Holtzman Vogel PLLC

USA Today On Trade Association Political Spending

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From USA Today: "Some of the nation's largest publicly traded companies said they will not channel corporate funds directly into political advertising that targets candidates, even though it is legal for them to do so. But most of the companies surveyed by the non-partisan Center for Political Accountability said they have no plans to impose conditions on political spending by their trade associations, which are non-profits that can collect and spend unlimited amounts on campaign ads without publicly revealing their donors. One of the biggest is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has promised to spend a record $75 million in this year's elections."

Who or what is the Center for Political Accountability? From their website: "The Center for Political Accountability (CPA) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that was created in November 2003 to bring transparency and accountability to corporate political spending. It was formed to address the secrecy that cloaks much of the political activity engaged in by companies and the risks this poses to shareholder value."

New York Times Editors Call For Campaign Finance-Style Limits on Corporate Contributions to Lawmakers' Charities

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reported Monday on corporate contributions to charities associated with Members of Congress.

Today, their editorial board takes up the issue. Their Exhibit A: "The Elijah Cummings Youth Program in Israel sounds like a lovely idea: a charitable foundation that sends inner-city high school students from Baltimore to Israel to learn about the country and develop leadership skills. The program has undoubtedly been of benefit to many teenagers, but deeper pockets have benefited as well. Comcast, the cable company, has given generously to the foundation, prompting Representative Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Baltimore, to urge the Federal Communications Commission to approve Comcast’s proposed merger with NBC. His charity even wrote its own letter to the F.C.C., saying it supports the merger in part because Comcast gives it money."

Their solution to this terrible problem: "The art of currying favor in Washington is an ancient one, and both lawmakers and corporations have become exceptionally creative at finding ways around every legal obstacle reducing the influence of big money. But these “donations” need to be fully disclosed and strictly limited like the campaign contributions they resemble. Members of Congress should pay heed to the rising tide of anti-incumbent disgust this year and stop acting like greedy chiselers of corporate largess."

Politico: Congress outsourcing some ethics work

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:30:00 GMT

Politico reports that the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) has outsourced some of its investigative work to Navigant Consulting. From Politico: "The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent ethics body, has contracted out more than $500,000 of work over the past year, a sign of just how busy the ethics watchdog has been and how expansive the ethics process has become. The recipient of nearly $530,000 in taxpayer dollars is Navigant Consulting, a business consulting firm. Navigant, based in Chicago, was not involved in any of the most sensitive legal aspects of ethics cases, but because of an unpredictable caseload, a small staff and institutional constraints on its time, the OCE has found itself outsourcing things like document retrieval and management, forensic accounting and technology services, according to public records and sources familiar with the matter."

Copyright Suit Filed Against Sharron Angle's Campaign

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "In a lawsuit filed Friday, Las Vegas-based Righthaven LLC says the Nevada Republican Senate nominee has violated copyright laws by posting two newspapers stories in their entirety on her campaign website....The two articles at issue — a pro-Angle editorial from July 21 and an Aug. 3 news story — both ran in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which has sold Righthaven the rights to its stories....Righthaven has launched 119 copyright infringement lawsuits against various websites, associations and bloggers in the past six months....Intellectual property law experts have dubbed companies such as Righthaven “trolls” — companies that own intellectual property solely to use the leverage of their legal rights to force defendants to pay up instead of going through with the inconvenience and cost of litigation."

Eliza Newlin Carney: Whither The FEC? The Agency Is Under Attack Again As Reformers Push For An Overhaul

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:00:00 GMT

Eliza Newlin Carney's latest op-ed at National Journal on the FEC is here.

If you ever need a sneak-peak at next week's Carney column, just take a quick look at the professional reform lobby's latest press releases. There is rarely any difference between the two.

This week, she cuts-and-pastes from three "reformer" press releases. Fred Wertheimer's comments on the FEC's coordination rules are here; the Campaign Legal Center's criticism of two recent Advisory Opinions is here; and the press release announcing CREW's lawsuit is here.

