding in California this election season, in which highly sophisticated, fairly low-cost technology is being used to create nasty — and just plain weird — ads and videos that are intended to shock and draw large audiences on Internet sites like YouTube and Facebook. It began last month, when Carly Fiorina, a Republican running for the Senate, released a Web video portraying her main opponent in the June primary, Tom Campbell, as a demon sheep. It was an instant Web hit. The Fiorina campaign followed up with another video, more than seven minutes long, depicting Senator Barbara Boxer, the Democratic incumbent, as a crazed blimp, floating across the country."

Todd Henderson: Citizens United: A defense

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:30:00 GMT

Todd Henderson, a law professor at the University of Chicago, has this piece on Citizens United.

New Lobbying and Ethics Laws For Indiana

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From the Indianapolis Star: "Gov. Mitch Daniels on Wednesday signed into law 23 bills, including a sweeping ethics package that affects legislators and lobbyists." More details here for BNA subscribers.

The new law is here.

Politico: Twin John Ensign probes still going strong

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "Even as the Justice Department’s criminal probe into Sen. John Ensign continues to heat up, the Senate Ethics Committee shows no sign of shutting down its own investigation into the fallout from the Nevada Republican’s extramarital affair with a onetime staffer."

Final Rules Published by FEC for EMILY's List Compliance

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The FEC has published its final rules for compliance with EMILY's List v. FEC.

ABC News: Study Shows Money Flooding into Campaigns for State Judgeships

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:30:00 GMT

ABC News reports "money has continued to pour into the campaign accounts of state judges around the country, and ABC News has obtained an advanced copy of a study showing the amounts involved are unprecedented. In the past decade, candidates for state judgeships raised more than $206 million, more than double the $83 million judges raised in the 1990s, according to the soon-to-be released study by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Justice at Stake."

CRS Report on Post-Citizens United Legislative Proposals

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Congressional Research Service has issued this report: Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues.

From the introduction: "This report provides an analysis of the constitutional and legal issues raised by several proposals, organized by regulatory topic: increasing disclaimer requirements, increasing disclosure for tax-exempt organizations, requiring shareholder notification and approval, restricting U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, restricting political expenditures by government contractors and grantees, taxing corporate independent expenditures, and providing public financing for congressional campaigns. The report also addresses amending the Constitution."

BusinessWeek Publishes Citizens United Op-Ed; Author, Editors Still Don't Know What Case Was About

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:00:00 GMT

BusinessWeek printed this op-ed in its latest issue: It's Time to Stand Up to the Supreme Court; The court's decision to let public companies spend freely on elections simply isn't fair to shareholders. But there's a way to push back. The op-ed's very first sentence is: "In January the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws limiting corporate political contributions were a violation of constitutional free speech principles." This is completely, 100% incorrect. Then, "Common sense and experience also suggest that, given the enormous revenues of today's giant corporations, these companies will make their political contributions generously." Maybe, but even if we assume you mean expenditures, recent reports suggest otherwise (see here and here).

And then there's this:

"Most institutional money managers today are owned by giant U.S. and global financial conglomerates with their own shareholders. Of America's 40 largest, 23 are owned by conglomerates, 8 are publicly held, and only 9 remain privately owned. Money managers who share my fears about unlimited corporate contributions to politicians must enter the arena with clean hands. Before they stand up against political contributions by the companies whose shares are held in their portfolios, they must publicly pledge a no-political-contribution policy of their own. This may sound like a tall order, but it's the only avenue that presents itself for, in effect, overriding the Supreme Court's unwise decision" (emphasis added).

After several months, you would think that sophisticated op-ed writers would have grasped that the case had nothing to do with contributions. And you would think that the editors of major news weeklies would catch this sort of misinformation.

Politics Magazine on Citizens United

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Politics magazine has several Citizens United articles in the latest issue:

Money, Politics and the Court: The Citizens United Ruling

What It Means

Should Media Consultants Really Jump for Joy?

Four Questions for 2010

Arizona's Secretary of State Wants New Disclosure Law

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett argues for more disclosure here.

Peter J. McDonough: New Jersey proves corporate campaign contributions don't poison politics

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:30:00 GMT

Peter J. McDonough has this op-ed, in which he argues "If the New Jersey experience is any measure, the gnashing of teeth and public uproar over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is certainly over-wrought and probably underserved.... Self-identified "good government" advocates have likened the decision to an electoral apocalypse. The Garden State experience, where corporations are allowed to contribute as freely as labor unions or individuals to campaigns, and where any entity can spend unlimited amounts on "independent expenditures" during campaigns, suggests just the opposite. In fact, a recent analysis by The Star-Ledger found that the most significant spenders in New Jersey’s elections are not profit-obsessed corporate giants. By overwhelming margins, the organizations most dedicated to spending massive amounts of money on electioneering are labor unions."

Yesterday, we noted similar arguments and findings here.

Corporate Counsel: So Far, They're Just Not Buyin' It: Companies Hold Off on Political Ads

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:00:00 GMT

From Corporate Counsel via law.com: "After the Supreme Court ruled that companies can spend freely on political advertising campaigns, the immediate reaction from some quarters was dire. Good-government advocates, liberal commentators, even the president warned that a flood of corporate money would overwhelm elections and subvert democracy. But the real impact of the decision is likely to be much less extreme, according to in-house attorneys and election law experts. Few companies are looking for new ways to spend money in these tight times. Plus, many businesses — especially large corporations — are aware of the dangers of appearing excessively partisan....Kraft Foods Inc., for example, has no plans to ramp up its political spending, said James Portnoy, chief counsel for the law department's corporate and government affairs group....Microsoft Corporation isn't just guarded; its leaders have long found political advertising distasteful."

What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports "The House overwhelmingly backed a privileged resolution offered by GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) that will have the Ethics Committee look into what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and other Democratic leaders and staffers knew about allegations of sexual harassment against Massa, and when they became aware of the situation....Members of both parties voted overwhelmingly to support the resolution, which passed 494-2. No Democrats voted against the resolution, while two Republicans voted against it. The members of the Ethics Committee, which would conduct the investigation, voted 'present,' as is custom."

Steven Law: Organized Labor and Citizens United; Unions were the big winners in the 'corporate' free speech case.

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Steven Law of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, explaining how organized labor may be the "big winner" in the Citizens United case. According to Law, "unlike corporations, unions are far better positioned to take advantage of the ruling because they have virtually no other restraints on their capacity to engage in political action. Public companies have to deal with earnings targets, investment analysts, ratings agencies and dividend-hungry shareholders. That's why most corporations spend little or nothing on politics and can be expected to do the same going forward....There is a great deal of hyperventilating on Capitol Hill these days about the power of corporations. There is conspicuous silence about organized labor. Coincidentally, unions give nine out of 10 election dollars to the party that currently runs Washington. If Congress attempts to inhibit corporate political speech while treating unions with kid gloves, that's not reform. It's just another special-interest payback."

In related news, this report notes that the biggest political spender in California is the California Teachers Association, which "has spent more than $200 million on campaign contribution and lobbying efforts in the last decade." The second biggest California spender? The California State Council of Service Employees. (Both are labor unions.) The San Francisco Chronicle details the SEIU's campaign muscle in California here.

Huffington Post: Harry Reid Slams Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy For Campaign Finance Decision

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:00:00 GMT

Huffington Post reports Sen. Harry Reid's comments regarding the Supreme Court and its Citizens United decision.

The Wall Street Journal has more.

Brad Smith: In Defense of Political Anonymity

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Brad Smith has this article in the latest edition of City Journal. Smith: "So widely accepted is the idea that campaign contributions and personal information about donors ought to be public that many people don’t even consider it regulation....But it’s far from clear that the forced disclosure of political contributions has benefited society. Disclosure has resulted in government-enabled invasions of privacy—and sometimes outright harassment—and it has added to a political climate in which candidates are judged by their funders rather than their ideas."

Roll Call editorial: Ethics Stench

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Roll Call has this editorial on the recent House Ethics Committee report in the PMA Group earmarks investigation.

From Roll Call: "now it develops that the committee apparently did little or no investigating at all. If that’s the case, a stench of deception now surrounds the ethics committee....In clearing all seven [Members of Congress under investigation], the [ethics]committee asserted it had reviewed nearly 250,000 pages of documents and conducted interviews with 'numerous witnesses.' But Roll Call contacted numerous firms and Member offices that would have been logical sources of information for the committee — and found that not a single one had been contacted or asked for documents....For sure, proving what much of the public suspects — that Members trade earmarks for campaign money, quid pro quo — is very difficult. But, it appears, the ethics committee didn’t even try. It said it did so, but we suspect it merely reviewed the OCE’s reports, found no provable wrongdoing and cleared everyone involved. We’d call that a whitewash."

von Spakovsky on Who's Running DOJ's Civil Rights Division

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Hans von Spakovsky has this review of who's running the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. (The Voting Rights Section is part of the Civil Rights Division.)

LA Times: U.S. Chamber of Commerce grows into a political force

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From the Los Angeles Times: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is building a large-scale grass-roots political operation that has begun to rival those of the major political parties, funded by record-setting amounts of money raised from corporations and wealthy individuals. The chamber has signed up some 6 million individuals who are not chamber members and has begun asking them to help with lobbying and, soon, with get-out-the-vote efforts in upcoming congressional campaigns. The chamber's expansion into grass-roots organizing -- coupled with a large and growing fundraising apparatus that got a lift from Supreme Court rulings -- is part of a trend in which the traditional parties are losing ground to well-financed and increasingly assertive outside groups."

Interesting New Development in Dishing Campaign Dirt

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The San Francisco Chronicle has this article about the new website WikiMeg.com. According to the article, WikiMeg.com is "a labor-union-funded independent campaign aimed at billionaire Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman breaks new ground in how it conducts 'oppo research.' Wikimeg.com invites the rest of the world to shake the bushes for information about Whitman and enables their new research assistants to post the results on the Internet, Wikipedia-style." The website is run by "Level the Playing Field 2010, the independent group led by Democratic strategists and funded by labor unions."

As for the defamation issues that will likelky arise, well, the site's "legal disclaimer" notes that "nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information" and the site's operators take no responsibility whatsoever for the material that appears on their website: "Please be aware that none of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with MegWiki in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages."

Holtzman Vogel Lawyers Publish Citizens United Article in ABA's Government Affairs Practice Committee Newsletter

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

A copy of the article is available here.

NYT editorial: The Escalating Price of Politics

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

According to the New York Times editors, the lesson to be learned from the recently leaked RNC fundraising notes is . . . that Congress must pass the Schumer/Van Hollen proposal? The Times editors explain that "the multibillion-dollar politicking industry...is on the verge of a great leap forward in this year’s Congressional elections, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling that freed corporate executives and union bosses to spend whatever they want on their own commercials touting candidates who toe their lines or, more likely, attacking those who don’t. Congress must quickly pass the remedial Schumer-Van Hollen bill to rein in at least some of the damage."

