Other

We at the Center were, like many, many others with connections to the legal academy, saddened to learn of the death of University of Illinois law professor Larry Ribstein on December 23. There is little we can add to the various condolences and remembrances by people who knew him better, many of which are collected here and here.

Professor Ribstein was a corporate legal scholar, not a campaign finance or election scholar, but his work is very important in understanding corporate rights to free speech, a subject much in the news since Citizens United v. FEC was decided nearly two years ago.

Recently elements of the “reform community” have been getting themselves worked up about a most improbable threat to American democracy: an organization called “Americans Elect.”

In their criticism of American Elect, reformers seem to have forgotten the whole purpose of “reform.” More below the fold.

It’s more or less official: “Colbert has proven that corporate funded speech can spur valuable grassroots activism. That’s pretty much the holding in Citizens United.”

We are saddened to hear of the passing this week of David H. Padden, a Chicago businessman who was on our Board of Advisors here at the Center  for Competitive Politics. Mr. Padden was a warm and gracious gentleman, a highly successful entrepreneur, and a great champion of liberty and of free speech. Mr. Padden supported many pro-freedom groups and organizations, including the Heartland Institute, which he founded and where he served as Chairman for many years. His advice and leadership will be missed, but the United States is freer and more prosperous because of David Padden, and it is hard to leave a more meaningful legacy than that.

Today a three judge panel for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-resident foreigners do not have a right to make political contributions or express advocacy expenditures in U.S. elections. The horrible threat of a foreign takeover of U.S. elections now seems behind us.

Representative Rob Woodall (R. Ga.) has introduced a bill that would prohibit candidates from carrying over their campaign assets from one campaign to the next. The proposal is probably unconstitutional, and also misdiagnoses the problem. In any case, persons who generally favor freedom and deregulation, such as Rep. Woodall, aren’t going to be able to win a long term game based on regulating speech.

Every so often I run across an item from the so-called campaign finance ‘reform’ community attacking the Center for Competitive Politics for things that are just false or absurd. I’m not talking about the normal sharp disagreements between us and groups like Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and countless other ‘reform’ groups over what the First Amendment means, how campaign finance laws should be interpreted, the role of money in politics and public policy discussions, and similar matters.  

No, I’m referring to flat-out false statements about our positions on issues, or serious distortions and omissions that don’t hold up to even the briefest scrutiny.

I rarely address these things on the blog, because we try to use this space to promote our ideas and vision of a robust and free political system unhindered by government restraints on citizens’ First Amendment political rights. Occasionally I might send a private e-mail to a reporter responding to something, or even a letter to the editor to be published. But I’m usually not interested in getting into exchanges with bloggers who have 3 readers or who are clearly uninterested in facts.

But, with the crash of American society apparently imminent according to some if the debt ceiling isn’t raised next Tuesday (CCP of course takes no position on what should be done or not done on this issue, but much like Y2K, 2012, and the Zombie Apocalypse, we’re not oblivious to such matters either), and with a few recent false statements about CCP floating around out there I thought I might as well take what may be one final opportunity to set the record straight on these items before heading to my own personal undisclosed location to wait things out.

It goes without saying that one of the goals of an organization like The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) is to get the word out about the nature and quality of the work we do. Occasionally someone notices our work and treats us to public acknowledgement while simultaneously helping us get the word out. Needless to say, we like when that happens. After watching this video from ActivistCash.com, we hope you do, too.

Today Politico reported two interesting stories touching on foreign money in U.S. politics. The first is a modestly embarrassing story that President Obama had thanked civil rights hero Ernie Green, who introduced him at a fundraiser last night, apparently unaware that Green was involved in illegally funneling foreign money into the 1996 campaign:

At fundraiser, Obama introduced by civil rights hero who pleaded guilty in campaign finance probe

The civil rights hero who introduced President Barack Obama at a political fund-raiser in Washington Monday night, Ernie Green, pleaded guilty in 2001 to a federal misdemeanor tax violation after becoming enmeshed in an investigation into illegal foreign money given to Democrats in the 1996 election…

President Obama of course made a big fuss about foreign money in U.S. politics after the Citizens United decision. You can read the full story here.

Far more interesting though was a story that appeared  later this afternoon in Politico:

Funding the left, from Bermuda

The Atlantic Philanthropies has emerged in recent years as a key, quiet funder of the institutional left, providing the money behind, among other groups, the health care outfit Health Care for America Now.

The organization has kept a low profile in part because its funder, duty-free shopping magnate Chuck Feeney, doesn’t appear particularly interested in pubicity. Feeney’s foundation is a giant donor in a number of regions around the world, including Northern Ireland; but he and the Atlantic Philanthropies are based in Bermuda, with the consequence that — through a quirk of tax law — they can freely finance the 501(c)4 organizations that play in politics, which American family foundations can’t do.

Bermuda is a British territory, meaning this is a foreign entity. And if we’re going to go full-on xenophobic about it, it should probably be noted that the company founded by Feeney (and therefore is the origin of the funds given away by Atlantic Philanthropies), the Duty Free Shoppers Group, was started in and retains its headquarters in Hong Kong, once upon a time a British territory and now under control of the Chinese government.

So, which U.S. based organizations do the foreign-based and foreign-funded Atlantic Philanthropies support? The foundation helpfully provides a list and a searchable database, and it turns out that the highly political Center for American Progress (CAP) and Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF) received $1,653,000 in five separate grants in 2008 and 2009, most of that going to CAPAF.

CAPAF is not only a 501(c)4 organization able to run political ads, it is the home of ThinkProgress and Lee Fang, who was absolutely hysterical over allegations the politically-active US Chamber of Commerce collected some small amounts of money from foreign affiliates, falsely accusing the Chamber of illegally funneling foreign money into US elections.

Well. Glass houses, motes in eyes, etcetera etcetera.

Fred Wertheimer wanted to testify in person at yesterday’s congressional hearing on the President’s proposed Executive Order.  The Committee decided that two pro-EO witnesses were enough, particularly as one was the sole witness on a “panel” and testified for over two hours.  Rick Hasen, who has made the remarkable claim that the federal law struck down in Citizens United did not “ban … any form of political speech,” and criticized the idea that prohibitng a corporation from speaking was a “ban” because the corporation had the alternative to set up a separate PAC, rather casually accuses Committee Chairman Issa of “gagging” Wertheimer.  Given his 13 pages of written testimony, we’re not sure Wertheimer has quite been “gagged,” but if so, at least it is “reasonable” gagging.