NYT: Congressional Charities Are Pulling In Corporate Cash

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "A review ... of federal tax records and House and Senate disclosure reports found at least two dozen charities that lawmakers or their families helped create or run that routinely accept donations from businesses seeking to influence them. The sponsors — AT&T, Chevron, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Eli Lilly and dozens of others — contribute millions of dollars annually in gifts ranging from token amounts to a check for $5 million."

Politico: Dems complain to 'Young Guns' publisher

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Politico reports "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s attorneys sent Simon & Schuster a letter Thursday, hinting that the publisher may have violated several campaign finance laws that prohibit in-kind contributions by corporations by posting on its website a promotional video for a book penned by three top House Republicans. At issue: the publishing house’s promotion of 'Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders' by Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The DCCC’s attorneys at Perkins Coie sent the New York-based publisher a letter saying it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that directs viewers to a website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress."

Presumably the attorneys who sent the letter were already aware that the FEC's media exemption protects Simon & Schuster's promotion of the books its publishes, and also that when the media exemption applies, issues such as coordination and solicitations are irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Governors Association, also apparently unaware that the campaign finance laws don't apply to the media, has been taking on Fox News. See here and here.

The Hill: New details emerge in ethics probe of fundraising, vote on Wall Street bill

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Hill reports here.

Wash. Post: Maryland Sen. Currie indicted on charges of taking bribes from grocery chain

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The Washington Post reports "Longtime Maryland Sen. Ulysses Currie, one of the most powerful and popular figures in the General Assembly, was indicted Wednesday on charges that he took more than $245,000 in bribes to use his position and influence to do favors for a grocery chain."

Political Wire: $3 Billion in Political Ads

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:30:00 GMT

From Political Wire: "Kantar Media/CMAG's Evan Tracey tells Ad Age that the nation's political ad spending is on pace to set a record. Said Tracey: 'Spending so far on political and issue TV ads is $864 million, $50 million more than 2008, and $185 million ahead of 2006 at the same period of time. Historically, two-thirds of all election spending comes during the final 60 days, so we are on track to approach $3 billion in total spending on political and issue ads.'"

Wash. Post: Mixed reaction to new FEC rules on candidates, interest groups working together

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:00:00 GMT

If one single, solitary person objects to something, does it warrant a newspaper report noting "mixed reaction"? If the subject is the FEC, then yes, a full report is apparently warranted.

The Washington Post reports that "[s]ome campaign finance reformers, however, say the rules don't go far enough and leave loopholes allowing broad coordination between candidates and outside groups that support them." Actually, the only public complainer, so far, is Fred Wertheimer, the one-man-band interest group known as Democracy 21. His usual allies - the Campaign Legal Center and Craig Holman at Public Citizen - haven't chimed in yet.

But we should listen to what Mr. Wertheimer has to say, because he offers a reasoned, expert analysis, right? Actually, he carps that the new coordination rules are nothing but a "huge loophole" and "[a]s a practical matter, it means we don't have coordination rules." So, the "mixed reaction" that the Post reports is little more than the hyperbolic letting-off-steam of one lobbyist feeding patently absurd claims to the media.

Bopp Challenges State Contractor Contribution Prohibition, PAC Requirements in Hawaii

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports here. "The lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court on behalf of A-1 A-lectrician Inc. seeks to strike down the state's ban on political donations by state and county contractors. The suit also challenges state law guiding corporations to register as political action committees before making donations, political advertising reporting requirements, political advertising attribution and disclaimer provisions, and the $1,000 donation limit for political action committees....But open-government groups -- Common Cause Hawaii, the League of Women Voters of Hawaii, Americans for Democratic Action/Hawaii and Voter Owned Hawaii -- said Bopp's intent is to dismantle campaign finance regulations nationwide."