And, of course, "On Capitol Hill, where quid pro quo is the name of the game, the public option is just as needed. Senator Richard Durbin has introduced a measure to extend a federal four-to-one match to qualifying Congressional candidates who pledge to only accept donations of $100 or less and abide by spending limits and transparency rules."

What does any of this have to do with the RNC and its major donors? Absolutely nothing, other than that for some, campaign finance "reform" is the answer for everything, no matter how unrelated and foolish it sounds.

CQ Politics: Massa Details Ethics Case; Blames Democratic Leaders

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics has details of a new twist in the Massa ethics story: "Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) told a New York radio station on Sunday that an ethics investigation into his behavior focused on sexually-charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year’s Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week. Massa said he had believed the committee was investigating an unrelated fundraising letter, and suggested that the ethics dust-up may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote."

E.J. Dionne: A bipartisan push to clean up the Supreme Court's mess

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

E.J. Dionne promotes the Schumer/Van Hollen proposal (which has still not been released in legislation form) in his latest column, and also suggests that it could be a bipartisan bill. After proclaiming the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United to be "astonishingly naive," Dionne explains that

"Liberals and Democrats are already mobilizing to fight against Citizens United because they fear the impact of unconstrained corporate activity on elections and legislation. But conservatives and Republicans should also be alarmed that this decision could encourage politicians to extort campaign spending from businesses....That's why both parties should join to pass a bill that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) hope to introduce this week placing some rules around the new electoral casino that the Roberts court has opened. The proposal is expected to win Republican co-sponsorship. And it should."

Wash. Post: Thin wall separates lobbyist contributions and earmarks

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post has another report in their earmarks series.

LA Times: Campaign finance legislation faces tricky issue of foreign corporations; As lawmakers react to a Supreme Court decision that struck down a portion of election funding laws, the fate of U.S. subsidiaries is uncertain.

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From the Los Angeles Times: "Proposed legislation to block foreign companies from contributing money to U.S. elections could end up affecting well-known companies such as Chrysler, Anheuser-Busch and Citgo, according to legal experts and company representatives....The legislators say they are now considering a broad definition of foreign corporations -- companies that are more than 20% owned by non-American entities. That could end up banning thousands of corporations from contributing to political activities....U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations are concerned about the legislation being prepared by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), saying it could unfairly label them as foreign entities, changing their status on matters that go beyond politics."

More From The Earmarks Uproar

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post has this piece ("In e-mails, lobbyists perceive ties between campaign cash, earmarks") about unreleased documents from the House Ethics Committee's PMA Group investigation. Writes the Post: "Lobbyists and corporate officials talked bluntly in e-mail exchanges about connections between making generous campaign donations and securing federal funds through members of an important House Appropriations subcommittee, according to not-yet-public documents reviewed by ethics investigators."

WSJ editorial: Earmarks Forever; The House ignores Nancy Pelosi's board of outside ethics watchdogs.

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal has this editorial, on the House Ethics Committee's recent PMA Group report: "The [Ethics] Committee said late last week it could find no evidence 'that members or their official staff considered campaign contributions as a factor when requesting earmarks.' Not even a 'factor'? Instead the villains are the lobbyists, who, the report says 'employed 'strong-armed' tactics' to try to link contributions to earmarks. The report also said there was a 'wide-spread perception among corporations and lobbyists' that contributions were linked to access and earmarks. Imagine that. What this judgment means is that the earmark favor factory has now been given an ethics green light."

Wash. Post: Massa resigns; Democrats' ethical lapses could threaten hold on power

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "Congressional Democrats reclaimed control of Congress in 2006 by pledging to 'drain the swamp' after Republican ethics scandals rocked Capitol Hill. Now, a series of controversies involving Democratic members has robbed the party of its claim to hold the higher moral ground -- and could threaten its hold on power in this fall's elections."

NYT: Earmarks Abuse Feared After Ethics Panel Ruling

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:30:00 GMT

From the New York Times: "a new interpretation of ethics rules is threatening to make it easier for lawmakers to give earmarks to big campaign contributors and expose the process to greater abuse than before, legal analysts and some lawmakers say. Their concerns were prompted by a report last week from the House ethics committee that cleared seven House members, all on the defense appropriations subcommittee, of allegations that they had improperly given tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to political contributors. Although investigators found indications that at least two of the members had at least implicitly rewarded donors with earmarks, the committee said that the appearance of a financial reward for donors does not amount to an ethical breach in itself. “Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member’s actions are being influenced by campaign contributions,” the committee, which is made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, concluded in its report."

We previously noted the Ethics Committee's report here.

The View From the Losing Side

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:30:00 GMT

The Campaign Legal Center, a "reform" organization that supports extensive regulation of the political process, has new postings on its website about two of the recent court cases in which it has been on the losing side: Citizens United and Unity08.

Politico: Aide to plead guilty for embezzlement

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:00:00 GMT

Politico reports "A former aide to ex-Rep. Christopher Shays will plead guilty to embezzling tens of thousands of dollars from the Connecticut Republican's reelection campaign. Michael Sohn, Shays’ former campaign manager, was indicted in December, charged with embezzling more than $250,000 from the campaign over a four-year period beginning in 2005. Sohn was also charged with filing false campaign-disclosure statements and failing to disclose the allegedly stolen funds on his income tax returns. Sohn, who worked as a top aide to Shays from 2003-08, faces 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine if convicted on all counts."

Felony Charges in Milwaukee

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:00:00 GMT

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports "A felony complaint filed Thursday against Milwaukee County Supervisor Toni Clark accuses her of placing more than $6,500 in campaign donations into her personal bank accounts....She was charged with a single count of submitting a false campaign finance report, a crime punishable by up to 3 1/2 years in prison. A much lesser sentence, however, is considered likely for Clark. She was first elected to the board in 2003 and was re-elected in 2004 and 2008. A felony conviction would mean automatic removal from office."

John Samples: Discouraging Speech through Disclosure

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:00:00 GMT

John Samples writes at CATO about Rep. David Price's (D-NC) "Stand By Every Ad Act." Samples: "Rep. Price clearly believes mandated disclosure by business and union leaders will effectively discourage them from speaking out during elections. Given that motivation behind the new disclosures laws, at what point does mandated disclosure translate into chilled speech?"

USA Today: Watchdog groups seek revamp of ethics rules

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From USA Today: "Watchdog groups are calling for a revamp of congressional ethics rules after the House ethics panel exonerated a dozen lawmakers in two separate investigations. Melanie Sloan, of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the ethics committee's recent actions prove Democratic leaders who pledged to clean up Washington by passing ethics rules 'never meant it.'"

WSJ: Voting-Machine Deal to Be Cleared by U.S.

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "The Justice Department is poised to allow the merger of the U.S.'s two largest makers of voting machines, but the combined company will be required to divest a key electronic voting system, said people familiar with the matter. In September, closely held Election Systems & Software Inc. agreed to buy No. 2 voting-machine manufacturer Premier Election Solutions Inc., a money-losing unit of Diebold Inc."

Review of State Efforts to Comply With Citizens United Ruling

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

AzCapitolTimes.com has a good review of ongoing state efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

AP: Dems want `soft money' for redistricting

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:30:00 GMT

AP reports "The National Democratic Redistricting Trust is asking the Federal Election Commission to let lawmakers raise soft money for the legal fights likely to develop as congressional district boundaries are redrawn after this year's census."

The Advisory Opinion Request is available here.

The issue of whether "soft money" can be raised and spent on redistricting efforts has been unresolved since BCRA became law in late 2002. The FEC was unable to answer the question in 2003, and avoided the question in 2007.

Karl Rove: The GOP Targets State Legislatures; He who controls redistricting can control Congress.

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:00:00 GMT

Karl Rove has this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He writes, "Some of the most important contests this fall will be way down the ballot in communities like Portsmouth, Ohio and West Lafayette, Ind., and neighborhoods like Brushy Creek in Round Rock, Texas, and Murrysville Township in Westmoreland County, Pa. These are state legislative races that will determine who redraws congressional district lines after this year's census, a process that could determine which party controls upwards of 20 seats and whether many other seats will be competitive....Republican strategists are focused on 107 seats in 16 states. Winning these seats would give them control of drawing district lines for nearly 190 congressional seats. Six of these states are projected to pick up a total of nine seats, and five are expected to lose a combined six seats."

CQ Politics: Testing a Court Decision and Campaign Clout

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

CQ Politics notes that "Now that the case of Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission has opened the door for outside groups to spend unlimited sums on television advertising and other campaign expenditures in federal races, some Kentucky insiders believe that Democratic Rep. Ben Chandler’s 6th district will be the test case."

NYT: Californians Compete for a Shot at Redistricting

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From the New York Times: "Nearly 31,000 of them have raised their hands for the complex and highly bureaucratic task of redrawing the districts of the State Legislature and of the State Board of Equalization, which administers certain taxes — the only citizen effort of its kind in the country....First, a panel from the state auditor’s office will review the application materials, which include letters of recommendation and personal essays from commission hopefuls. The panel will then somehow identify 120 of the most qualified applicants — 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 40 that are either independent voters or members of other parties — interview them and winnow the number down to 60, 20 from each subset....The list is also dotted with professional reformers who worked toward creating the commission they now want to sit on, like the heads of two nonpartisan research groups based in Los Angeles: Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, and Zabrae Valentine, the executive director of the California Forward Action Fund."

It remains to be seen if a commission of political activists and interest group representatives will approach the task of redistricting any differently than the legislature would.

The Hill: Rangel to give up gavel and take leave while ethics probe continues

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports "Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) announced Wednesday morning he's taking a leave of absence as the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee pending the results of an ethics investigation."

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules For Unity08

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Unity08 in its case against the FEC, overturning a district court ruling, which had upheld the FEC's determination that the group was subject to political committee contribution limits.

Beginning in 2006, Unity08 sought to create a process for nominating a split Presidential ticket, with one Democrat and one Republican candidate. In Advisory Opinion 2006-20, the FEC determined that even if the organization did not support specific candidates, its signature collection efforts to secure ballot access and its overall major purpose were enough to trigger "political committee" status. The D.C. Circuit rejected this position, and likened Unity08 to a "draft committee," which is not treated as a "political committee" under D.C. Circuit precedent.

The court's opinion is here.

