Former President Donald Trump’s political operation has routed more than $3 million so far this year through a Delaware limited liability company whose owners are not publicly disclosed, according to campaign finance records — a strategy that mirrors past efforts to mask exactly how his campaign is spending donor cash.
The money has been paid to Launchpad Strategies LLC, a company that appears to have been incorporated in Delaware in November, according to state business records and lists a Raleigh, North Carolina, post office box as its address in campaign finance filings. Since it was formally incorporated, the company has received $3.1 million in payments from the Trump campaign and an affiliated joint fundraising committee….
Little is known about Launchpad Strategies LLC beyond its existence and the millions of dollars it has taken in from a presidential campaign.
It has never done other political work for state-level or federal candidates, according to federal and state campaign finance disclosure filings. The first payment from the Trump operation was on Dec. 18, just over a month after the company appears to have been incorporated in Delaware.
The company’s website offers no information about services it offers or who runs it. A contact page that offers people a place to reach out and ask questions appears inactive, and multiple requests for comment NBC News tried to send through the site went unanswered.
Indiana: “Beckwith poses a ‘serious threat’ to Braun’s campaign, says GOP powerhouse lawyer” (Includes Jim Bopp Memo)
Republican gubernatorial nominee Mike Braun faces a “serious threat” to his candidacy after Noblesville pastor Micah Beckwith was selected as his running mate, according to an internal campaign memo penned by prominent conservative attorney Jim Bopp.
The five-page report, obtained by the Indiana Capital Chronicle Sunday evening, outlines “several negative effects” of Beckwith’s nomination, including concerns that Beckwith will cause “division and chaos” and “undermine” Braun’s leadership.
Chief among Bopp’s worries, however, is the possibility that Beckwith could keep Braun out of the Statehouse altogether.
“Beckwith’s nomination as Lt. Gov poses a serious threat to the Braun candidacy, election and administration,” Bopp wrote, later saying in the memo that “the Democrats have a real opportunity to launch a serious campaign in the fall because of Beckwith’s nomination, and it has already begun.”
The Terre Haute-based lawyer theorized that current Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jennifer McCormick could be swapped out with Joe Donnelly, a former U.S. senator from Indiana, and she would be moved to the lieutenant governor spot on the ticket.
Bopp said the Democrats’ campaign “would focus almost exclusively” on Beckwith and his “radical” views. He pointed specifically to a video Beckwith made after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, in which he said the assault was “divinely inspired.”….
When asked about the memo, Bopp said in a statement to the Capital Chronicle that, “I do not discuss confidential communications with others. And I think it was despicable that someone leaked it.”
Arizona: “Court upholds legal fees penalty for former SOS candidate”
Mark Finchem and his attorney can’t escape a court order that they pay more than $47,000 in legal fees in his unsuccessful attempt to overturn his 2022 loss in the race for secretary of state.
In a ruling Thursday, the state Court of Appeals said a trial judge got it right when she ruled that it was clear that the lawsuit he filed was “groundless.” Beyond that, appellate Judge Samuel Thumma, writing for the unanimous panel, said the lawsuit was not filed in good faith….
But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian said Finchem “offered no tether between the machine malfunctions and the outcome of the election he challenged here.”
Thumma said there were other problems with his case.
One is that Finchem alleged there were 80,000 votes illegally cast, 60,000 from Maricopa County and 20,000 from Pima County.
“That number is still 40,000 votes less than what Finchem would have needed to challenge the results of an election he lost by more than 120,000 votes,” wrote Thumma in concluding that the lawsuit was groundless.
The appellate judge noted that Finchem subsequently called into question more than 261,000 votes. By that point, Thumma said, it was too late.
More to the point, he said, it’s legally irrelevant to whether there were grounds for him to sue in the first place.
“Claimed post-filing evidence … is not dispositive,” the judge wrote. “The question is whether Finchem brought his claim without substantial justification.”
The problems with the lawsuit, said Thumma, go beyond the finding that there were no grounds for filing it. He said it also ran afoul of provisions that bar cases from filing unless there is a “good faith” belief” there is a legal basis.
That, the judge said, did not occur here — and not only because the number of disputed votes, even if they had gone Finchem’s way, were not enough to alter the outcome.
You can find the opinion at this link. It’s notable that this opinion is not selected for publication and therefore is not precedential. It should be citable.
Michigan Supreme Court, in Case Against Burkman and Wohl, Holds It Is Constitutional to Punish Intentional Lies About When, Where, or How People Vote (Relevant Also to Pending Mackey Case)
I have been arguing that it does not violate the First Amendment to make it a crime to intentionally lie about when, where or how people vote. The Supreme Court suggested as much in the Mansky case in 2018. I made this argument in my Cheap Speech book, and in an amicus brief I filed with Protect Democracy and the Yale Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic in the Doug Mackey Second Circuit case involving his conviction for violating federal law by trying to trick Black voters into voting by text or social media hashtag. (That case was argued in April and awaits decision.)
Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Burkman considered whether John Burkman and Jacob Wohl could be constitutionally charged with violating Michigan law for robocalls intended to deter Black voters from voting. The Court held that some election related speech could be criminally punished without violating the First Amendment. It narrowly construed Michigan law in ways that avoided the constitutional problem. Here is the relevant part of the majority opinion on this point:
Because invalidation should be avoided where possible, we offer a limiting construction of MCL 168.932(a)’s catchall “other corrupt means or device” language. Specifically, we hold that when the charged conduct is solely speech and does not fall under any exceptions to constitutional free-speech protections, MCL 168.932(a)’s catchall phrase operates to proscribe that speech only if it is intentionally false speech that is related to voting requirements or procedures and is made in an attempt to deter or influence an elector’s vote. This limiting construction cures the serious and realistic danger that MCL 168.932(a)’s catchall provision infringes constitutional free-speech protections by limiting the statute’s reach to areas where government regulation is constitutionally provided or has been historically upheld. See U.S. Const., art. 1, § 4, cl. 1 (imbuing the states with the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of congressional elections); Const. 1963, art. 2, § 4(2) (giving the Michigan Legislature the same authority for state elections and also providing the power “to preserve the purity of elections” and “to guard against abuses of the elective franchise”); Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky, 585 US 1, 19 n 4; 138 S Ct 1876; 201 L Ed 2d 201 (2018) (“We do not doubt that the State may prohibit messages intended to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures.”). Intentionally false speech about voting requirements or procedures serves no purpose other than defrauding electors with respect to their franchise. Compare Citizens United, 558 US at 339-340 (discussing the purpose of constitutionally protected political speech).
We reverse the Court of Appeals insofar as it concluded that MCL 168.932(a) was not overbroad, and we offer a limiting construction of the statute’s catchall phrase. We remand to the Court of Appeals so that Court may decide whether defendants’ conduct falls within the limiting construction of MCL 168.932(a) offered here and, if so, resolve defendants’ remaining constitutional arguments.
Two justices dissented in part, believing the statute could not properly be construed to be limited in the way favored by the majority. They did not reach the constitutional questions.
Thanks to Eugene Volokh for the pointer.
UPDATE: I had missed Derek’s earlier coverage of this case when travelling.
“Federal appeals court to reconsider case affecting Attorney General Dave Yost’s authority to block proposed ballot issues”
A federal appeals court will reconsider a recent decision that could affect Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s ability to block future proposed ballot-issue campaigns via a state law that gives his office authority to sign off on proposed language that those campaigns must circulate with petitions to qualify for the ballot.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision late last month, ordered Yost to approve petition language for a proposed state constitutional amendment that would make it easier for Ohioans to sue police for misconduct. Yost, a Republican, had repeatedly rejected petition language proposed by backers of the Protecting Ohioans Constitutional Rights amendment for numerous reasons, including the amendment’s proposed title.
But the appeals court announced on Monday that enough of the court’s judges had voted to perform what’s called an en banc review, in which every judge on the court votes on a case, and not just the randomly selected three judges that issue an initial decision. The broader review will replace the previous decision, issued by two judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
My earlier coverage is here.
“334 public officials in 5 swing states have undermined or cast doubt on elections: study”
Hundreds of public officials in five key swing states have denied election outcomes, tried to overturn an election, or made statements to undermine an election, a new study says.
The study identified 334 of these public officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin running the gamut from a state’s second-highest elected official to local boards that certify election results. Those closely divided states are likely to decide the 2024 presidential election.
The study by Public Wise, a left-leaning nonprofit group that advocates for representative democracy, is the most comprehensive study to date of state and local public officials who have power over elections but whose commitment to election fairness has been questioned.
Thanks to Justin
for his blogging stint last week. Firehose indeed!
“Bridging the Divide: Translating Research on Digital Media Into Policy and Practice”
New report from Issie Laposwsky for the Knight Foundation, which is funding some indispensable research on changes in journalism, politics and democracy.
“Race, the Ballot, and Hegemony: What the Struggle over Immigrant Voting Teaches Us About Rightwing Mobilization in the U.S.”
In New Political Science from Ron Hayduk and Anthony Pahnke. Abstract:
While there has been an increase in rhetoric and efforts to block expanding voting rights to noncitizens around the United States, there is a relative lack of academic research… Continue reading
“Voice assistants and AI chatbots still can’t say who won the 2020 election”
“Democracy Litigation in SCOTUS and the States”
The State Democracy Research Initiative and the Elections Research Center at U. Wisconsin are hosting an all-star panel on July 11: Miriam Seifter facilitating a conversation with Pam Karlan, Derek Muller, Gowri Ramachandran, and Rylee Sommers-Flanagan… Continue reading
“Streaming: the best films about elections”
The Guardian with a list for your summer evenings.
“If Everyone Voted, Would Biden Benefit? Not Anymore.”
Nate Cohn at The Upshot with evidence supporting the dynamic I’d mentioned a few days ago: incremental restrictions on voting may be disproportionately impacting Trump supporters.
“Partisan gridlock prevents fixes to Pennsylvania’s voting laws as presidential election looms”
I can co-sign the AP’s lede:
Pennsylvania is seeing lots of action targeting gaps in its vote-by-mail laws. The problem is that it’s in the courtroom and not the legislature.
And no, I’m not suggesting that’s a problem of… Continue reading