NYT: 3 Congressmen May Face Further Inquiry

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "The Office of Congressional Ethics has found enough evidence of wrongdoing to recommend further investigation of three House members who held fund-raising events just days before they voted on financial regulatory legislation last year. The referrals to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct came as the office recommended dismissing investigations of five other lawmakers, whose fund-raising just before the December 2009 vote had also come under scrutiny. The investigation focused on lawmakers who raised money from lobbyists or executives of financial firms that had objected to provisions of the legislation. Each of the three House members — Representatives John Campbell, Republican of California; Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York; and Tom Price, Republican of Georgia — criticized the referrals on Tuesday, with two of them saying the quasi-independent ethics office had not produced evidence of wrongdoing."

An earlier report is here.

The Wall Street Journal reports here. One of the five lawmakers not referred by OCE released a statement submitted to investigators earlier: ""If holding a general fund-raiser while Congress was in session voting on legislation that went through one of my committees is in violation of House Ethics Rules, then that is a broad new limitation on members' fund-raising activities."

FEC Adopts New Coordination Rule, Effective Dec. 1

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Last Thursday, the FEC adopted a new rule on coordination, which was made necessary by a 2008 court ruling. The new rule goes into effect on December 1. After December 1, ads and other public communications issued outside the 90/120 day election windows may be deemed "coordinated" if there was sufficient collaborative conduct between the parties involved, and if the communication constitutes express advocacy or the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The "functional equivalent" standard is the new addition to the coordination test, and is also known as the Wisconsin Right to Life test.

The Commissioners also adopted a new rule defining "federal election activity."

Professional "reform" lobbyist Fred Wertheimer, who sometimes goes by the name "Democracy 21," has already publicly objected to the new coordination rule, so the FEC may be heading back to court. Wertheimer and a small handful of fellow travelers in the "reform" lobby have successfully deprived everyone involved in federal political campaigns of any stability on the matter of coordination since 2003 through their repeated court challenges.

We will have more on these developments shortly.

NYT: Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The New York Times examines the shift in Wall Street political giving: "Less than two years ago, Democrats received 70 percent of the donations from Wall Street; since June, when the financial regulation bill was nearing passage, Republicans were receiving 68 percent of the donations...."

But not to worry, they presumably still have the "[s]enior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC" locked up tight. This group "contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008.... The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744."

New Technologies = New Political Ads

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

CNN reports "Voters standing in line at polling places and searching for candidate information on mobile devices are increasingly becoming the target of Google advertisers hoping to pick up every last vote. Candidates have for years placed ads on Google platforms to attract the attention of searchers. But Tuesday's elections saw a large number of down ballot candidates buying Google mobile ads with the goal of capturing the attention of people waiting on line at the polling stations. While Google Mobile Ads have existed since 2007, this year candidates could target specific carriers and devices. Since mobile devices have become more sophisticated, users are searching more and more on mobile browsers."

MoveOn's Executive Director Explains The Target "Boycott"

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:30:00 GMT

MoveOn's Executive Director, Justin Ruben, explains his organization's call for boycotting Target over a recent political donation in this Los Angeles Times piece.

Ruben casts the boycott call as a stand against "pervasive corporate influence" in politics. What he fails to mention, though, is that MoveOn only called for boycotting Target after the company refused to be extorted into making political contributions to candidates that MoveOn supports. As Politico reported here, "despite pressure from MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights groups, Target declined to contribute $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates."

WSJ: Big Unions to Pool Money for Fall Elections

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "The leaders of the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have agreed to coordinate spending millions of dollars in the midterm elections to support pro-union candidates, most of them Democrats. The two labor organizations say they have a combined $88 million or more to deploy in this year's election cycle....The renewed alliance between the two big labor groups comes as Democrats are battling to retain control of both houses of Congress. The AFL-CIO and SEIU plan to target elections in 26 states, all but five of which they consider battleground territory, including California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio."

CRP: Not Just News Corp.: Media Companies Have Long Made Political Donations

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Center For Responsive Politics points out that News Corp. is not alone: "The parent companies of six major media outlets have all donated anywhere from five to seven figures to political organizations during the 2010 election cycle alone...." And those parent companies cover all the major television/cable news outlets.