WSJ: Lawmakers Keep the Change; Cash Left Over From Official Trips Overseas Is Often Used for Personal Expenses

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "When lawmakers travel overseas on official business they are given up to $250 a day in taxpayer funds to cover meals and expenses. Congressional rules say they must return any leftover cash to the government. They usually don't. According to interviews with 20 current and former members of Congress, lawmakers use the excess cash for shopping or to defray spouses' travel expenses. Sometimes they give it away; sometimes they pocket it. Many lawmakers said they didn't know the rules demand repayment....Congress has no system for tracking how the cash payments, called per diems, are being spent. Lawmakers aren't required to keep receipts and there are no public records."

Jeff Brindle: N.J. campaign finance laws could be affected by SpeechNow.org case

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Jeff Brindle, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, has this piece.

At Least One Congressman Doesn't Think Much of the Ethics Investigators

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Politico reports that California Representative Pete Stark "was 'extremely belligerent' toward interviewers from the Office of Congressional Ethics last year, insulted the staff members who came to interview him and had a video camera in his office during the session, according to a recently released report."

The Hill: iPhone app makes instant donations to campaigns

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From The Hill: "The goal is to make it so simple and convenient for voters to make small donations that the total given will outweigh corporate influence, said Paul Everton, who created Visible Vote a year and a half ago....When donating money to campaigns, Visible Vote automatically submits the required data to campaigns, abiding by Federal Election Commission rules....Other features of the application, which is available on computers, iPhones, BlackBerrys and Android phones, include viewing state-by-state data on legislator performance and instantly sending faxes or emails to elected officials."

More info at Visible Vote.

NYT Opines on C Street House

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The New York Times has this editorial on the C Street House and the recent complaint filed with the IRS regarding its tax exempt status (noted here). One line of the editorial was attention-grabbing: "The coalition [that filed the complaint] is rightly concerned that the center is exploiting, and thereby cheapening, the constitutional protections guaranteed legitimate religious institutions." Constitutional protections? Tax exempt status for religious institutions is not a constitutional guarantee - it is granted by statute.

von Spakovsky in Human Events: Democrats Propose New Campaign Finance Restrictions

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Hans von Spakovsky has this op-ed in Human Events on the Schumer/Van Hollen proposal.

Michael Rosen on the San Diego Case

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:00:00 GMT

Michael Rosen has this piece - Brave new world for campaign finance - on the ongoing San Diego campaign finance case. Rosen writes, "Earlier this month, the much-heralded Citizens United Supreme Court decision bore its first fruit here in San Diego, as Chief Judge Irma E. Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California struck down several key regulations promulgated by the city of San Diego’s Ethics Commission....The reaction to the ruling was swift and intense. The city of San Diego promptly lifted its prohibitions, while the city of Los Angeles followed suit. Other California municipalities are expected to take similar actions....The long-term effects of both Citizens United and Judge Gonzalez’s San Diego decision are uncertain. But in the meantime, both rulings promise to open up elections, challenge incumbents, and generally increase free speech and association. Three cheers are warranted."

Brad Smith in WSJ: The Case for Corporate Political Spending

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Brad Smith has this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Smith notes that "even before the decision in Citizens United, 28 states, with 60% of the nation's population, already allowed corporations to make political expenditures in state elections, including Virginia, Oregon and Washington....The 28 states that already allow corporate campaign expenditures for state races (including governor, state legislature and attorney general) are not awash in corporate political spending....In fact, in California, which allows unlimited corporate expenditures, the 10 largest reported funders of independent expenditure committees between 2001 and 2006 did not include a single corporation. Rather, the list consists of unions, Indian tribes and two individuals, the long-time business partner of one of the candidates, and the partner's daughter....Corporations are affected by political regulation and ought to have the right to try to persuade the electorate that their interests matter."

NYT: Decision Could Allow Anonymous Political Contributions by Businesses

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:30:00 GMT

The New York Times continues its critical coverage of the Citizens United decision with this piece: "Experts say the ruling, along with a pair of earlier Supreme Court cases, makes it possible for corporations and unions to donate anonymously to nonprofit civic leagues and trade associations. The groups can then use the money to finance the types of political advertisements that were at the heart of last month’s ruling, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission....That means that those nonprofit groups, which are not required to disclose their donors, can now use corporate contributions to buy political commercials, and the corporations can potentially operate behind the anonymity of their donations."

Wash. Post: Ethics panel clears 7 on earmarks

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "The House ethics committee ruled Friday that seven lawmakers who steered hundreds of millions of dollars in largely no-bid contracts to clients of a lobbying firm had not violated any rules or laws by also collecting large campaign donations from those contractors. In a 305-page report, the ethics committee declared that lawmakers are free to raise campaign money from the very companies they are benefiting so long as the deciding factors in granting those 'earmarks' are 'criteria independent' of the contributions. The report served as a blunt rejection of ethics watchdogs and a different group of congressional investigators, who have contended that in some instances the connection between donations and earmarks was so close that it had to be inappropriate. 'Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions,' the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said in a unanimous statement. "

(This is the PMA Group lobbying/earmarks matter.)

The Committee's statement and the full report are available here.

Linda Greenhouse (NYT) on Citizens United

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:30:00 GMT

The veteran court reporter (who contributed to President Obama's 2008 presidential election campaign) compares Citizens United to the 2005 Kelo eminent domain decision.

From the Department of "They Have A Rule For Everything"

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:00:00 GMT

The Daily Caller notes that "Former Rep. Melissa Hart may have hit the road and gone back home to Pittsburgh in 2006 when she lost her bid for re-election, but it appears that a car she owns still remains in the Longworth House Office building parking garage — more than three years after she left Congress....According to the Committee on House Administration Web site, former members can only park in the garages if they are not registered lobbyists. Hart, who now chairs Pittsburgh-based law firm Keevican Weiss Bauerle & Hirsch’s Government Relations practice, is registered in the Senate lobbyist database."

Wash. Post: Rep. Rangel's trips broke congressional gift rules, panel says

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The Post reports "Rep. Charles B. Rangel broke congressional gift rules by accepting trips to Caribbean conferences that were financed by corporate interests, the House ethics committee said Thursday. While the panel did not find that the New York Democrat, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, knew about the corporate backing for the trips in 2007 and 2008, it concluded that members of his staff were aware and that he was therefore responsible....The ethics panel found that five other members under scrutiny for the trips did not knowingly violate House rules....House rules forbid corporations and most other private groups from funding such travel. Exceptions exist for certain nonprofit groups, and the Caribbean trips that Rangel and the handful of other members of the Congressional Black Caucus took were run by a charity, the Carib News Foundation. Despite the nonprofit's sponsorship, conservative activists found that many leading corporations, including Citigroup, financed much of the conference's events. Signs and posters were displayed in hotel lobbies showing the corporate financers."

The House Ethics Committee's statement is here.

More media coverage inside.

Politico: Joint fundraising yields more cash

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:30:00 GMT

Politico has this piece on joint fundraising practices, noting that: "Use of a joint fundraising committee does not allow a donor to escape federal donation limits of $4,800 per candidate or incumbent for any one cycle. But a donor can cut one large check to a joint committee, maxing out what the candidate gets while the rest goes to the DSCC or a state party. A donor may give up to $30,400 annually to a national party committee."

NYT: For Donors to Governors’ Associations, Cash Buys a Seat at the Table

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:00:00 GMT

From the New York Times: "Operating outside the laws that block federal candidates and party committees from taking money from unions or businesses, the Democratic governors’ group — and its Republican counterpart — are case studies in corporate political fund-raising. The two associations brought in a total of more than $100 million over the last two years, and each started this year with more cash than its national party."

The Hill: Georgia to sue Obama admin. over voter citizenship check

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:00:00 GMT

The Hill reports "Election officials in Georgia are accusing the Obama administration of "playing politics" with proposed changes to its voting procedures. The state had asked for permission to use Social Security numbers and driver's license data to verify whether voters are U.S. citizens. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said Wednesday he plans to sue the Department of Justice to get them to approve the changes....Georgia implemented the voter verification process in April 2007 but since the 2008 presidential election, the Justice Department has twice prevented further use of the process, according to Kemp's office."

The Hill: Lock down yourname.com domain if you plan to run for office or it could cost you

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:00:00 GMT

From The Hill: "Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) may be the latest politician to fall victim to cybersquatting — the growing practice of hoarding Internet domain names for profit....Last year, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) was forced to pay a large sum to a cybersquatter to recapture several potential domain names for her California gubernatorial campaign. She had tried going through an international dispute-resolution process but was unsuccessful. Former President Bill Clinton also went through a similar process to try and reclaim three domain names — williamclinton.com, williamjclinton.com and presidentbillclinton.com — but likewise failed."

Politico: Lawmakers squirrel away cash

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Politico reports that 80 House members have over $1 million in the bank.

Sen. Dodd Proposes Rewriting First Amendment

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Sen. Dodd, who is not seeking reelection, has nevertheless proposed rewriting the First Amendment. The Hill reports "Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced a constitutional amendment today to overrule a recent Supreme Court decision on campaign spending....Dodd's amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would explicitly grant Congress the authority to regulate campaign fundraising and expenditures for federal elections. The amendment would also let states regular such activity in their own elections....To pass, Dodd's amendment must pass both Houses with a two-thirds majority and be ratified by three-quarters of the states."

Wash. Post: C Street house target of clergy's IRS complaint

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:30:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "The owners of a $1.8 million townhouse on Capitol Hill that has been home and refuge to conservative members of Congress are wrongly claiming a federal tax exemption reserved for religious establishments, 13 Ohio clergy members contend in a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service....The Ohio clergy, all Protestant members of Clergy Voice, say that the house serves no public interest and has no recognized creed or form of worship....The letter to the IRS will be sent Tuesday, said the Rev. Eric Williams, senior pastor at North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus. He called it a matter of church-and-state separation, with this a potential example of undue church influence on government through members of Congress."

CQ Politics on Lobbyists "Honoring" Lawmakers

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:30:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "The practice of lobbyists lavishing huge sums of money on charitable causes championed by members of Congress — and on events to honor lawmakers and other federal officials — may be losing some of its appeal. Corporations, labor unions and other professional groups spent $25.2 million on such events and causes in 2009 — a drop of $15 million, or 38 percent, from the previous year, the first time such reporting was required....While federal laws limit the amount of money that individuals and groups can contribute to congressional campaigns, there are no restrictions on donations to lawmakers’ favorite causes, charities and institutions. Congress approved new disclosure laws that went into effect in 2008 after a series of ethics controversies involving lobbyists contributing to lawmakers’ pet causes."

USA Today: States weigh campaign-finance changes

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:00:00 GMT

From USA Today: "State lawmakers around the country are rushing to rewrite campaign-finance laws following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that opened the door to unlimited corporate and union money in elections and upended laws in nearly half the states." With brief updates from Iowa, Maryland, Arizona, Minnesota and Colorado.

