Cases
Daily Caller: McCutcheon: I Got What I Wished For. Did The RNC?
By Shaun McCutcheon
I fully support the exercise of the freedom made possible by the case we fought so hard to win. It is the American way. Supporting candidates directly, even multiple ones, lessens reliance on Super PACS, and allows a candidates message reach more voters directly. In fact, I am folding a Super PAC which I founded so I can support more candidates directly.
I was regularly puzzled when adversaries fighting against the case would argue that more money in politics was a bad thing…
Did these adversaries who fought so hard against the First Amendment in this matter never even consider they could use a victory to promote their liberal candidates and causes too? If they knew then, what they benefit from now, perhaps their vitriol toward me, and the First Amendment freedoms I advocate for, would have been less passionate – and less threatening.
National Monitor: The Citizens United “Scare” Who Really Benefits? So Far, Democrats Mainly.
By Stewart Lawrence
It’s one of the biggest bugaboos in American politics today, and almost everything you know about it is wrong.
It’s the 2010 Supreme Court decision that gave big corporations individual “free speech” – and the right to spend unlimited amounts of secret big money on election campaigns, right?
Wrong.
Actually, corporations have been recognized as individual legal entities for a long time in America – for at least 150 years, in fact.
And there’s no evidence that that they have increased their spending dramatically in recent election campaigns – far from it.
The Citizens United decision did say that a “corporate” body could not be denied the right to enter into “electioneering.”
But “corporate” body also includes trade unions, non-profit advocacy groups, and just about any other collective association that you can think of.
FEC
Washington Examiner: Regulator who backed Drudge crackdown might be next California AG
By Rudy Takala
The Federal Election Commission member who sought to regulate online political speech is a top candidate under consideration by California Gov. Jerry Brown for a possible appointment as state attorney general, according to experts in the state and in Washington, D.C.
FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel could become the next AG of the state if the incumbent, Kamala Harris, wins election to the Senate next month.
Ravel headed a state-level equivalent of the FEC, the Fair Political Practices Commission. At both agencies, she sought to regulate political speech on websites including Facebook, Twitter and the Drudge Report.
SEC
USA Today: Sen. Elizabeth Warren blasts a new target
By Mark Krantz
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., sent a letter Friday to President Obama, urging him to replace Mary Jo White as chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Warren blasted White’s refusal to push initiatives that would require companies to disclose how much they spend on political contributions two weeks after a rider was inserted into legislation the senator said would block the SEC from requiring the disclosures…
David Primo, a professor at the University of Rochester, said Warren overstates the importance of disclosure, which can have a negative affect on investors. “Warren overplays her hand, however, as scientific studies have not shown that corporate disclosure always benefits investors; in some cases, disclosure can even hurt investors by creating a road map for political activists to attack the firm,” Primo said. “Warren has a one-dimensional view of disclosure that is at odds with scientific understandings of this sort of regulation.”
Wall Street Journal: Elizabeth Warren to Obama: Fire SEC Chief Mary Jo White
By Andrew Ackerman
Ms. Warren is again targeting the SEC chief for her decision not to craft a rule requiring public companies to disclose their political spending activities-even though the agency is restricted by law from working on such a rule this year. The senator also denounced an initiative to eliminate duplicative or outmoded corporate disclosures-a project Ms. Warren dubbed a “far-reaching, anti-disclosure initiative.”
“Chair White’s comprehensive anti-disclosure agenda runs directly contrary to the SEC’s purpose,” Ms. Warren wrote in a 12-page letter Friday to Mr. Obama. “The only way to return the SEC to its intended purpose is to change its leadership.”
Independent Groups
CBS Minnesota: Campaign Finance Reformers Feingold, McCain Criticized For Super PAC Donations
By The Associated Press
But now, with McCain facing a tougher-than-expected re-election and Feingold seeking to win back the seat he lost six years ago, the authors of McCain-Feingold are benefiting from the same sources of funding they once scorned.
The goal of their 2002 law was to shore up confidence in the political system and reduce the role of big money in elections. But it also allowed people and corporations to give their money elsewhere, to independent and third-party groups. Critics have argued that increased the power of those groups, weakening the role of political parties.
Feingold no longer abides by his 1992 garage door promise and doesn’t spurn outside money to help his campaign. He defends his position as necessary in the wake of the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in 2010 that gave a green light for corporations, labor unions and other outside groups to spend unlimited cash on campaign ads as long as those activities aren’t coordination with a candidate or party.
Washington Free Beacon: Clinton Campaign Chair Personally Thanked Super PAC Donors
By Lachlan Markay
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta personally thanked high-dollar donors to a Democratic Super PAC with which the campaign is legally prohibited from coordinating, according internal campaign memos.