Katrina vanden Huevel on "Citizens United aftershocks"

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Katrina vanden Huevel (of The Nation) has this op-ed in the Washington Post. She warns that "corporations might want to think twice before jumping deeper into political races, attracting more attention in the process."

Note: this op-ed refers to Target's recent contribution and the MoveOn.org boycott flap, which generated "angry institutional shareholders." Several media reports have suggested that Target is facing a shareholder revolt over its contribution to Minnesota Forward (here, for example). Rather than a widespread revolt, though, three institutional shareholders that own less than 1% of Target's stock sponsored a resolution calling for a review of Target's political activity.

NYT Editorial on "Tom Delay's Legacy"

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:30:00 GMT

The New York Times has this editorial on the Tom Delay and the Justice Department investigation that just ended. Predictably, the Times calls for more ethics laws.

But this one is a real puzzler: "Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House majority leader, crowed that he had been 'found innocent.' But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them" (emphasis added).

Makes you wonder who ghostwrites this stuff for them. Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 highlights the Times editorial here.

Wash. Post: Ruling sets up IRS as overseer of groups' gifts to campaigns

Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

According to the Washington Post, "The Supreme Court's decision this year in Citizens United, which lifted campaign spending restrictions for companies and interest groups, has indirectly thrust the Internal Revenue Service into the more prominent role of overseeing those expenditures....Long-standing IRS regulations require some groups to reveal their donors, and that is why the agency suddenly finds itself with what some might see as a more crucial watchdog role, stepping in to monitor disclosure in the absence of the FEC. But the IRS rules also have long-standing loopholes and, with limited resources and enforcement tools, the nation's tax collector is not set up to be a campaign regulator."

This article seems to focus on 501(c)(4) organizations, which have never been required to publicly disclose their donors. And what exactly the IRS should be doing about them is not explained. In addition, two recent FEC advisory opinions (not mentioned in the article) call for political organizations making independent expenditures (the subject of Citizens United) to register and report to the FEC as "political committees," which involves donor disclosure.

AP: Obama challenges GOP on campaign finance ruling

Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:00:00 GMT

AP reports "President Barack Obama says Republicans should join him in opposing a Supreme Court ruling that vastly increased how much corporations and unions can spend on campaign ads."

The comments come from the President's weekly radio address, and follow reports that Senate Democrats plan to bring the DISCLOSE Act up for another vote.

Wash. Times: Ethics office warns about waivers

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Washington Times reports "The U.S. Office of Government Ethics is warning federal agencies against retroactively waiving ethics rules for federal employees who've taken actions that pose potential conflicts of interest. Saying it has learned of 'several situations' of employees getting waivers after making questionable moves, the government's independent ethics office issued a memo to agencies across government in April saying such after-the-fact practices are prohibited."

More on Target and the MoveOn.org Boycott

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Washington Post: Exercising new ability to spend on campaigns, Target finds itself a bull's-eye ("When Target gave money in July to a pro-business group in Minnesota, the company thought it was helping its bottom line by backing candidates in its home state who support lower taxes. Instead, the retailer has found itself in a fight with liberal and gay rights groups that has escalated into calls for a nationwide boycott and protests at the company's headquarters and stores.").

Politico: MoveOn calls for boycott of Target.

Politico: Firms think twice about political ads.

New York Times editorial: Voter (and Customer) Beware.

Los Angeles Times editorial: A distasteful move by MoveOn.org.

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org released this TV ad, which seems to badly misrepresent their actual position and grievance. The ad complains that "Target and other big corporations are trying to buy our elections." But what prompted MoveOn's call for a Target boycott was not the company's contribution, but it refusal to cough up an equal amount for candidates that MoveOn supports.

DISCLOSE Act, Part II?

