Here in Campaigns & Elections.
News from Ohio: “Incumbent Butler County Commissioner Cindy Carpenter may have some explaining to do about a billboard on Ohio Bypass 4 in Fairfield that appears to congratulate her as commissioner even though the contested GOP primary is just three weeks away.”
The Hill reports on the ticking clock.
This time, five justices did actually manage to toss something out the window: the post-Watergate system of campaign finance regulation.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas, who refused to sign the four-justice plurality opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. because it didn’t go far enough, would have explicitly overturned the court’s foundational precedents in this area. The chief justice tried in his own opinion to persuade readers that while striking down the aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates, parties and political committees, the court was actually leaving a meaningful regulatory edifice still standing — one that could remain standing, despite the expansive “money is speech” view of the First Amendment and the extremely cramped definition of corruption that the McCutcheon opinion embraced.
Maybe somewhere in the country there is someone sufficiently out of touch with political reality to be open to the chief justice’s persuasion. Not David Ransohoff, a nonpolitical doctor friend of mine who last week forwarded to me the story from The Times about the six-figure political contributions made by the doctors who are the country’s top Medicare billers. “While I was initially disturbed by this report,” my friend wrote in his wry email, “John Roberts reassured me that, because there was no clear quid pro quo, this was just ‘free speech, democracy in action.’ ”
I’ll leave it to the election-law experts to assess the practical impact of the decision. It has already set off a wave of deregulation at the state level, where aggregate contribution limits are under attack in those states that haven’t already announced that they will no longer enforce them. Clearly, the federal limits have been easy enough to evade, openly and legally through independent expenditures and new types of committees; for Sheldon Adelson, the right-wing casino mogul who spent nearly $100 million during the 2012 campaign season, the $123,200 direct contribution limit that the McCutcheon decision invalidated would have been little more than a rounding error.
My interest here is less the real-world impact than what the decision tells us about the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts, who at this rate and at age 59 figures to be with us a good deal longer than campaign finance laws. Deregulating campaign finance is clearly part of his long-term project. In the course of his opinion, the chief justice made some moves that are worth highlighting for the way in which they illuminate both his method and his priorities.
Don’t miss Norm Ornstein’s take on McCutcheon.
This one is in state court.
TechCrunch reports. How many people will confuse True the Vote and TrustTheVote?
Tom Levenson writes at The Atlantic.
A bipartisan group of congressional leaders filed court papers Tuesday defending the constitutional shield that protects members of Congress and their staff from being forced to provide information about legislative activities.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives filed the amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., is challenging his conviction on public corruption charges.
We didn’t have to wait long for the Supreme Court to decide its most important case of the term. Last Tuesday, the justices heard arguments over whether a second OWI offense is an “infamous crime” under the Iowa Constitution. Yesterday–one week after the oral argument–the Iowa Supreme Court ruled, by a 5-1 vote, that it’s not.
That might not seem that important. It is.
For starters, it means that that Tony Bisignano can run for State Senate. Article II, section 5 of the Iowa Constitution says that a person who’s been convicted of an “infamous crime” can’t be an “elector” (which means they can’t run for office), and one of Bisignano’s primary opponents (Ned Chiodo) argued that a second OWI (which Bisignano has been convicted of) is an infamous crime. Five of the six sitting justices disagreed with that. (The seventh, Justice Appel, was recused.)
But the case is much bigger than one Senate race. And that’s where it gets interesting.
Michael Hiltzik blogs at LAT.
AP preview of the Susan B. Anthony case.
NYT: “Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence, an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association.”
An attorney who helped launch the successful challenge to the cap on individual campaign contributions recently decided by the Supreme Court has filed a new lawsuit challenging limits on contributions by traditional political action committees (PACs) that contribute to candidates (Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused By Democrats (Stop Reid) v. FEC, E.D. Va., No. 14-397, filed 4/14/14).Attorney Dan Backer of DB Capitol Strategies filed the new case April 14 in federal district court in Alexandria, Va., on behalf of a PAC called Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused By Democrats (STOP REID). The suit names the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as defendant.
Zephyr Teachout writes for Politico magazine.
Due to some problems at UCI yesterday and today, there have been issues with the blog as well as with the Election Law listserv and Legislation listserv.
The blog seems to be back. As to the listservs, it appears that some listserv members who subscribe via email addresses from yahoo, comcast, aol, or hotmail may have had their accounts inadvertently suspended. We are working on it.
Thanks for your patience.
DLA Piper Political Law Alert.
David Savage previews Susan B. Anthony for the LAT.