AP: Cao's campaign finance suit moves to appeals court

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:00:00 GMT

AP reports "A Republican-backed challenge of federal campaign finance restrictions has moved to a federal appeals court. U.S. Rep. Ahn "Joseph" Cao (Gow) and Republican leaders filed the suit in 2008. At the heart of the complaint is the federal limit on what state and national parties can spend in coordinated efforts on behalf of a candidate - about $42,000 each. U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan threw out part of the challenge late in January. But she also decided several of the main issues in the case should be considered by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court is expected to hear arguments in May."

Boston Globe: Campaign financing shift may aid critics; Cash could go to interest groups

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Boston Globe writes, "The Supreme Court’s watershed decision on campaign finance, lamented by critics who say it gives undue influence to corporations, could strengthen the very advocacy groups that oppose the ruling. Under the ruling, the spenders can’t give directly to a candidate, but they can give to an advocacy group that in turn produces such advertisements - providing a potential source of money for groups that have traditionally survived on individual donations. But one question lingers: Will those organizations, particularly liberal ones openly critical of the court ruling, seek money from corporate sources? Or will they sit on the sidelines and risk losing influence?"

Los Angeles Times: California campaign spending provides glimpse of what's to come for nation

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From the Los Angeles Times: "The upcoming congressional elections offer the first opportunity for corporations to spend freely on federal campaigns since the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back key restrictions last month. California provides a glimpse of what's to come. Corporations, trade groups and unions have long been allowed to influence state political races. California has permitted them to wage independent campaigns, paying for ads, mailers and get-out-the-vote operations -- the same apparatus now approved for federal contests."

WSJ editorial: Repealing the First Amendment; The campaign finance crowd has more ideas for limiting speech.

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal has this editorial on the new campaign finance proposals. The editors write:

It didn't take long for Congress to try an end-run around the Supreme Court's landmark January decision in Citizens United v. FEC. With a campaign finance bill due to be introduced this week, Democrats are proposing to repeal the First Amendment, at least for some people....We've long supported disclosure for campaign contributions, so voters can judge for themselves if certain donations are corrupting. But Mr. Schumer's version of disclosure is designed to discourage speech with complex regulation, including a new and separate disclosure regime with the Securities and Exchange Commission....As a practical matter, all of this continues the game of whack-a-mole that the campaign-finance restrictionists have pursued for decades to little avail. They haven't stopped the flow of money into campaigns or produced cleaner government, but they have made fund-raising far more complex and legally difficult for donors and candidates. These new efforts are destined for a similar fate if they ever make it into law—and we hope Republicans filibuster them.

MinnPost: Minnesota Chamber lawsuit seeks clarity, and state conformity, on high court's campaign finance ruling

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:30:00 GMT

MinnPost.com has this piece on the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's Citizens United-based challenge to Minnesota's campaign finance laws. (We noted the lawsuit here.) An excerpt: "The Chamber wants a federal judge to issue a declaratory judgment saying Minnesota's laws must square with the [Citizens United] decision, which says corporations and labor unions may spend unlimited sums so long as they do so independently of the candidates whose races they seek to influence. More specifically, the chamber is concerned about a passage in state law that bans indirect corporate contributions to candidates. It wants the court to rule that so-called independent expenditures do not violate this provision."

Clarification Order in San Diego Case

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

Via Rick Hasen's blog comes news that the federal district court in Thalheimer v. City of San Diego (noted earlier here) has issued a new order clarifying its ruling. The new order makes clear that the court has preliminarily enjoined the City of San Diego from enforcing its contribution limits as they applied to independent expenditure committees, and that both individuals and "non-individual entities" (such as corporations, labor unions, trade associations, etc.) may now freely contribute to those committees.

Denver Post: Colorado's high court rejects ban on campaign contributions

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:30:00 GMT

The Denver Post reports "Colorado's top court Monday rejected a voter-approved measure to bar holders of large, no-bid government contracts from making campaign contributions....The state's high court found Colorado's Amendment 54 vague, overbroad and 'so incomplete or riddled with omissions that it cannot be salvag(ed), according to the decision....The decision, affirming a lower court ruling, puts at ease directors and significant shareholders of businesses and nonprofits with government contracts as well as their relatives, who were also barred from giving under the amendment. And labor unions again will be able to readily give hundreds of thousands of dollars to state and local candidates through small donor committees ahead of November."

Huff. Post: Why Religious Groups and Charities May Soon Be Able to Lobby, Campaign, and Endorse Candidates

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Seth Korman writes at Huffington Post, "Both for-profit corporations and nonprofit 501(c)(3)s are creatures of the state, artificial entities created to further commercial and socially valuable interests. Yet now the former can lobby and advocate, whereas the latter must remain on the political sidelines. This distinction seems ripe for challenge."

Obama Administration to Focus on Campaign Finance Legislation

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico reports that the President is "replac[ing] sweeping 'change' with incremental reform," and "that 'the biggest piece of reform' will be supporting congressional efforts to limit the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that opened campaigns to huge independent spending by corporations and unions....Senior Capitol Hill aides tell POLITICO that both the House and the Senate plan to take up such measures in coming weeks....A top Senate Democratic official said Democrats are planning to take up legislation in response to the Citizens United ruling by Easter in order to have something on the books before the 2010 elections."

NYT editorial: Congress Parties With the Big Money

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

A week ago, the New York Times ran an article on the Congressional Black Caucus' fundraising practices (see here). Today, they have an editorial that vaguely opposes Congressional fundraising in general as a systemic problem, but stops short of blaming the CBC directly for any abusive practices: "Of all the money machines shaving ethical corners, few rival the Congressional Black Caucus....The caucus has a political fund-raising arm subject to federal limitations, but it has a separate, much larger operation that collects corporate and union money for nonprofits that are supposed to provide those scholarships and do other good works. The law that allows those groups to collect money without limits urgently needs tightening, as do Congressional ethics....wise lawmakers will take heed, back off from the trough and focus on lawmaking."

FEC Weekly Digest

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:00:00 GMT

Here.

RNLA: "Saving Freedom From Vote Fraud" Highlights

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:30:00 GMT

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) has highlights from their CPAC session.

AP: Alaska lawmakers introduce campaign finance measures amid corporate spending concerns

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:30:00 GMT

The AP reports "Alaska lawmakers are introducing four related bills aimed at limiting the role of corporations in elections. One pair of bills directly challenges the legal notion that corporations are people, and therefore have political free speech rights. It was a key argument in the last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned restrictions on certain corporate and union campaign spending. The other pair of bills clarify disclosure requirements on corporate campaign spending that had been outlawed in Alaska. They also create disclaimer requirements in campaign advertising for funding sources."

A Disturbing Thought From Jeffrey Rosen...

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:30:00 GMT

...Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama?

Mona Charen Borrows From Brad Smith, Questions Disclosure of Contributions

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Mona Charen has this column, "Rethinking Political Virtue," in which she asks if compelling disclosure of campaign contributions means "we are paying too high a price in political freedom to avoid the appearance of undue influence .... we have tamely accepted the idea our political contributions must be disclosed. But don't political views and activities deserve an expectation of privacy as much as book purchases, voting habits, and income tax returns? ... It's time to consider whether the chilling effect of excessive disclosure on free speech is worth it."

Stateline.org: Court complicates campaign finance rules

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From Stateline.org: "The court’s 5-4 decision last month in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission made one clear-cut change—it declared any ban on corporate- or union-sponsored political advocacy to be unconstitutional, on the grounds that such advocacy was constitutionally protected political speech. But in practice the decision may do more. It may alter state and local elections across the country in ways the court didn’t discuss. . . . Many of the states seem unlikely to take any action, however, And it remains to be seen how much can be done, either at the state or federal level, without violating at least one of the constitutional principles laid out by the Supreme Court .... So far, Montana is the only state to publicly say it will maintain its laws until a court rules them unconstitutional" (emphasis added).

Phil. Inquirer: Murtha House seat likely to disappear

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that "demographers estimate that Pennsylvania will lose at least one seat in the decennial reapportionment of House seats among the states after the 2010 Census - and some political analysts believe the 12th District would be an easy target for state lawmakers reshuffling boundaries before the 2012 elections. Murtha's district, which looks somewhat like a crustacean spread over parts of nine counties, was itself gerrymandered into existence to save his job a decade ago, after the Census determined that Pennsylvania would lose two representatives because of sluggish population growth relative to other states."

Federal District Court Halts Enforcement of Contribution Limits to Independent Expenditure Committees

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:00:00 GMT

In what is likely to be a preview of the D.C. Circuit's decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the District Court for the Southern District of California, in Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, has granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of San Diego's contribution limits to independent expenditure committees. The court adopted the view of the 4th Circuit (North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake) and the D.C. Circuit (EMILY's List v. FEC), and found that "it is 'implausible' that contributions to committees making only independent expenditures corrupt or create the appearance of corruption." The court noted that "in this case, the City has produced no evidence linking contributions to independent expenditure committees with undue influence on a candidate or officeholder's judgement."

The court's ruling is only a preliminary injunction order, which does not constitute a final decision on the merits. The case will now proceed to trial, and the City of San Diego will presumably attempt to produce evidence showing that contributions to independent expenditure committees can corrupt candidates.

(In the court's order, it also upheld the City's $500 individual contribution limit.)

Pioneer Press: Businesses sue over campaign decision

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:00:00 GMT

Minnesota's Pioneer Press reports "The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is asking a federal judge to clarify the extent to which corporations can now participate in Minnesota's elections, a development with potentially profound implications for the 2010 governor's race. The group, which represents the state's business interests, wants clarification on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision freeing up corporate participation in elections that was harshly criticized by President Barack Obama during his State of the Union speech last month. . . . The filing of the Minnesota case, which seeks a declaratory judgment from the federal courts spelling out what is legal and what is not in the state, is also a sign that Minnesota's business community plans to exercise its newfound rights."

Daily Caller: Obama’s bundlers occupy dozens of key positions

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From the Daily Caller: "An analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, for example, found that Obama has stuffed the diplomatic corps with more political appointees (i.e., cronies) than any president in the past 40 years. Only a year into the administration, close [to] half of the president’s biggest donors already have federal jobs." An extensive list of bundlers and the jobs they received follows.

Ken Klukowski on SpeechNow.org

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Ken Klukowski (fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union) has this op-ed on the SpeechNow.org case, which is currently pending before the D.C. Circuit. He explains, "In short, Citizens United looked at the First Amendment issues about regulating the spending of money for political speech, and SpeechNow looks at the First Amendment issues about regulating the raising of money for political speech."

Wash. Post/ABC News Poll Shows Opposition to Citizens United Ruling

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

A Washington Post/ABC News poll purports to show that "Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending . . . . Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent 'strongly' opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits. The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent)."

The Post's article about their own poll results does not provide the questions asked. (The questions are available, however, at ABC News. The Center For Competitive Politics analyzes the phrasing of the questions here.)