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:30:00 GMT

According to Hotline, Senate Democrats are planning on bringing the DISCLOSE Act up for another vote. They hope to win a cloture vote with help from Senator Snowe, Collins, or Brown, perhaps by delaying implementation of the legislation until after the 2010 elections.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Contributed $1 Million to Republican Governors Association

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "News Corp., owner of the Fox network, Fox News and newspapers including the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, gave $1 million in late June to the Republican Governors Association, making it one of the largest corporate donors to the GOP group this election season. The donation, disclosed in Internal Revenue Service filings, marks a shift for the media giant, which traditionally has given smaller sums to candidates and committees and spread them relatively evenly between the two parties. News Corp. spokesman Jack Horner said the contribution was intended to promote the company's core beliefs. 'News Corporation has always believed in the power of free markets and in organizations like the RGA, which have a pro-business agenda and support our priorities at this most critical time for our economy,' he said. ... The Democratic Governors Association draws more of its large donations from unions, including the American Federation of State, City and Municipal Employees, which has given $3.2 million this year."

NYT: Blagojevich, Guilty on 1 of 24 Counts, Faces Retrial

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

The New York Times reports "After deliberating for 14 days, the jury found Mr. Blagojevich guilty of a single criminal count — making false statements to the F.B.I., which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one of the least severe penalties in the charges against him. The jurors also said they could not reach a unanimous verdict on 23 of the 24 counts against him, including an accusation that he had tried to sell an appointment to fill the Senate seat once held by President Obama. On that count, one juror said, the group was split 11 to 1 in favor of convicting him. Prosecutors immediately announced plans for a retrial...."

NYC's "Public Advocate" Bill de Blasio's Taxpayer-Funded Campaign Against Corporations That Exercise Their First Amendment Rights

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Bill de Blasio is New York City's "Public Advocate." He was elected citywide and is first in line to succeed the Mayor. (If de Blasio's job is to advocate for the public, it is unclear what is expected of New York City's other elected officials.)

Last week, we noted how de Blasio applied pressure to Goldman Sachs to extract a vow that the company would not spend money on elections.

Now, de Blasio's office has produced this webpage, which places the 100 largest corporations in the United States into one of three categories: (1) those who have pledged not to spend money in elections; (2) those who have no policy on electoral spending; and (3) those who are "prepared to spend corporate money in elections." There are currently seven in the first category, and four in the third category. The four in the latter category are Target, Best Buy, Massey Energy, and International Coal. They were placed in this category based on news reports that they either have or were willing to spend corporate resources on electoral matters.

At this point, the advocacy begins. If you move your cursor over, say, Target, you get a link to a news report of Target's political spending, and this message: "Demand that corporations stop taking advantage of Citizens United. Call Target at 1-800-440-0680."

If you highlight one of the middle category (no policy) companies, such as Alcoa or Apple, you find out whether the company has pledged not to spend and whether it has pledged to disclose all spending. Then, "Hold Alcoa Accountable: Call Alcoa at 412-553-4545."

Why is de Blasio doing this? After the Goldman Sachs announcement, de Blasio said, “This could be one of those moments that determines whether we are going to have a political system literally dominated by corporate money, or some ability by the people at the grass roots to determine the outcome of elections.” In other words, he's clinging to the anti-distortion rationale that the Supreme Court rejected in Citizens United. (Politico reports, "In an e-mailed statement, de Blasio says consumers can use the site to 'see which major companies are planning to distort our democracy.'")

de Blasio's website also includes a "Campaign Against Excessive Corporate Political Spending" page. So there's another theory rejected by the Supreme Court.

In sum, what we have here is a taxpayer-funded effort encouraging the non-exercise of constitutional rights for reasons the Supreme Court has found to be illegitimate.

WSJ: DeLay Won't Face Charges as Justice Department Ends Probe

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:30:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports "The Justice Department has ended its six-year criminal probe of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay without filing criminal charges. One of Mr. DeLay's lawyers, Richard Cullen, said Monday that the Justice Department's public-integrity section informed Mr. DeLay's legal team early last week that it was ending the investigation of the former lawmaker's ties to onetime lobbyist Jack Abramoff."

Connecticut Lawmakers Override Veto, Resuscitate Public Funding Law

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:30:00 GMT

The Hartford Courant reports "Overriding a veto by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the state House of Representatives on Friday approved a bill that safeguards the state's landmark program of public financing for political candidates. The 106-30 vote clears the way for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dannel Malloy to access to $6 million in public campaign funds. The Senate passed an override vote last week....Malloy hailed Friday's vote, which will help him compete against his wealthy Republican opponent, Tom Foley."

