Newsroom

Newsroom

Bloomberg BNA: D.C. Circuit to Hear Challenge to Contribution Limits (In the News)

Kenneth P. Doyle
The case set for en banc argument involves a challenge to campaign contribution rules brought by a married couple, Laura Holmes and Paul Jost. They argued that having separate contribution limits for primary and general elections is unfair and unconstitutional because it advantages some candidates—often including incumbents—who face no primary challenge. Under current FEC rules, such candidates can use primary contributions to fund a general election race.
Holmes and Jost are being represented in the case by the nonprofit Center for Competitive Politics, a critic of campaign finance regulation.
Attorneys for the FEC have argued that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits, including separate limits for primary and general elections. However, the D.C. Circuit panel ruling in April said it was not “frivolous” to challenge such contribution limits.

Filed Under: In the News, In the News Our Cases

Daily Media Links 7/29: The SEC’s twisty argument to toss pay-to-play muni bond rule challenge, Campaign funding legislation left languishing, and more…

In the News Bloomberg BNA: D.C. Circuit to Hear Challenge to Contribution Limits Kenneth P. Doyle The case set for en banc argument involves a challenge to campaign contribution rules brought by a married couple, Laura Holmes and Paul Jost. They argued that having separate contribution limits for primary and general elections is unfair and […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

Washington Examiner: ‘Dark money’ opponents: Disclosure for thee, but not for me (In the News)

Ben Hurst
The courts are an uncertain bulwark against speech chilling regulation. The Supreme Court just refused to consider a nonprofit’s challenge to a Delaware law that required disclosure of the nonprofit’s donors as the price for speaking. Justice Thomas authored a rare dissent: “Given the specter of these First Amendment harms, a State’s purported interest in disclosure cannot justify revealing the identities of an organization’s otherwise anonymous donors.”
For most citizens, the only means to participate effectively in public debate other than voting is to join financially with others. The First Amendment protects the privacy of that association. Where prosecutors and regulators wield the cudgel of “disclosure” with the effect — and the purpose — of chilling those with whom they disagree, they harm public discourse and violate the First Amendment.

Filed Under: In the News, In the News Our Cases

Center for Individual Freedom: The First Amendment in Peril (In the News)

Bradley Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Center for Competitive Politics and former Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, discusses why Americans must vociferously protect their right to privacy in the political arena, the Supreme Court decision to deny an appeal of a lawsuit challenging a radical disclosure law in Delaware, and the latest push […]

Filed Under: Broadcast, Video, Audio, In the News

Daily Media Links 7/28: Obsessed With Need To Control Others, Political Busybodies And Judges Trample On Liberty, New IRS notification process announced for 501(c)(4) nonprofits, and more…

In the News Center for Individual Freedom: The First Amendment in Peril Bradley Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Center for Competitive Politics and former Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, discusses why Americans must vociferously protect their right to privacy in the political arena, the Supreme Court decision to deny an appeal of a […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

USA Today: Money, influence are here to stay: Opposing view (In the News)

David Keating
Money and influence are never going to disappear from campaigns, and shouldn’t. Even if people couldn’t give to campaigns, big employers, big labor, celebrities and big media would all gain influence. Those with money would just find another way to influence government. They might instead look to buy media outlets, which are exempt from all campaign speech laws. Indeed, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos already bought The Washington Post.
As Churchill was trying to tell us, the alternatives are often worse. For example, some have expressed valid concerns about foreigners influencing our campaigns. There are indications the DNC emails may have been stolen by Russians. The Russians may well want to use them to influence the presidential race. But would that justify a ban on news coverage of emails hacked by other nations? Of course not.
Likewise, many of the cures touted for money in politics would restrict campaign speech by citizens. Yet none of the emails currently causing controversy implicates independent campaign speech.

Filed Under: David Keating, In the News, Published Articles

Daily Media Links 7/27: Money, influence are here to stay: Opposing view, Report: FEC Leaders, managers share blame for horrid morale, and more…

In the News  USA Today: Money, influence are here to stay: Opposing view David Keating Money and influence are never going to disappear from campaigns, and shouldn’t. Even if people couldn’t give to campaigns, big employers, big labor, celebrities and big media would all gain influence. Those with money would just find another way to […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links

Argus Leader: My Voice: Get ready for the election tax (In the News)

Ben Lee
Paying for campaign spending is the worst possible use of our tax dollars. The Democracy Credit program would be capped at $12 million, yet that’s $12 million that could go toward any other, far more valuable purpose. If the funding for roads, schools, or other state services were ever jeopardized, at least we’d have glossy fliers and television ads promoting Joe Blow’s latest run for public office, right?
That’s not how politics should function. South Dakotans don’t need a “stimulus package” to get involved in doing our civic duty or supporting causes. We’re in the ranks of states with strong levels of voter turnout. Pouring our money into elections won’t change that level of engagement.
Instead, it’ll just create opportunities for would-be politicians or incumbents to game the system. That’s how it works out in other states with public election financing. As the Center for Competitive Politics puts it, taxpayer-funded elections “exacerbate election fraud and facilitate new and creative forms of campaign finance corruption[.]”

Filed Under: In the News, Quotes CCP

Daily Media Links 7/26: Here’s What You Won’t Hear About Citizens United at the Democratic National Convention This Week, IRS Gives Opposite Rulings to Convention Committees, and more…

Citizens United Reason: Here’s What You Won’t Hear About Citizens United at the Democratic National Convention This Week Damon Root Needless to say, you won’t hear much at the DNC this week about how the federal government once tried to claim the power to ban books in its losing Citizens United argument. Nor will you […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

Daily Media Links 7/25: Leaked DNC emails reveal the inner workings of the party’s finance operation, Dumb money: How political mega-donors got it wrong, and more…

In the News Argus Leader: My Voice: Get ready for the election tax Ben Lee Paying for campaign spending is the worst possible use of our tax dollars. The Democracy Credit program would be capped at $12 million, yet that’s $12 million that could go toward any other, far more valuable purpose. If the funding […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links