The Post, which has editorialized against the Supreme Court's decision, also tucks some "analysis" of the results into their article, saying the poll shows "a strong reservoir of bipartisan support" for Democratic legislative efforts, and warning that "there may be political risks for the GOP in opposing" the Democrats' proposals.

The Politics, and Legal Implications, of Retirement Announcements

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports that "Republicans are livid about the timing of Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D-Ind.) retirement announcement. They have at least four candidates in the upcoming primary while the Indiana Democratic Party will get to decide its nominee. Indiana required nominating petitions to be filed by noon Tuesday. Bayh announced Monday he would not seek reelection, giving would-be candidates less than 24 hours to get on the ballot. . . . Republicans have called on Bayh to ask for an extension of the filing deadline."

Can a Political Party Sue to Recover Funds Given to a Party-Switcher?

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:30:00 GMT

The Hill has this article: Democrats may have to sue to get Rep. Griffith's donations returned. No one seems to be able to specify what the cause of action would be though.

CRS Report on Post-Citizens United Legislative Options

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:30:00 GMT

From the Congressional Research Service: Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress.

Sen. Kerry op-ed on Citizens United

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:00:00 GMT

Senator John Kerry has this op-ed on Citizens United in Politico. Unfortunately, what jumps out from this piece is the Senator's assertion that conservatives' views of the judiciary are rooted in racism. Of the Supreme Court's recent decision, he writes: "But in a stunning act of judicial activism — the kind of reaching-beyond-the-law action political conservatives have been complaining about since, well, Brown v. Board of Education — the majority issued a decision inflating the speech rights of large faceless corporations to the level of those of hardworking Americans."

Interest Groups and the Columnists Who Echo Them

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Back on February 4, the Campaign Legal Center issued a press release in the form of a "letter to President Obama," which we noted here. Among other things, the pro-speech regulation interest group complained about the FEC's three Republican Commissioners, and called on President Obama to replace the FEC's "three lame-duck, holdover Commissioners." The CLC didn't mention it, but the two groups of Commissioners are not the same. The "three lame-duck, holdover Commissioners" are Republican Don McGahn and Democrats Ellen Weintraub and Steve Walther. In other words, the CLC would have us believe that their push for three new FEC appointees and their opposition to the current Republican Commissioners are one and the same. Appoint three new Commissioners, and the whole FEC changes, says the CLC. Not exactly, but it makes for a better story than the truth.

Now, National Journal columnist Eliza Carney has taken the bait. Carney writes, "FEC critics have called on President Obama to replace three controversial, lame-duck commissioners." While "controversial" is in the eye of the beholder, the two Democrat lame-ducks are not usually described that way in the media, so it's safe to assume that Carney has allowed herself to be duped and is referring (incorrectly) to the three Republican Commissioners. And just like the CLC's press release, Carney makes no mention of the fact that President Obama already tried to replace one of the "lame-duck" Commissioners - he nominated John Sullivan to replace Ellen Weintraub. But the CLC opposed it.

Wash. Post editorial: Two Democrats' remedy for the high court's campaign finance ruling

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post's editors are lukewarm toward the Schumer/Van Hollen proposal: "The Supreme Court has spoken, however wrongly; the proper legislative response is to come up with a well-tailored solution, not the one that achieves the biggest end-run around what the court has said is the constitutionally required room for free speech."

Politico: Members get bundles of lobbyist cash

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From Politico: "Even as President Barack Obama vows to take on special interests, lobbyists continue to bundle millions in donations for lawmakers, often when they have a direct stake in the lawmakers’ policy portfolio. Tourism interests are bundling thousands for Missouri Republican Rep. Roy Blunt, who represents the tourist mecca of Branson. A Wal-Mart lobbyist is piling together money for Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s reelection bid, and environmental interests are bundling checks for California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaign."

The Hill: New FEC rules could impact effect of Court's campaign-finance decision

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:30:00 GMT

The Hill has this piece on the FEC's pending coordination rulemaking.

NYT: In Black Caucus, a Fund-Raising Powerhouse

Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The New York Times has this lengthy piece on the fundraising practices of the Congressional Black Caucus. Explains the Times, "by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town. It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions. From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.) . . . Indeed, the nonprofit groups and the political wing are so deeply connected it is sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins."

Colorado Statesman: Ritter asks Supreme Court for clarification on campaign finance laws

Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From The Colorado Statesman: "The Colorado Supreme Court will begin accepting opening briefs from interested parties on March 8 regarding state campaign laws thought to be invalidated by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month. The Court’s response came a day after Gov. Bill Ritter submitted a set of questions seeking clarification on independent expenditure and electioneering laws. . . . Ritter’s two questions to the court ask to weigh-in on laws created by Colorado’s Amendment 27, approved by voters in 2002. The amendment outlawed corporations and labor unions from spending money supporting or opposing candidates and barred them from funding electioneering communications."

Wash. Post: Success of President Obama's crackdown on lobbying questioned

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "President Obama is escalating his war on K Street, proposing a series of tough restrictions a year after he first issued policies aimed at tamping down the influence of lobbyists. . . . Although White House supporters say the number of registered lobbyists has declined, some public interest groups say that power has shifted to other Washington insiders and business executives, who do not have to register their activity."

Democrats Unveil Citizens United Legislation

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Sen. Schumer and Rep. Van Hollen unveiled the Democrats' first legislative response to the Citizens United decision today. This initial response appears to focus on disclosure. No shareholder measures or public funding is included.

Details at The Hill, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. More inside.

As the Times notes, disclosure is not the real goal here: "The bill attempts to expand a series of restrictions and disclosure requirements in current laws so that, taken together, they deter the flood of corporate and union money into political commercials that many Democrats say they fear."

Supplemental Briefing in RNC v. FEC

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Republican National Committee filed a supplemental brief in its challenge to aspects of BCRA's national party soft money prohibition, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC effectively overturned the soft money ban:

As previously asserted by the Plaintiffs, to the extent McConnell found that contributions to national political parties were “suspect,” irrespective of their end use, it premised this conclusion on the historical practice of national parties to provide large donors of non-federal funds with preferential access to federal candidates and officeholders. [***] Now that the Supreme Court has stated that preventing access and gratitude is not a proper government interest, Citizens United, slip op. at 43-44, the [national party soft money] Restriction is unconstitutional. Not only is the Restriction unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs’ activities, it is facially unconstitutional since McConnell’s foundation of corruption cannot stand.

The Federal Election Commission and the Democratic National Committee have filed briefs disagreeing. Among other things, they argue that only the Supreme Court may overrule McConnell, and that it has not yet done so. The FEC's supplemental brief is here.

CQ Politics: Minnesota Poised to Move Primary Election Date

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports that a state legislative committee "approved a bill to change the primary date from Sept. 14 to Aug. 10, sending the legislation to the state House floor. The state Senate must also vote on the bill. MPR reports that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) supports the move, which would keep Minnesota from brushing up against federal law that requires at least a 45-day period for absentee ballots to be mailed in and counted for primaries and general elections."

WSJ: Investors Seek More Disclosure on Political Spending

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From the Wall Street Journal: "An effort by activist shareholders to prod companies to disclose political contributions is taking on new urgency following last month's Supreme Court decision loosening restrictions on corporate political spending. The Council of Institutional Investors and the Center on Political Accountability this month plan to send a letter urging disclosure to the chairmen of 430 companies. Activist investors also have filed shareholder resolutions urging disclosure at 54 of those companies, according to proxy adviser RiskMetrics Group Inc. . . . The disclosures typically include contributions to candidates, political parties and issue-based groups. Some companies also disclose memberships in trade associations which may lobby or contribute to candidates. Some of the contributions are not covered by disclosure laws."

Nader & Weissman: The Case Against Corporate Speech

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Ralph Nader and Steve Weissman (president of the interest group Public Citizen) have this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. After presenting a parade of horribles they say will follow in the wake of the Citizens United decision, they present their solution: "the fundamental response should be a constitutional amendment. We must exclude all commercial corporations and other artificial commercial entities from participating in political activities. Such constitutional rights should be reserved for real people, including, of course, company employees, to enhance a government of, by and for the people." But "[w]hile the arduous amendment process is underway," they urge public funding of Congressional elections, "shareholder-protection" measures, and a policy by which "the government could refuse, by statute or executive order, to contract with or provide subsidies, handouts and bailouts to any company that spends money directly in the electoral arena."

New York State Senate Expels Duly Elected Member

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The New York Times has the story of Hiram Monserrate's expulsion.

Wash. Times: Dems seek quick fix on campaign finance; Want law in place for fall vote

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Washington Times reports "Democrats are beginning to settle on options for curbing the Supreme Court's recent ruling that freed corporations and unions to enter the political fray with unlimited ads. While lawmakers have proposed solutions ranging from amending the Constitution to creating a voluntary public-financing system for congressional campaigns, Democratic leaders are instead leaning toward a list of more manageable tweaks they say can be in place before November's congressional elections, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat. . . . He said they are looking at several approaches: banning foreign-controlled corporations from being able to run political ads; trying to curb the ability of companies that take federal contracts from running ads, since taxpayer dollars would in essence be used to campaign; and to require either approval or notification of shareholders before corporations run ads. Mr. Van Hollen also said they will try to beef up disclosure requirements to make sure corporations and unions can't hide behind sham front groups."

James Copland: How the Plaintiffs Bar Bought the Senate; Citizens United might break its political stranglehold.

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:00:00 GMT

James Copland has this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He writes, "Labyrinthine campaign-finance laws serve mainly to entrench incumbents and empower those special interests either exempted from regulation (i.e., the institutional media) or best able to navigate the maze of rules. . . . The plaintiffs bar, with thousands of well-heeled members willing to write $2,000 checks, is well-situated to play this game. While corporations' interests are dispersed among hosts of competing tax and regulatory concerns, the trial lawyers have a focused cause: maintaining the lawsuit industry and expanding legal liability rules that lead to more lawsuits. . . . Perhaps Citizens United will help to break the trial-attorney stranglehold on national politics through its ownership of Congressional Democrats."

Wash. Post editorial on Montgomery County, MD candidates and the local teachers' union

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post has this editorial, noting an odd arrangement (or perhaps just an under-reported arrangement) in Montgomery County, Maryland - a suburb of Washington, DC.

Writes the Post, "Candidates who receive the union's stamp of approval are also then expected to pay. As far as we know, this arrangement is unique; in elections elsewhere, unions and other special interests contribute to candidates, not vice versa. . . . In the latest elections for the Montgomery County Council, in 2006, most candidates on the union-approved (and trademarked) 'Apple Ballot' coughed up the maximum contribution allowed by state law, $6,000, to a PAC run by the Montgomery County Education Association, as the teachers union is known. Union-backed candidates for the Board of Education also paid handsomely."

