Group wants Alabama to educate voters about new voting law
A voting rights group has asked a federal judge to force Alabama to tell people that they could be eligible to vote after previously being disqualified for a felony conviction. U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins on Wednesday scheduled a July 25 hearing on the Campaign Legal Center’s injunction request. The Campaign Legal Center last week asked Watkins to require the state to implement an education campaign and take other steps, after lawmakers approved legislation clarifying which felonies cause a person to lose voting rights. The group also asked the state to reinstate eligible voters and disclose all voter registration applicants and voter registrants who were denied the right to vote on the basis of conviction in the past two years. “HB 282 has the potential to restore access to the franchise for thousands of eligible voters who should never have been denied their rights in the first place,” attorneys wrote. Alabama is one of a handful of states that permanently strip some convicted felons of their right to vote. The 1901 Alabama Constitution says people convicted of crimes involving “moral turpitude” are no longer able to vote. However, the constitution doesn’t define the term or list any crimes meeting the definition. Politicians for decades squabbled over what was a disqualifying crime. Alabama lawmakers in May approved legislation clarifying that 46 types of felonies will cause someone to lose voting rights including robbery, assault, felony theft and drug trafficking but not offenses such as drug possession. It’s not clear how many people are affected by the new law. The new list is similar to a list that had been given as guidance to county registrars by the secretary of state in an election handbook, but it doesn’t include some previously disqualifying crimes, such as third-degree burglary. The list to registrars was also only guidance, and not state law. The center estimates the new law could restore voting rights to “thousands of eligible voters.” Center officials say they have personally identified dozens who were wrongly told they couldn’t vote. Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill supported the legislation. Lawyers for the state wrote in a court filing that Merrill is “implementing it in a deliberate fashion.” “He is in the best position to determine in the first instance how this law should be rolled out. And, in point of fact, the Secretary of State has already modified the registrars’ handbook for conducting elections to incorporate the new law,” state lawyers wrote. The Campaign Legal Center is representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed last year challenging Alabama’s practice of stripping felons of their voting rights. Two of the 10 plaintiffs will be allowed to vote under the new law, but the rest will not. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Watchdog group files complaint in shadowy Marco Rubio super PAC gift
An election watchdog organization filed a complaint Friday with the Federal Election Commission over a $500,000 donation to a super political action committee aiding Marco Rubio from a mystery firm headed by a New York investor. Efforts by good government groups to stem the use of shadowy corporate entities to channel large political donations have been long stymied by the FEC’s internal political paralysis. The complaint from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, seeks an investigation into IGX LLC for masking the donation and to determine whether the Conservative Solutions PAC was aware of the origins of the contribution. The actual donor, Andrew Duncan, of Brooklyn, New York, acknowledged to The Associated Press earlier this month that he had routed his contribution through IGX, a business entity registered last year in Delaware. Noah Bookbinder, CREW’s executive director, the group filed its complaint because “you’re not allowed to use a corporation as a pass-through to hide donations.” He said IGX’s lack of business activity “makes it appear that it was being used as a pass-through.” The CREW complaint cites FEC regulations prohibiting donations “in the name of another person and knowingly permitting one’s name to be used to effect a contribution in the name of another person.” CREW says that if the IGX donation was “knowing and willful,” the matter should be referred to the Justice Department for investigation. Duncan and spokesmen for the super PAC and the FEC did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the AP. Large political donations masked behind limited liability companies have become increasingly common with the rise of super PACS. Donors are obligated under federal law to identify the source of the gifts but are allowed to shield them through corporate entities. In many cases, donors’ identities have been exposed by media or political organizations, but the FEC has yet to rule on recent complaints because the agency’s Democratic and Republican-leaning commissioners remain deadlocked. The agency’s six commissioners are divided evenly between Democratic and Republican appointees and have repeatedly split in recent years along party lines, prompting the FEC’s chairwoman, Ann M. Ravel, to publicly vent frustration last year about its inaction. “We’re very concerned about the stalemate at the FEC, but we feel we have an obligation to take the steps necessary to get action,” Bookbinder said. He said that bringing attention to the issue of masked donors “creates a political cost to donors and campaigns that violate the rules.” Election watchdog groups have filed a spate of FEC complaints about masked donors since the rise of super PACs. The Supreme Court ruling in 2011 in the Citizens United case allows nearly unfettered contributions from corporations and labor unions to political committees. One good government group, the Campaign Legal Center, has filed five complaints. Among them is a 2012 request for a closer look into the use of two Tennessee “straw companies” that channeled $12 million in donations to a super PAC run by the conservative organization, FreedomWorks of America. The money was spent on congressional races. The FEC has yet to rule on the 3-year-old complaint. “It’s infuriating that the FEC hasn’t acted on these cases,” said Paul S. Ryan, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. In the IGX LLC case, Duncan conceded that he was the source of the money after the AP found a similar $2,700 donation he had made to Rubio’s campaign under his own name and IGX. Duncan, an activist on behalf of human rights in China, told the AP he supported Rubio’s stance on China but was worried about reprisals. Duncan’s corporate shield was one of several that cropped up in federal contribution filings last month. Billionaire Frank VanderSloot of Idaho also gave $175,000 to Conservative Solutions through two LLCs. And a $125,000 donation was made to a super PAC supporting Republican Iowa Gov. John Kasich from HJK LLC, an entity registered to a firm headed by Peter S. Kalikow, the former publisher of the New York Post. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Marco Rubio super PAC releases first TV ad
Conservative Solutions PAC, the pro-Marco Rubio Super PAC which has not previously aired any television ads to date, is releasing its first television ad of the campaign in the early voting states beginning today. The ad is called, “Marco.” “He took on the Republican establishment, and won,” a narrator says as images of the Florida Senator dominate. “The insiders were shocked, but not the people, because they heard his clear conservative message: less government, more freedom, a foreign policy based on strength.” Conservative Solutions PAC is linked with a pro-Rubio Super PAC with a similar name, Conservatives Solutions Project, that has aired ads in Iowa and New Hampshire featuring Rubio criticizing the Iran nuclear deal. However, Conservative Solutions Project is officially not a Super PAC, but a tax-exempt social welfare group. However, two organizations, Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 have asked the Justice Dept. to launch an investigation, claiming that the group is supporting Rubio. The Wall Street Journal reports that Conservative Solutions PAC aired its last ad on November 22, and has no plans to air more ads this year.
Data: Nearly five dozen given a third of all 2016 campaign cash
It took Ted Cruz three months to raise $10 million for his campaign for president, a springtime sprint of $1,000-per-plate dinners, hundreds of handshakes and a stream of emails asking supporters to chip in a few bucks. One check, from one donor, topped those results. New York hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer‘s $11 million gift to a group backing the Texas Republican’s White House bid put him atop a tiny group of millionaires and billionaires whose contributions already dwarf those made by the tens of thousands of people who have given to their favorite presidential candidate. An Associated Press analysis of fundraising reports filed with federal regulators through Friday found that nearly 60 donations of a million dollars or more accounted for about a third of the more than $380 million brought in so far for the 2016 presidential election. Donors who gave at least $100,000 account for about half of all donations so far to candidates’ presidential committees and the super PACs that support them. The review covered contributions to outside groups that can accept checks of any size, known as super PACs, and to the formal campaigns, which are limited to accepting no more than $2,700 per donor. The tally includes donations