Very sad news about my former Loyola colleague Peter Tiersma. He was a giant in the field of law and language. Everyone in California today benefits from his important work on clarity in jury instructions. Condolences to his family and friends.
Those interested in the intersection between election law and federalism might want to take a look at a new Feature in the Yale Law Journal, which I blog about here. Entitled “Federalism as the New Nationalism,” it marks the emergence of a nationalist school of federalism. A lot of the work in the Feature centers on the relationship between state and national politics and thus may be of interest to election-law junkies.
In a statement to the judge, Newkirk said he had spoken out at the Supreme Court and broken the law “in the tradition of civil disobedience” to draw attention to the court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling and the then-pending McCutcheon campaign finance case.
“Our democracy is greatly threatened” by the court’s decisions weakening restrictions on campaign money, Newkirk told McKenna. “The Supreme Court has played a shameful role.”
The sentencing concluded a morning marked by hallway negotiations in which the Supreme Court—represented by court legal counsel Ethan Torrey—played a significant behind-the-scenes role. Torrey was present in the courtroom, as was a Supreme Court police officer.
After the session was over, the officer handed Newkirk a “barring notice” alerting Newkirk that he is prohibited from setting foot on Supreme Court property for the next 12 months. Earlier, Newkirk’s lawyer, Jeffrey Light, told McKenna that Newkirk, a resident of Los Angeles, had “no intention to return to the Supreme Court to do this again.”
The Internal Revenue Service is prepared to rewrite a proposed rule regulating the political activities of non-profit groups to address complaints from the right and left that it goes too far, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said Monday.
“In all likelihood we will re-propose a redefined rule and ask for more public comment,” Koskinen told USA TODAY’s Capital Download. It’s a process he predicts will take “until the end of the year and beyond” to complete. The proposed regulation of groups known as 501(c)(4)s drew a record 150,000 comments before the deadline in late February.
Blogging at CLC:
Truth be told, I wish there were a better position than the one Vice Chairwoman Ravel and Commissioner Weintraub have taken. But at some point you have to say “enough is enough” and let everyone play by the same rules. While I don’t think this will do anything to improve the current FEC, it may highlight the FEC’s complete breakdown as an effective enforcement agency. In the end, Congress and the White House have to be held accountable for the fact that there will be no serious enforcement of the campaign finance laws until fundamental changes are made to the agency, including the appointment of commissioners who believe in the law and its enforcement.
The latest on Kobach v. EAC.
The tax law/election law scholar and teacher from OSU’s Moritz College of Law is the new dean at the University of Maryland Law School.
Jisha Dymond on the new NYS public financing law.
Press release: “Following the Obama administration’s vow to use strong executive action in the face of a paralyzed Congress, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released a new policy proposal today outlining 15 steps the administration can take to strengthen democracy, secure justice, and further the rule of law.”
Of the 15, it looks like these are the ones related to voting and elections:
Direct federal agencies to find ways to increase voter participation nationwide.
Direct federal agencies to accept designation as NVRA agencies.
Enlist the private sector to assure free and fair elections.
Appoint Republicans and Democrats to the Election Assistance and Federal Election Commissions.
Sign an executive order requiring disclosure of political spending by entities awarded government contracts.
Request that the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue regulations requiring disclosure of corporate political spending.
Request that the Federal Communications Commission to require more thorough disclaimers of outside spending on political advertisements.
Over the last year, a rabbi, a state NAACP official, a small town mayor and other community leaders wrote op-eds and letters to Congress with remarkably similar language on a remarkably obscure topic.
Each railed against a long-standing proposal that would give taxpayers the option to use pre-filled tax returns. They warned that the program would be a conflict of interest for the IRS and would especially hurt low-income people, who wouldn’t have the resources to fight inaccurate returns. Rabbi Elliot Dorff wrote in a Jewish Journal op-ed that he “shudder[s] at the impact this program will have on the most vulnerable people in American society.”
“It’s alarming and offensive” that the IRS would target the “the most vulnerable Americans,” two other letters said. The concept, known as return-free filing, is a government “experiment” that would mean higher taxes for the poor, two op-eds argued.
The letters and op-eds don’t mention that, as ProPublica laid out last year, return-free filing might allow tens of millions of Americans to file their taxes for free and in minutes. Or that, under proposals authored by several federal lawmakers, it would be voluntary, using information the government already receives from banks and employers and that taxpayers could adjust. Or that the concept has been endorsed by Presidents Obama and Reagan and is already a reality in some parts of Europe.
So, where did the letters and op-eds come from? Here’s one clue:
Rabbi Dorff says he was approached by a former student, Emily Pflaster, who sent him details and asked him to write an op-ed alerting the Jewish community to the threat.