WSJ op-ed: The Bigger Meaning: High Court Lets Companies Lobby Employees, Suppliers

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Peter Brown has this column in the Wall Street Journal. According to Brown, "What’s more important is that the court has decided that your employer may spend as much as its top executives want to explain to you and your co-workers why voting for or against a candidate might endanger your job, make it more secure, or increase your retirement nest egg. . . . The decision’s greatest impact might be on local politics in which relatively few voters participate because there is not that much information distributed about those elections. And it is at the local level where a company might have greater influence on its work force."

Del. Online editorial: Del. legislators standing up to high court, corporate ads

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From an editorial at DelawareOnline.com: "On Thursday, Delaware's Republican congressman Mike Castle and Rep. David Price, D-N.C., announced plans to introduce the 'Stand By Every Ad Act' to hold corporations, unions and associations accountable for their political advertisements. Of the court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Castle says: 'This bill would simply extend the same transparent disclosures requirement to special-interest groups that candidates are currently required to provide in their campaign advertisements.'"

Yet Another Alito Head Shake Article

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The AP has what will hopefully be the last piece on Justice Alito's head shake at the State of the Union address. According to the AP, "It seems clear from Alito's questioning when the court heard argument in the case that he was taking issue with the president's assertion that the court reversed 100 years of law, rather than with Obama's reference to foreign influence, which also has generated some legal debate. At the September argument, Alito suggested to attorney Seth Waxman that 20 years was the appropriate time frame, encompassing two high court decisions that upheld limits on corporate spending in campaigns." The AP did not interview Justice Alito, or even an unnamed source "close to Alito," so this is pure speculation on the AP's part.

Huffington Post: Pelosi Taps Task Force To Counter Supreme Court's Citizens United Ruling

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From Huffington Post: "House Democrats are forming a Citizens United task force to decide on the best set of legislative push back against the Supreme Court decision that upended 100 years of precedent and legalized unlimited corporate involvement in elections, Democratic members and aides told HuffPost. . . . The rump group pulls together all the relevant committee chairmen and selected members of those panels."

FEC Statement on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United v. FEC

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:30:00 GMT

The FEC issued this statement today. According to the Commissioners, "Corporations and labor organizations that intend to finance independent expenditures or electioneering communications should: * Include disclaimers on their communications, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.11; * Disclose independent expenditures on FEC Form 5, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 109.10; and * Disclose electioneering communications on FEC Form 9, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 104.20." The Commissioners intend to undertake a broad rulemaking to address the Court's decision, and various provisions of part 114 of the FEC's regulations will be reviewed.

NYT editorial: What Price Politics?

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The latest from the New York Times editors: "A binge of special interest money seems inevitable unless Congress acts quickly — before this year’s election — to repair the damage from the Supreme Court ruling that ended restraints on campaign spending by corporations and unions."

Fmr. Sen. Rudman: Republicans losing their way on campaign finance reform

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

Former Senator Warren Rudman writes in this op-ed that the "history of Republican leadership on campaign finance reform should remind Republicans in Congress today that it is not in our true nature to side with the moneyed interests against the interests of the American people. The Supreme Court has taken that stand. It's time to return to our roots and take up Teddy Roosevelt's challenge from over a century ago by enacting the only real and lasting solution I know: citizen-funded elections. Under the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by more than 130 members of Congress, money from special interests would be replaced by small donations from constituents and matching federal funds. Matching funds, raised through a fee on large-scale government contracts, would go to serious, hardworking candidates who demonstrate a broad base of public support and who say no to large donations."

NewsMax: High Court's Campaign Ruling Gives Unions New Clout

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:30:00 GMT

From NewsMax: "The Supreme Court’s recent blockbuster decision on support for political candidates could increase union clout in campaigns, even though most of the arguments about the controversial ruling focuses on the leverage it gives corporations."

Compilation of U.S. Senator Statements on Citizens United

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:30:00 GMT

Rick Hasen provides a very useful link to this website, which is tracking U.S. Senator statements on Citizens United. (The compilation is a Defenders of Wildlife project.)

Press Release: Lofgren Bill Would Block Harassing Robocalls

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:30:00 GMT

According to this press release, "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the bipartisan Robocall Privacy Act of 2010 with co-sponsors Melissa Bean (D-IL), John Campbell (R-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), and Grace Napolitano (D-CA). The bill imposes criminal fines on entities that (1) make political robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. or (2) make more than two political robocalls to the same number in the same day. These sanctions would not apply if a robocall includes the name of its sponsor at the beginning of the call, along with a telephone number for the sponsor of the robocall."

Reform Group Continues Assault on FEC

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:30:00 GMT

The self-styled "reform" interest group, Campaign Legal Center, today issued a press release dressed up as a letter to President Obama, urging him to nominate new FEC Commissioners. As their press release indicates, and as they've said many times before (this time, though, the Citizens United decision brings a new immediacy to the "problem"), "the three Republican FEC Commissioners have repeatedly imposed their own ideological agenda rather than enforce laws enacted by Congress, with the result that our nation’s campaign finance laws have been undermined time and again." There are "three lame-duck, holdover Commissioners" that could be replaced at any time. Problem is, two of these "lame-ducks" are Democrats.

National Journal: Lawmakers: Repower The DNC, RNC

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:00:00 GMT

National Journal's blog has this piece, reporting that "House Administration Ranking Member Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said efforts to grant national political parties greater sway in elections may be an area where the parties can work together on campaign finance legislation. . . . [Former Democratic FEC Chairman Robert] Lenhard said that if Congress repeals the limits on how much national political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, the influence balance may shift away from corporations."

Indian Country Today: Campaign finance ruling impacts tribes

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:30:00 GMT

From Indian Country Today: "Tribal observers largely said the outcome could negatively impact tribes, as few have the kinds of influence with lawmakers as corporations and unions have. By lessening restrictions on those groups, many said the court has made it all the more difficult for tribes to be heard in the American political system."

Center For American Progress Details Possible Legislative Responses to Citizens United

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Alex DeMots of the Center For American Progress explains several possible legislative reponses to the Citizens United decision. (DeMots previously served on Commissioner Lenhard's staff at the FEC.)

ABC: White House Prepares for Possibility of 2 Supreme Court Vacancies; SCOTUS Watchers Believe Justices Stevens and Ginsburg Could Decide to Step Aside

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

ABC News reports "Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring. Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health."

Justice Thomas Speaks About Citizens United

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:30:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision. . . . 'I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,' Justice Thomas said. 'These are corporations.'"

Norm Eisen Defends President's SOTU Remarks Regarding Citizens United Decision

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:00:00 GMT

White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen has this posting defending the President's criticism of the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union address.

Sen. Hatch: Obama 'wrong' on campaign finance

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:30:00 GMT

Senator Hatch has this op-ed in Politico.

Heritage: Can U.S. Senators Be Recalled?

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:00:00 GMT

In short, no. From the Heritage Foundation's website: "Popular Web sites to the contrary, the recall of members of the U.S. Congress has never been permissible according to the Constitution, and no member of the Congress has ever been removed by such means. That’s because the U.S. Constitution sets the qualifications and terms for being a member of the House or Senate; changing those qualifications or terms (as in making them subject to a recall) is unconstitutional and would require a constitutional amendment."

NYT: Paterson Vetoes Ethics Bill, Saying It Isn’t Real Reform

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday vetoed the Legislature’s attempt to create new ethics panels to monitor elected officials and to require greater financial disclosure by lawmakers, halting for now an overhaul of the rules meant to curb political corruption. Mr. Paterson said the proposals, which would give the Legislature the power to appoint a commission to police itself, were insufficient. . . . The prospect that any efforts to overhaul the state’s ethics laws and impose reform on Albany will succeed this year is now uncertain. The proposal appeared to lack critical Republican support in the Senate to override Mr. Paterson’s veto."

AP: Senate mulls campaign-finance rules; Legislation aims to address fallout from court decision

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

AP reports on yesterday's Senate Rules Committee hearing on the Citizens United hearing. (For some reason or another, the Senate Rules Committee has long had jurisdiction over campaign finance matters.) AP reports "Lawmakers said Tuesday they might counter the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign money, along with the blizzard of special-interest spending that could result, by making corporations and unions come clean about which campaign ads they are sponsoring and how much they are shelling out. Senators also considered proposals to give investors and shareholders greater power over corporate political spending, or even to amend the Constitution, as they mulled how to respond to the ruling, which effectively lifted restrictions on big business and union election spending." Other reports inside.

Brad Smith: Citizens United, Shareholder Rights, and Free Speech: Restoring the Primacy of Politics to the First Amendment

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

On SCOTUSblog, part I and part II.

von Spakovsky: The ‘Shareholder Rights’ Canard

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

Hans von Spakovsky has this entry at National Review's blog, noting "What is very revealing about these proposals and all of the supposedly deep concern over shareholder rights is that there is not the same distress over members of unions who face a much more difficult dilemma than shareholders. In a 40-page Brennan Center report on the need to protect shareholders from such political spending, there is not a single mention of any need to protect union members. There is no concern whatsoever over empowering union members 'to affect how their money is spent.'"

CQ Politics: Senate Democrats Use Hearing To Decry Campaign Finance Ruling

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:30:00 GMT

CQ Politics reports "Democratic senators blasted the Supreme Court’s landmark campaign finance ruling at a Rules and Administration Committee hearing Tuesday and called for a quick legislative response. . . . Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry called for both a statutory response and a constitutional amendment to counter the decision."

David Bossie: Hypocrisy in Citizens United chatter

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:30:00 GMT

David Bossie, the President of Citizens United, has this op-ed in Politico, on the response to Citizens United.

National Law Journal: High Court Campaign Finance Opinion Roils Dozens of Cases

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:00:00 GMT

This piece examines the impact of Citizens United on other cases pending before courts around the country.

Martin Frost op-ed: Congress can level the playing field on campaign finance

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:30:00 GMT

Former Rep. Martin Frost has this op-ed in The Hill. Frost writes that the Citizens United "decision will take much of campaigning away from candidates and their supporters and put it into the hands of corporate/labor special interests," and he prescribes several legislative responses.

The Hill: Obama vs. K St. intensifies

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:30:00 GMT

From The Hill: "The White House has started a war of words with a trade association representing the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies over new campaign finance reform legislation."

Campaign Legal Center Proposes Post-Citizens United Regulatory World

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Campaign Legal Center, which favors heavy regulation of campaign finance and lobbying activities, released a set of proposals for legislators to consider at their upcoming Citizens United hearings.

CQ Politics: Drawing the Lines in California

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

CQ Politics on redistricting in California.