from individuals, corporations and other organizations reflected in data filed with the Federal Election Commission as of Friday, the deadline for super PACs to report for the first six months of the year. That concentration of money from a small group of wealthy donors builds on a trend that began in 2012, the first presidential contest after a series of court rulings and regulatory steps that created the super PAC. They can openly support candidates but may not directly coordinate their actions with their campaigns. “We have never seen an election like this, in which the wealthiest people in America are dominating the financing of the presidential election and as a consequence are creating enormous debts and obligations from the candidates who are receiving this financial support,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that wants to limit money in politics. Others see an upside to the rainmakers. “Big money gives us more competitive elections by helping many more candidates spread their message,” said David Keating, director of the Center for Competitive Politics, which advocates for fewer campaign finance limits. For any number of reasons, these donors are willing to give so generously. Some may have a business that stands to gain from an executive branch that changes how an industry is regulated, while others hope for plum administration assignments, such as a diplomatic post overseas or a cabinet position. Many say their contributions, which the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as equivalent to free speech, merely reflect their intense belief in a particular candidate – and in the political system in general. “I’d think that the fact that I’m willing to spend money in the public square rather than buying myself a toy would be considered a good thing,” said Scott Banister, a Silicon Valley investor who gave $1.2 million to a super PAC helping Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul in the Republican presidential race. “The voters still, at the end of the day, make the decision,” he said. “You can spend $1 billion trying to tell the voters to vote for a set of ideas they don’t like, and they will still vote against the candidate.” For Florida developer Al Hoffman, financial support of the state’s former governor, Jeb Bush, is personal. A longtime friend and political contributor to the Bush family, he gave $1 million to Bush’s super PAC, contributing to its record-setting haul of $103 million in the first six months of the year. Hoffman was ambassador to Portugal during former President George W. Bush‘s second term. He said he sometimes offered Bush advice during his time as Florida’s governor, but doesn’t expect to influence a Jeb Bush administration. “I’d just like to see one,” he said. While the existence of high-dollar donors is more pronounced on the Republican side, they’re also among those giving to the super PAC backing Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Seven donors of at least a million dollars accounted for almost half of the total collected by Priorities USA Action. Entertainment mogul Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, led with a $2 million gift, and hedge-fund billionaire George Soros, historically one of the Democratic Party’s biggest givers, donated $1 million. But no one has capitalized on the new era of big money like Bush. After announcing plans to explore a presidential run in December, Bush embarked on a nearly seven-day-a-week travel schedule to raise money for his Right to Rise super PAC. Bush navigated limits on how candidates can raise money for super PACs by playing coy about his intentions. Now that he is officially a candidate, he has left Right to Rise in the hands of his trusted strategist and friend, Mike Murphy. He’s not alone in the use of super PACs to fuel a presidential run. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are too new to the presidential contest, announcing only weeks ago, to have filed any reports about their campaigns’ finances. Yet super PACs that sprang up months ago to support them show their efforts will be financially viable: A group backing Christie raised $11 million, while two supporting Walker brought in $26 million. Such totals put them well ahead of Paul, former technology executive Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum – who all began their presidential campaigns in the spring. Cruz’s super PACs, meanwhile, didn’t just get the $11 million from Mercer. They also received a $10 million donation from Toby Neugebauer, an energy investor in Texas, while the Texas-based Wilks family pooled together a $15 million gift. Super PACs will spend as campaigns do, investing in polling and data sets, hiring employees in key states and buying pricey television and digital advertising, direct mailings and phone calls to voters.