What Pflaster did not tell him is that she works for a PR and lobbying firm with connections to Intuit, the maker of best-selling tax software TurboTax.
“I wish she would have told me that,” Dorff told ProPublica.
RNLA blog post on Virginia.
The VRAA’s proposed preclearance regime would still be vulnerable to attack
Activists ought not settle for the valiant but modest VRAA
When California voters decided to change the way the state’s primary elections work, the move was cast as an effort to moderate a state Capitol gripped by polarization.
If the top two vote-getters in a primary faced off against one another in November regardless of their party affiliation, the reasoning went, hard-nosed politicians who typically put party purity above all else would be forced to court less partisan voters. That could mean more centrists elected to office, more political compromise and better governance.
But with the approach of only the second election since the enactment of the “jungle” primary — the first featuring candidates for statewide office — some argue that the change has had a decidedly undemocratic effect, muzzling the voices of small-party candidates.
He’s got to engage with the woman who says blithely: “If I need to show ID to get cold medicine why shouldn’t I have to show an ID to vote?” He’s got to engage with the man who cries that “voter fraud” is rampant but cannot cite proof that this is so. There is an excellent case to be made against voter suppression, and the president has consistently shown that he knows how to make it, but it has to be directed at the right audience and it has to be made over and over and over again until it seeps through.
John Kennedy stood up to the Protestant ministers in September 1960 and talked about how his Catholic faith would (and would not) affect his work as president. A few years later, Lyndon Johnson stood up to his fellow southern Democrats and told them there would be civil-rights legislation. Barack Obama needs to do something like that for voter suppression.
It could be on Fox News. It could be from the Oval Office. It could be in the form of a “town meeting” on voting rights. It could be in the form of a debate with any one of a dozen Republican senators who wear their backing voter suppression as a badge of honor. It doesn’t matter. If Obama is as serious on the topic as he appears to be, what matters now is that he show the courage to go into hostile venues and work to change hearts and minds until the myths about voter fraud dissipate and the truth about voter suppression emerges.
MORE from Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I’ve posted an updated version, including a short discussion of McCutcheon, of Super PAC Contributions, Corruption, and the Proxy War over Coordination, forthcoming in the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy.
I have posted the final version of Three Wrong Progressive Approaches (and One Right One) to Campaign Finance Reform, 8 Harvard Law & Policy Review 21 (2014)
I have posted the final version of Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism, 22 William and Mary Bill of Rights J. 713 (2014)
Reader Paul Wiley writes:
The Wall Street Journal’s profile of Travis Crum and his influential Note about the VRA’s Section 3 sheds light on one of the Justice Department’s most important tools in the ongoing voting rights battles. But it also gets a few things wrong, either explicitly or by implication.For one, the article says that using Section 3 would “expand the reach of the federal government over states’ voting laws beyond the handful of states—primarily in the South—that have traditionally been subject to the Voting Rights Act.” It may seem nitpicky, but every state has always been subject to the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 pre-clearance—the kind the Court gutted in Shelby County—was traditionally applied in Southern states, true. But the VRA is more than just Section 5. And Section 3 has already been applied outside the “traditional” footprint of Section 5 pre-clearance: counties in Nebraska, South Dakota, California, and even the entire state of New Mexico have been under Section 3 pre-clearance orders.As another matter, Bert Rein’s comments in the article mischaracterize Section 3. Mr. Rein, who argued Shelby County’s appeal to the Supreme Court, seems to criticize Section 3 by saying “it’s better to give [a challenged jurisdiction] a day in court than assume by legislation their past history makes them a bad actor.” But Section 3 DOES give the challenged jurisdiction its day in court. Instead of imposing pre-clearance by statutory or administrative formula—as Section 5 did via the now-defunct coverage formula of Section 4(b)—Section 3 is only imposed as an equitable remedy, either after a trial or by a consent decree entered into by the litigants. If the day in court is the preferred way of balancing the franchise with state sovereignty, as Mr. Rein seems to be suggesting, then Section 3 fits the bill.
Alec MacGillis for TNR.
It’s also unfortunate that many in the media continue to report on voting rights like it’s a left versus right issue, as if supporting a fundamental democratic right suddenly makes one a flaming liberal. Jamie Fuller of the Washington Post called voting rights “the Democrats’ most important project in 2014.” Michael Shear of the New York Times dubbed Obama’s speech an effort “to rally his political base.”
The right to vote used to be regarded as a moral issue, not a partisan one. As LBJ said when he introduced the VRA before Congress: “It is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.”