Marc Ambinder (The Atlantic): The Corporations Already Outspend The Parties

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

Marc Ambinder has this interesting piece at The Atlantic: "For the first time in recent history, the lobbying, grassroots and advertising budget of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has surpassed the spending of BOTH the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee. . . . According to The Center for Responsive Politics, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its national subsidiaries spent $144.5 million in 2009, far more than the RNC and more than double the expenditures by the DNC."

Illinois Primaries Today

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

Illinois voters go to the polls today. The highest profile race involves President Obama's old Senate seat. CQ Politics has more details.

Eliza Carney: Citizens United Fallout Already Being Felt; An Ongoing Case Points Up Just How Dramatically The Court's Ruling Has Changed Judicial Thinking

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:00:00 GMT

Eliza Carney has this wide-ranging column on the potential impact of Citizens United. Two observations inside.

WSJ: Mergers, Closings Plague Charities

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "The once-booming nonprofit sector is in the midst of a shakeout, leaving many Americans without services and culling weak groups from the strong. Hit by a drop in donations and government funding in the wake of a deep recession, nonprofits—from arts councils to food banks—are undergoing a painful restructuring, including mergers, acquisitions, collaborations, cutbacks and closings. . . . But longer term, say many nonprofits, the decline in donations to charities appears likely to continue. The sector's difficulties are re-awakening a touchy debate among some leaders in the nonprofit world over whether the economic prosperity of the past few decades has spawned an excess of nonprofits."

Sunlight Foundation: A Comprehensive Disclosure Regime in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:00:00 GMT

Once all the available political points have been scored on the foreign corporations issue, the focus of pro-regulatory voices is likely to turn toward creating an even more comprehensive disclosure regime. The Sunlight Foundation has a seven point proposal here.

LAT: Question of foreign funding of U.S. elections unsettled; President Obama and other officials have disagreed about the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling allowing corporations to spend money on campaigns. Experts say the jury's out.

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Los Angeles Times has this report on the foreign corporation controversy.

FEC Weekly Digest

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The latest, available here.

CNSNews: U.S. Attorney Reviews Call for Probe of SEIU Activities with White House, Congress

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:00:00 GMT

CNSNews reports "Federal prosecutors are reviewing a request for an investigation into whether Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act for his frequent visits to the White House and with members of Congress in 2009. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and its subgroup the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) sent letters to acting U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia asking for a probe."

Boston Globe: Capuano seeks to limit ruling’s effect; Wants shareholder approval for most political donations

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:00:00 GMT

The Boston Globe reports "US Representative Michael E. Capuano is proposing to limit the impact of a Supreme Court decision on campaign financing by requiring companies to seek shareholder approval for most political donations. . . . The legislation would apply to any corporate donation of more than $10,000. Executives would have to convene a shareholder vote to get permission to spend such money for any political purposes. It would also require companies to report such expenditures quarterly to shareholders."

David Broder: Congress prepares for a battle over campaign finance

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From David Broder's latest column in the Washington Post: "On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene to canvass ideas for going further in order to limit the newly proclaimed rights of domestic corporations and unions to finance campaign ads from their own treasuries. One option, a Schumer aide told me, might be an attempt to preserve the ban for corporations that employ Washington lobbyists; or enjoy government contracts; or receive government bailouts or other substantial subsidies. Another idea is to require the chief executive of a company to appear at the end of its political ad, just as candidates already have to do. Another notion is to require the main funders to be identified by name or by corporate logo in their ads. Or, some suggest, a law might require stockholder approval for any corporate political message."

AP: Critics raise specter of foreign campaign spending

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From the AP: "The Supreme Court's decision on campaign finance has jumbled a seemingly simple rule of American politics - foreigners should play no role in U.S. elections. . . . The more complicated question is how to treat U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies or American corporations that are controlled by foreign investors." The AP's heavily slanted report does not mention any of the numerous legal commentators who believe that the Supreme Court's decision has no effect on the foreign national ban.

Phil. Inquirer: Former Pa. legislator to pay $10,000 in ethics case

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports "A former state legislator from Bucks County has agreed to pay $10,000 to settle allegations that he violated ethics rules. Matthew Wright, 51, a Republican who served in the House from 1991 to 2006, allegedly used legislative staffers, equipment, and material to help run his last three reelection campaigns, according to findings released yesterday by the state Ethics Commission."

WSJ Interview with Floyd Abrams: The Media and Corporate Free Speech

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal has this interview with Floyd Abrams, on the Citizens United decision.

The Hill: White House looking to expand lobbying registration requirements

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From The Hill: "The White House is looking to expand lobbying registration requirements to those who spend less than a fifth of their work time lobbying. The Obama administration wants to close a 'loophole' in the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) that allows individuals to avoid registering as lobbyists if they spend less than 20 percent of their time lobbying."

Wash. Post: Democrats prepare legislation to counter ruling on campaign spending

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:30:00 GMT

The Post reports "Sensing a clear political opportunity, congressional Democrats are rushing to craft legislation to counter a Supreme Court ruling that they fear could lead to a flood of foreign spending on U.S. political campaigns. . . . Democrats and campaign-finance reform activists argue that the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the potential for abuse with its Jan. 20 ruling, which would allow the domestic arm of a foreign company to fund direct attacks on political candidates from its U.S. bank accounts. In addition, these critics argue, the beleaguered FEC is hardly in a position to police the flow of money between such firms and their foreign parents." Senator Franken's proposed legislation is here. As his press release notes, "The 'American Elections Act of 2010' is supported by Common Cause, People for the American Way, Common Cause Minnesota, and MPIRG."

CQ Politics: Obama’s Swipe at High Court Sparks Debate

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:00:00 GMT

From CQ Politics: "Republicans and Democrats generated a crossfire of criticism Thursday over President Obama’s comments in his State of the Union speech about a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance regulation and one justice’s negative reaction to them."

AP: Wash. gov's e-mail breaks campaign finance law

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:00:00 GMT

AP reports "Gov. Chris Gregoire violated state law by soliciting money for a congressional candidate during the legislative session, state regulators said Wednesday." The FEC has examined a Washington legislative session fundraising ban in the past, and found that it was preempted by federal law with respect to fundraising by and for federal candidates.

President on Citizens United in SOTU

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

President Obama mentioned the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union address last night. He said, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong." Six members of the Supreme Court were sitting front row, center as the President gave his address. The Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor did not show any reaction to the President's words. Justice Alito, however, shook his head repeatedly and said "Not true."

Two Citizens United Op-eds From The LA Times

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Los Angeles Times has two op-eds on the Citizens United Decision.

George Will: Campaign finance: a 'reform' wisely struck down

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

George Will's latest column focuses on the Citizens United decision: "Last week's Supreme Court decision that substantially deregulates political speech has provoked an edifying torrent of hyperbole. Critics' dismay reveals their conviction: Speech about the elections that determine the government's composition is not a constitutional right but a mere privilege that exists at the sufferance of government."

PC World: Could Court's Campaign Finance Ruling Affect Net Neutrality?

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:00:00 GMT

From PC World: "A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that throws out limits on corporate political-endorsement spending is giving new hope to opponents of net neutrality regulation proposed by the U.S. Federal Communication Commission."

SCOTUSblog Review of SpeechNow.org v. FEC Oral Argument

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:00:00 GMT

SCOTUSblog has a review of arguments here.

AP: Appeals Court Skeptical of Campaign Finance Rules

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:00:00 GMT

AP reports "In the first court hearing since the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance regulations, a federal appeals court seemed poised Wednesday to strike down additional limits on money in politics. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave every indication it would make it easier for independent advocacy groups to raise money for use in campaigns for president and Congress." (Note: the article incorrectly identifies the plaintiff as FreeSpeech.org. The organization is SpeechNow.org.)

USA Today: More court cases to test campaign-finance limits

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From USA Today: "With corporations and unions now free to spend unlimited amounts on campaign ads, a series of court challenges coast-to-coast could unravel other campaign-finance restrictions — including limits on contributions to political groups. The next test comes today, when a nine-member federal appeals panel in Washington holds oral arguments to consider whether an independent political group, SpeechNow, should be subject to a $5,000 annual cap on donations from individuals. Three judges on the same court last year voted to nullify those restrictions in a separate case involving EMILY's List, which works to elect women candidates who support abortion rights."

Politico: Obama to push Hill on foreign cash

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "President Barack Obama in his first State of the Union address on Wednesday night will encourage Congress to pass legislation restricting foreign corporations from getting involved in federal elections, according to an administration official."

Rothenberg Political Report: Can Candidates Accept Text Contributions?

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

Nathan L. Gonzales writes at The Rothenberg Political Report: "Americans are donating to the Haiti relief effort at unprecedented levels through text messaging, but can congressional candidates use them same technology to solicit contributions? For now, the answer appears to be 'no.'"

WSJ: States Weigh Judicial Recusals; Some Judges, Businesses Oppose Restrictions on Cases Involving Campaign Contributors

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "More states are responding to a longstanding concern that elected judges risk the appearance of bias when they hear cases involving their campaign contributors. But recent examples from Wisconsin and Nevada show that some states are reluctant to force judges to disqualify themselves from cases solely because they have received large contributions. . . . About 10 states, including California and Texas, have proposed new judicial-disqualification rules in the wake of last year's Supreme Court ruling [Caperton v. Massey]. But overhaul efforts have met resistance from judges and businesses who oppose restraints on judges' ability to raise campaign funds and on voters' rights to financially support favored candidates."

Legal Times: Ethics Groups Want Changes to Obama Lobbying Ban

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From the Legal Times Blog: "A group of nonprofits that lobby have sent President Barack Obama a letter requesting changes in the year-old executive order restricting lobbyists from jobs in the administration. The letter, dated Jan. 21, describes the current ban as well-intended, but flawed. They want to revise who is covered by the law."

Today's Citizens United Items

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:00:00 GMT

From Marc Ambinder, Rep. DeLauro, Jan Baran, BNA Money & Politics, and more.

Politico: White House hopes to blunt Supreme Court's decision

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:00:00 GMT

From Politico's Ken Vogel: "President Barack Obama, criticized by campaign finance reform advocates for not living up to his repeated pledges to reduce the role of special interests in elections, plans an aggressive push-back to last week’s Supreme Court decision overturning restrictions on political spending by corporations, unions and other organizations. POLITICO has learned that the White House intends to lend its support to congressional efforts to require shareholders to vote before a corporation could spend money in elections; require companies that pay for ads supporting or opposing candidates to more clearly identify themselves in the ads; restrict the ability of companies with big government contracts to air such ads’ and tighten rules prohibiting outside groups from coordinating their ads with candidates."