Jeb Bush preparing to delegate many campaign tasks to super PAC
Jeb Bush is preparing to embark on an experiment in presidential politics: delegating many of the nuts-and-bolts tasks of seeking the White House to a separate political organization that can raise unlimited amounts of campaign cash. The concept, in development for months as the former Florida governor has raised tens of millions of dollars for his Right to Rise super PAC, would endow that organization not just with advertising on Bush’s behalf, but with many of the duties typically conducted by a campaign. Should Bush move ahead as his team intends, it is possible that for the first time a super PAC created to support a single candidate would spend more than the candidate’s campaign itself — at least through the primaries. Some of Bush’s donors believe that to be more than likely. The architects of the plan believe the super PAC’s ability to legally raise unlimited amounts of money outweighs its primary disadvantage, that it cannot legally coordinate its actions with Bush or his would-be campaign staff. “Nothing like this has been done before,” said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes limits on campaign finance donations. “It will take a high level of discipline to do it.” The exact design of the strategy remains fluid as Bush approaches an announcement of his intention to run for the Republican nomination in 2016. But at its center is the idea of placing Right to Rise in charge of the brunt of the biggest expense of electing Bush: television advertising and direct mail. Right to Rise could also break into new areas for a candidate-specific super PAC, such as data gathering, highly individualized online advertising and running phone banks. Also on the table is tasking the super PAC with crucial campaign endgame strategies: the operation to get out the vote and efforts to maximize absentee and early voting on Bush’s behalf. The campaign itself would still handle those things that require Bush’s direct involvement, such as candidate travel. It also would still pay for advertising, conduct polling and collect voter data. But the goal is for the campaign to be a streamlined operation that frees Bush to spend less time than in past campaigns raising money, and as much time as possible meeting voters. Bush’s plans were described to The Associated Press by two Republicans and several Bush donors familiar with the plan, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the former Florida governor has not yet announced his candidacy. “This isn’t the product of some genius thinking,” said a Republican familiar with the strategy. “This is the natural progression of the rules as they are set out by the FEC.” Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said: “Any speculation on how a potential campaign would be structured, if he were to move forward, is premature at this time.” The strategy aims to take maximum advantage of the new world of campaign finance created by a pair of 2010 Supreme Court decisions and counts on the Federal Election Commission to remain a passive regulator with little willingness to confront those pushing the envelope of the law. One reason Bush’s aides are comfortable with the strategy is because Mike Murphy, Bush’s longtime political confidant, would probably run the super PAC once Bush enters the race. Meanwhile, David Kochel, a former top adviser to Mitt Romney‘s campaigns and an ally of Bush senior adviser Sally Bradshaw, would probably be the pick to lead Bush’s official campaign. “Every campaign is going to carefully listen to the lawyers as to what is the best way to allocate their resources and how to maximize them,” said Al Cardenas, former chairman of the American Conservative Union and a Bush adviser. “Nobody wants to relinquish any advantage.” For Bush, the potential benefits are enormous. Campaigns can raise only $2,700 per donor for the primary and $2,700 for the general election. But super PACs are able to raise unlimited cash from individuals, corporations and groups such as labor unions. In theory, that means a small group of wealthy Bush supporters could pay for much of the work of electing him by writing massive checks to the super PAC. Bush would begin a White House bid with confidence that he will have the money behind him to make a deep run into the primaries, even if he should stumble early and spook small-dollar donors, starving his own campaign of the money it needs to carry on. Presidential candidates in recent elections have also spent several hours each day privately courting donors. This approach would not eliminate that burden for Bush, but would reduce it. “The idea of a super PAC doing more … means the candidate has to spend less time raising money and can spend more time campaigning,” said longtime Mitt Romney adviser Ron Kaufman, who supports Bush. The main limitation on super PACs is that they cannot coordinate their activities with a campaign. The risk for Bush is that his super PAC will not have access to the candidate and his senior strategists to make pivotal decisions about how to spend the massive amount of money it will take to win the Republican nomination and, if successful, secure the 270 electoral votes he will need to follow his father and brother into the White House. “The one thing you give away when you do that is control,” Kaufman said. Bush will also be dogged by advocates of campaign finance regulation. The Campaign Legal Center, which supports aggressive regulation of money and politics, has already complained to the FEC that Bush is currently flouting the law by raising money for his super PAC while acting like a candidate for president. Others are on guard, too. “In our view, we are headed for an epic national scandal,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of the pro-regulation group Democracy 21. “We intend to carefully and closely monitor all the candidates and their super PACs, because they will eventually provide numerous examples of violations.” All of the major candidates for president