The Center For Competitive Politics finds some humor in the vote.

Boston Herald: Jack E. Robinson sues FEC over Senate campaign fine

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:30:00 GMT

The Boston Herald reports "Failed U.S. Senate candidate Jack E. Robinson, trounced by Scott Brown in December’s Republican primary for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat, is suing the Federal Election Commission over a $6,050 fine for allegedly violating federal campaign finance law. Robinson said the penalty, imposed because he filed a required campaign finance report 81 days late, amounts to 'nitpicking' by the FEC, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Boston last week....The candidate’s campaign finance report for the Nov. 19 to Dec. 31, 2009, period was due Jan. 31. Robinson said he mailed the report on April 15, but the FEC received it on April 22. It levied the fine in March. 'It’s an outrageous decision,' Robinson said. 'Obviously we did use our best efforts (to timely file), but the idiots at the FEC don’t seem to realize how things work in the real world.'"

Mr. Robinson appears to have had the exact same filing problem back in 2000, but the fine then was only $250.

Wash. Post: Special-interest spending surges in state Supreme Court campaigns

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:00:00 GMT

From the Washington Post: "While Washington politicians argue over the role of money in federal elections, a growing number of states are starting to grapple with their own challenge: a tide of special-interest money flowing into local judicial races. An exhaustive study scheduled to be released Monday shows that spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled over the past 10 years, to $207 million, mirroring the surge in contributions and expenditures for other kinds of political races during the same period."

The report, available here, was produced by the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Institute on Money in State Politics and the Justice at Stake Campaign.

California Regulators Vote To Use Expanded Definition of "Express Advocacy"

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:00:00 GMT

The Center For Competitive Politics has details here.

Huff. Post: White House Ethics Initiatives At A Crossroads

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Huffington Post writes, "The Obama White House's ambitious push for accountability and open government has lost steam, and the imminent departure of reform champion Norm Eisen is making some good-government groups anxious about the future....He is not being replaced. Instead, his portfolio, which includes transparency and accountability, campaign finance, lobbying, whistleblower protections and government ethics, is being redistributed both up and down the White House food chain."

Target Targeted For Political Spending; Now Faces Shakedown Campaign

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:30:00 GMT

From the Los Angeles Times: "Last week, faced with waves of protests, retailer Target Corp. apologized for its $150,000 donation to an organization backing a Republican candidate with a long record of opposing gay rights. But the controversy has not gone away. Though the public demonstrations have died down, the company is in closed-door discussions with the largest gay activist organization in the country, Human Rights Campaign, which is demanding that the company make an equivalent or greater donation to groups supporting gay rights candidates. The group has found a potential lever: the threat to come out against the construction of two new Target stores in San Francisco, where gay rights groups have exceptional political influence. As the talks with Target continue, activists on both sides of the political spectrum are trying to gauge whether the case will have a chilling effect on corporate participation in campaigns....Some analysts think Target's experience may make companies more reluctant to get involved, but many others — including prominent business lobbyists — say the more likely result is that more corporations will seek out ways to contribute anonymously."

Wash. Independent: Citizens United Frees Corporations to Spend on Elections, But Increases Scrutiny

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:30:00 GMT

From the Washington Independent: "When the Supreme Court decided Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission in Jan., 2010, supporters of campaign finance reform warned that a torrent of corporate money and corruption would soon flow throughout the country....Twelve weeks out from the midterm elections, the apocalyptic warnings are receding and the realities of the decision are becoming more apparent....For corporations such as Target, the Citizens United world offers mixed blessings. Companies can now spend more freely, but at the price of increased scrutiny."

Do Internet Search Engine Text Ads Require A Disclaimer?

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Do Google's "text ads" -- the paid advertisements that show up on your computer screen when you use Google's search engine -- require a disclaimer? Google has asked the FEC for an answer.