CBS: McCain: Campaign Finance Reform Is Dead

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:30:00 GMT

On Sunday's Face the Nation, "Senator John McCain, who helped rewrite the nation's campaign finance laws, said Sunday that this week's Supreme Court ruling removing limits from corporate spending on political advertising means that campaign finance reform is dead. . . . He predicted a backlash would occur when people see the amounts of unfettered money, from corporations and unions, that will go into political campaigns."

ABC: Foreign Money in American Politics? Some Say Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United Case Has Opened New Path

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:30:00 GMT

ABC News reports "Some election lawyers believe that last week's landmark U.S. Supreme Court opinion may have opened a new avenue for foreign money to enter the American political system, and that the justices are inviting a repeat of the 1996 Chinese money scandal that bloodied the Clinton administration."

Wash. Post: Republicans' allies eye state legislatures as redistricting nears

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "Seeking to capitalize on the excitement among Republican potential donors after Scott Brown's stunning capture of a Senate seat in Massachusetts last week, two independent groups focused on helping the party regain state legislative majorities before next year's nationwide redistricting are significantly ramping up their efforts. The American Majority Project (AMP) is the new kid on the block, a 527 group -- meaning it is allowed by law to accept unlimited contributions -- formed in recent days with the backing of Republican heavyweights such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush and an advisory board that includes former congressman Robin Hayes (N.C.), former Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan and GOP superlawyer Ben Ginsberg. The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), which has been around since 2002 to help aid GOP candidates running for state legislatures and other state offices, is getting something of a makeover -- bringing on former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie as its chairman and former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) as its vice chairman."

Politico: John Ensign will face investigation

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Politico reports "The Senate Ethics Committee will continue its investigation of Sen. John Ensign’s affair with an ex-staffer, despite a nascent Justice Department probe into the Nevada Republican. Unlike those of its House counterpart, the Senate Ethics Committee’s rules do not formally bar the panel from taking up a case in which the Justice Department or other law enforcement agency is involved. But the Senate committee does traditionally stand aside in such instances."

CQ Politics: Campaign Finance Ruling: What’s Next?

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:00:00 GMT

CQ Politics looks at the effect of Citizens United on the political parties.

NYT: Court Ruling Invites a Boom in Political Ads

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The New York Times suggests that "Media of all kinds may benefit from the decision, which promises to let more political advertising money be poured into the system. Most of that money finds its way to television, and in particular, local stations in battleground states."

NYT: A Quest to End Spending Rules for Campaigns

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The New York Times has this piece on Jim Bopp, the architect of numerous court challenges to campaign finance restrictions, including Citizens United. The article quotes Bopp: "'We had a 10-year plan to take all this down,' he said in an interview. 'And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.'"

Oklahoma Acts Quickly After Citizens United

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:30:00 GMT

The Oklahoman reports "Members of the state Ethics Commission were poised Friday to change rules to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that gives corporations and unions a bigger role in political campaigns but backed off after hearing appeals to slow down. The commission will meet in special session Jan. 29 – just days before a Feb. 2 deadline to submit rule changes to the Legislature – to adopt a rule changing state campaign finance laws. Legislators can defeat rules suggested by the Ethics Commission or allow them to take effect by taking no action. . . . Oklahoma is one of 24 states that have laws banning corporations and labor unions from spending from their treasury funds, said Marilyn Hughes, the Ethics Commission’s executive director."

New York Sun: ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:30:00 GMT

The New York Sun reports "The first big impact of the Supreme Court’s decision lifting restrictions on certain corporation campaign spending may be at the American Civil Liberties Union, which, after years of opposing restrictions on free speech grounds, is convening this weekend to decide whether to reverse course and endorse government limits on money in politics. The ACLU has long opposed government limits to how much a donor can give to a political campaign or spend airing advertisements on an issue during an election. . . . But concern that the Supreme Court ruling will fundamentally alter American democracy has ignited within the union an intense debate that was aired at a meeting on Saturday of the ACLU’s 83-member board of directors and in interviews with this reporter, and the Union’s board is set to vote as early as today on whether to reverse its policy."

NYT: Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

In a refreshing piece that is completely at odds with their editorial page, the New York Times asks, "after more than three decades, has the [post-Watergate campaign finance] system made a difference? . . . Legal scholars and social scientists say the evidence is meager, at best, that the post-Watergate campaign finance system has accomplished the broad goals its supporters asserted. . . . It is not merely an academic question. The Supreme Court has consistently said that only fighting corruption or the appearance of corruption justifies laws that restrict political spending. Other rationales — like leveling the playing field between the haves and have-nots — are not enough. . . . In the United States, studies comparing states like Virginia with scant regulation against those like Wisconsin with strict rules have not found much difference in levels of corruption or public trust, several scholars said. . . . The most insistent advocates of the campaign finance laws argue that the benefits are real even if academics can’t measure them."

NYT: Obama Turns Up Heat Over Ruling on Campaign Spending

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From the New York Times: "President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had 'handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists' with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions. . . . 'This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,' Mr. Obama said, adding: 'I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.' How much the administration can do about the ruling remains unclear, although Mr. Obama said he had instructed his advisers to work with Congress on a 'forceful, bipartisan response.'"

The Hill, Blog: Poll: Public agrees with principles of campaign finance decision

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:30:00 GMT

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room notes "A poll released Friday showed that a majority of people agree with the principle of the Supreme Court decision handed down Thursday that lifted limits on corporate spending on politics. 57 percent of those surveyed by Gallup agreed that money given to political candidates is a form of free speech and 55 percent agreed that the same altrules should apply to individuals, corporations and unions. . . . The survey, however, was taken between Oct. 1-2, 2009, months before the Court issued its decision."

The Impact of Citizens United on State Laws

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:30:00 GMT

Writing for Examiner.com, Evan Johnston takes a look at New York campaign finance law after Citizens United. The Washington City Paper takes a look at D.C. election law.

Wash. Post: Campaign finance ruling leaves Democrats with few options

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "Frustrated Democrats began laying plans Friday to chip away at a landmark Supreme Court decision unleashing corporate expenditures in political campaigns, but the ruling's broad sweep will make it difficult to stem a tidal wave of new spending in this year's pivotal midterm elections. Major corporations and advocacy groups immediately began devising ways to take advantage of the 5 to 4 decision, which concluded that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and, therefore, can spend as much company money as they wish to oppose or support individual political candidates. . . . Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, are working with the White House to craft a new campaign finance bill. They are almost certain to call for strengthened disclosure requirements for companies that directly sponsor ad campaigns, and they may push for requiring shareholders to approve political expenditures by publicly traded companies. They are also studying ways to prohibit campaign spending by corporations such as American International Group or General Motors that received federal bailout money, as well as companies that have federal contracts or registered lobbyists."

State Reactions to Citizens United

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The First Amendment Center has this round-up of state-level reactions to the Citizens United decision.

The "Move To Amend" Project

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The "Campaign to Legalize Democracy" is pushing a constitutional amendment in response to the Citizens United decision at www.movetoamend.org.

Brad Smith in WSJ: Newsflash: First Amendment Upheld

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:00:00 GMT

Brad Smith has this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The former FEC Chairman writes, "Much of the opposition to Citizens United is simply the opposition of the political left to what they perceive corporations will say. Consider campaign finance "reform" organizations that have long been supported by corporations. New York University's Brennan Center for Justice has received support, for example, from a rogue's gallery of corporate America, including Enron and Bear Stearns. Never has the public heard a peep from this organization about whether all shareholders in these corporations actually support the center's agenda. . . . Similarly, much of the criticism focuses on the perception that Republicans will be the winners if corporations and unions are unshackled. President Barack Obama, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez all announced that they would be looking for ways to limit corporate expenditures."

NYT: 24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:30:00 GMT

The New York Times notes that "A day after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may not ban political spending by corporations or unions in candidate elections, officials across the country were rushing to cope with the fallout, as laws in 24 states were directly or indirectly called into question by the ruling. . . . For now, the decision does not overturn all the state laws in question, but it is only a matter of time, experts said, before the laws will be challenged in the courts or repealed by state legislatures. Since the state laws are vulnerable, it is unlikely that officials will continue enforcing them, experts said."

Roll Call: Senators Can Now Have Official Facebook Pages

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:30:00 GMT

Roll Call reports "The Senate Rules and Administration Committee has reached an agreement with Facebook that will enable Senators to set up an 'official' Facebook page that follows the chamber’s rules."

Denver Post: Colorado GOP to sue to lift campaign money limits

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Denver Post reports "Colorado Republicans will sue to overturn voter-approved state limits on some campaign contributions after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that tossed out restrictions on corporate involvement in federal races. . . . In 2002, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that banned direct corporate or union expenditures in state races. Given the Supreme Court's action Thursday, Colorado Common Cause director Jenny Flanagan said a challenge of the state law was almost inevitable. . . . [Lead attorney Ryan] Call said the lawsuit probably will also challenge other parts of Colorado's law, such as the $400 limits on donations to state legislative candidates by individuals and political action committees and the creation of small-donor committees that are allowed to contribute 10 times the limit because they get their money from donations of $50 or less."

Public Citizen Calls For Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Decision

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:30:00 GMT

Less than a full day after the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the liberal interest group Public Citizen has called for a constitutional amendment to undo the decision.

FEC Statement on Citizens United

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:30:00 GMT

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) issued this statement on the Supreme Court's ruling: "The Commission is considering the impact of the opinion on its existing regulations, as well as its ongoing enforcement processes, and will be providing guidance to the public as soon as possible regarding what steps will be taken to comply fully with the opinion."

Citizens United: Media and Commentary

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:00:00 GMT

A collection of news reports and commentary.

Holtzman Vogel Memo on Today's Supreme Court Decision

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:00:00 GMT

Holtzman Vogel issued this memorandum on today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Supreme Court Decides Citizens United v. FEC

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The opinion is here.

Comments Filed In FEC's Latest Coordination Rulemaking

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Nine sets of comments have been filed in the Federal Election Commission's (FEC's) latest coordinated communication rulemaking.

Arizona Republic: Federal judge strikes down Ariz. matching funds

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The Arizona Republic reports "A U.S. District Court judge has declared a portion of an Arizona program that gives candidates public money for their campaigns unconstitutional - and she has given the system's defenders 10 days to convince a higher court otherwise. Judge Roslyn Silver ruled Wednesday that a portion of the state's 12-year-old Clean Elections system should be shut down. But her 10-day delay in implementing the ruling gives the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission time to appeal."

Citizens United Decision Was Not Issued Today

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The next opportunity for an opinion is next Monday. UPDATE: The Supreme Court has announced a special session for tomorrow at 10:00 am. No details where given as to the purpose of this special session. SCOTUSblog notes that "no arguments are scheduled, so it almost certainly will be to release opinions — perhaps the long-awaited ruling on campaign finance regulation. Such sessions are highly unusual, but so is the campaign finance case, involving a major constitutional controversy."