The memos detail half a dozen scheduled Podesta phone calls to five-, six-, and seven-figure donors to Priorities USA Action, the most prominent Super PAC supporting Clinton’s presidential candidacy…
Clinton and other prominent Democrats have criticized Supreme Court decisions that enabled those types of groups. However, internal documents and communications show that the campaign has explored ways to steer donors to Priorities and otherwise maximize its collaboration with the group within the bounds of the law.
The Media
Arizona Republic: How do we respond to threats after our endorsement? This is how
By Mi-Ai Parrish
We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party.
We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat.
And then the reaction started pouring in. Threats against our business. Threats against our people…
To all the other people who we heard from, who thanked us for our courage and our bravery, or who were bold enough to disagree with us on principle – the people who didn’t threaten to bomb our homes or harm our families – I have something for you, too. To you, I give my gratitude. I’m grateful that you stood up to say that we live in a better world when we exchange ideas freely, fairly, without fear.
Donors
Politico: Tom Steyer’s shadow campaign
By Carla Marinucci and Anna Palmer
Billionaire Democratic activist Tom Steyer insists he’s not thinking about 2018 yet – but a look at his moves this year show he’s already launched a shadow campaign that could lay the groundwork for him to mount a gubernatorial bid.
The megadonor and former hedge fund manager is visiting Los Angeles’ Skid Row, dropping by ethnic enclaves in Long Beach, traveling from San Diego to Humboldt, meeting with key union leaders to repair rocky relationships, weighing in on more than dozen state and local ballot measures — and introducing himself to voters in high-profile TV spots running statewide.
And in an unprecedented effort that he says will change the state’s electorate for generations to come, Steyer is bankrolling a $13 million millennial-aimed voter registration drive that he tells POLITICO will add upward of 500,000 new names – most of them young and Democratic – to the California voter rolls by Election Day.
Candidates and Campaigns
Los Angeles Times: Hillary Clinton keeps fishing for big money while lagging behind with smaller donors
By Chris Megerian and Michael A. Memoli
Although it’s not unusual for a presidential nominee to hold fundraisers close to the finish line – President Obama attended at least eight in October 2012 – Clinton’s schedule, which included three such events on the West Coast this week, reflects her deep reliance on wealthy contributors. Trump, who far outpaces her in the share of small donations that make up his fundraising total, has accused her of being beholden to special interests buying influence through large donations to her campaign…
A campaign official also said that the true breadth of Clinton’s grass-roots fundraising is not easily quantifiable by a traditional measure – the number of contributions less than $200 reported to the Federal Election Commission – given low-dollar donors’ penchant for giving repeatedly.
Politico: Trump cash haul bypasses campaign
By Isaac Arnsdorf
Only about $68.7 million of the almost $212 million that Trump collected in the past three months through joint ventures with the Republican National Committee and state parties actually reached his campaign, according to the latest filings with the Federal Election Commission. Almost as much – $63.5 million – was eaten up by operating expenses such as paying for fundraising and compliance consultants, catering and event spaces, list rentals, direct mail and digital ads.
Four percent of the haul, almost $9.3 million, can’t be used on the campaign at all, because it’s earmarked for special RNC accounts for convention, legal and building expenses, the campaign finance reports show. The rest was split with the RNC and state parties.
New York Times: The Other Campaign Madness: Mega-Donors
By Editorial Board
To help level the spending field, Mrs. Clinton proposes to update the public financing system for presidential, Senate and congressional campaigns along the lines of the New York City model, which supplies matching funds to qualified candidates. Another Clinton idea is to force disclosure of donors to the proliferating nonprofit groups that exploit an Internal Revenue Service loophole by claiming to be promoting “social welfare” rather than political campaigns. Mrs. Clinton also proposes to eliminate the type of super PACs, with their unlimited contributions and spending, that pretend to be independent but are custom tailored for individual candidates. Her reforms already exist as proposals in Congress but need a decisive push toward enactment.
These are noteworthy proposals that voters should embrace. But they demand dedicated follow-through from Mrs. Clinton, should she win the White House, particularly since her own campaign has been driven by large amounts of special-interest, Wall Street and super PAC financing.
The States
San Francisco East Bay Times: Commentary: California’s answers to big money elections
By Kathay Feng
Two ballot measures, one on all California ballots and another in Berkeley, offer promising solutions to our country’s money in politics problems.
First, Proposition 59, which all California voters will have a chance to vote on, asks voters whether California lawmakers should do everything in their power to overturn the Supreme Court’s disastrous 2010 Citizens United decision…
A yes vote on Prop 59, the Overturn Citizens United Act, moves our country toward a national solution, such as a constitutional amendment, to restore reasonable limits on how much wealthy individuals and corporations can spend to influence elections.
In Berkeley, voters will be asked to weigh in on a different, but related ballot question known as the Berkeley Fair Elections Act, or Measure X1. That measure would create a voluntary system of publicly funded elections in Berkeley – allowing qualifying candidates to run for office without raising large amounts of private funds.