Google's advisory opinion request notes that "text ads" use up to 25 characters in the title, and up to 70 additional characters in the body of the advertisement. The purpose of a "text ad" is to get the viewer to click on its link and visit a separate web page.

The request seeks FEC confirmation that "text ads" are exempt from the full federal disclaimer requirements under the "small item" exemption (which historically has applied to items such as bumper stickers and buttons). A second exemption, likely also relevant in this matter, applies where including a disclaimer would theoretically be possible, but would be "impracticable."

As for current practice, many candidates pay for search engine text ads, and rarely is a "paid for by" disclaimer included.

Wash. Post: Group sues Federal Election Commission, saying its slow response limits appeals

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post has this piece on CREW's latest lawsuit. According to CREW, the FEC "routinely makes it impossible to appeal its decisions. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington identifies at least nine cases over the past two years in which the FEC dismissed complaints but did not provide enough information about the decision to allow a legal challenge. The FEC is required by law to provide details promptly so parties in such disputes can meet a 60-day deadline to file an appeal in federal court, according to the lawsuit. But the commission frequently defies this requirement by delaying or never releasing information about cases it drops, the lawsuit says."

The FEC has not yet responded.

WSJ: Target Discovers Downside to Political Contributions

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

From the Wall Street Journal: "Target Corp. sought to take advantage of new campaign-finance rules, but ended up putting a bull's eye on its back. The Minneapolis retailer recently donated $150,000 to a political group, Minnesota Forward, that backs pro-business candidates in statewide races, including a candidate for governor who opposes same-sex marriage. On Friday, hundreds of gay-rights supporters demonstrated outside Target stores in locations nationwide, and a petition promising a boycott, signed by more than 240,000, was delivered to Target....The campaign against Target was orchestrated by liberal-advocacy group MoveOn.org....'We made Target the target,' said Ilyse Hogue, the group's director of public advocacy. Ms. Hogue said MoveOn and its members plan to gin up bad publicity for any company venturing into political campaigning."

NYT: Corporate Money Aids Centers Linked to Lawmakers

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:30:00 GMT

From the New York Times: "Nearly a dozen current or former lawmakers have been honored by university endowments financed in part by corporations with business before Congress....The donations from businesses to the endowments ranged from modest amounts to millions of dollars, federal records show. And the lawmakers, who include powerful committee chairmen or party leaders, often pushed legislation or special appropriations sought by the corporations....Companies and lawmakers defend the donations as simply contributions to a good cause, but critics charge that they are a way for businesses to influence lawmakers in addition to campaign contributions, and without the limits or required disclosures."

Roll Call: Obama Withdraws FEC Nomination

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:00:00 GMT

Roll Call reports "President Barack Obama backed off Thursday on his Federal Election Commission nominee [John Sullivan], whose union work concerned Republicans and advocates of overhauling campaign finance law." The nomination was made in May 2009, and had been awaiting a full Senate vote since June 2009.

Sullivan was nominated to replace Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, whose term ended over 3 years ago, in April 2007.

The Roll Call article mentions that Sullivan's past union work "concerned Republicans," although this seems to be a new charge. Opposition to Sullivan came from the campaign finance reform lobby, and Senators Feingold and McCain responded with holds on Sullivan's nomination.

The Center For Competive Politics issued a statement, here.

The Center For Public Integrity issued this update in May.

Campaign Staff: Employees or Independent Contractors?

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:30:00 GMT

Harry Reid's campaign has raised the issue in Nevada with regard to Sharron Angle's campaign workers.

Wash. Post: Head of defunct lobbying firm PMA indicted on charges of illegal campaign gifts

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:30:00 GMT

The Post reports "Paul J. Magliocchetti, founder and owner of the now closed PMA Group, was indicted in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on eight counts of making illegal campaign contributions and three counts of making false statements....For nearly five years from 2003 to 2008, according to the 18 page indictment, Magliocchetti concealed campaign contributions from the Federal Election Commission....Magliocchetti now faces criminal charges. In some instances, prosecutors allege, Magliocchetti directed family members to make contributions and then paid them back. He also recruited two acquaintances who lived near his Florida vacation home to write checks to candidates, court papers allege. Magliocchetti reimbursed them by writing personal checks or company checks or by putting them on PMA's board of directors, even though they never worked as lobbyists and never attended board meetings, according to the indictment. Magliocchetti also instructed the firm's lobbyists to make political contributions, then repaid the employees with either personal or company funds, the indictment alleges."

The Washington Times reports here.

AP: Calif. campaign watchdog eyes new Internet rules

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:30:00 GMT

AP reports "Politicians' tweets and status updates should be held to the same standards as paid advertising that voters see on television, hear on radio or find in their mailboxes, California's campaign watchdog agency says in a report being released Monday. The Fair Political Practices Commission is considering how to regulate new forms of political activity such as appeals on a voter's Facebook page or in a text message."

IFJ: The Latest Unconstitutional Speech Restriction: The Shareholder Protection Act

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The Institute For Justice has this entry on the Shareholder Protection Act, which we previously noted here.

According to the Institute, "The brainchild of Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), the Shareholder Protection Act would require corporations that wish to speak independently during elections to seek prior shareholder approval. The Act does not apply to unions, which would remain free to spend money on political advertising without seeking approval from dues-paying members. Nor does the Act require corporations to get preapproval for speech on any other subject—the law targets only political speech."

11th Circuit Rules Against Florida's Public Funding Program

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:30:00 GMT

The 11th Circuit's decision is here. AP's story is here.

Miami Herald: Florida won't appeal campaign-finance ruling.

Wash. Post: GM donates $41,000 to lawmakers' pet projects

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:00:00 GMT

The Post reports "When General Motors went through bankruptcy last year, it suspended its political donations. Now that it's owned by the U.S. government, it's donating to lawmakers' pet projects again. The carmaker gave $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers, the vast majority of it -- $36,000 -- to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the company reported on a disclosure form last week. The CBC Foundation is a charity with 11 members of the Congressional Black Caucus on its board....GM's return to the business of donations remained small compared with the giving of some corporations. Overall, corporations and other entities that were registered to lobby Congress gave $10.7 million to honor politicians and military figures in the first six months of the year. That is down slightly from the $10.8 million spent in the last half of 2009. Donations were down 27 percent from the same period two years ago, but there were still 37 entities that gave at least six figures in the latest six-month period....General Motors has not reactivated its political action committee, which can give to election campaigns, according to the latest reports with the Federal Election Commission."

No Political Spending For Goldman Sachs

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Goldman Sachs, apparently aware of the political climate surrounding it, says it won't engage in any election spending. Or maybe it was just brow-beaten by New York City's "Public Advocate," Bill de Blasio. The New York Times reports, "The decision came after weeks of talks with the New York City public advocate, Bill de Blasio, who has lobbied for greater transparency from companies seeking to sway the outcome of elections."

Dueling Op-Eds on Fundraiser Timing Investigation

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The USA Today editors and Brad Smith have dueling op-eds on the Office of Congressional Ethics' investigation into House members' fundraising events held in the days leading up to the vote on the financial regulation bill last December.

We previously noted this investigation here.

USA Today's editors cite "the obvious conflict inherent in taking money from people seeking to profit from their votes," but also acknowledge that "the five Republicans had long opposed financial reforms and voted against them. The three Democrats voted for the measure, a move to rein in Wall Street."

Brad Smith notes that "To date, no information has surfaced indicating that anything illegal — or even improper — has occurred. Nonetheless, this investigation has imperiled the reputations of eight lawmakers of both parties....What's remarkable is that none of the members under investigation changed his vote because of a contribution, which would be unethical and illegal. There's no evidence that these contributions impacted voting decisions. As expected, the three Democrats supported the bill and the five Republicans voted against it. Where's the corruption? This investigation — slated to continue until at least the end of August — empowers the professional scandal industry in Washington: the so-called good government groups that use any excuse to demand more restrictions on political speech."