ICYMI: David Bossie Talks Trump and Citizens United at the 2018 National Policy Conference

At the 2018 RNLA National Policy Conference, Citizens United President David Bossie discussed the landmark campaign finance case Citizens United v. FEC, and how that led to his relationship with President Trump.

Bossie came up with the concept of Citizens United after he saw commercials of the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.  Citizens United ended up filing a complaint with the FEC arguing that the documentary violated section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as it was produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituting political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. 

This concept in 2005 led to the Supreme Court decision in 2010 which has since resulted in many victories across the country due to Bossie's efforts.  It was this case that led Bossie to get to know President Trump on a more personal level.  Bossie stated:

"Because I had just won this case as in 2010 as the plaintiff, [Donald Trump] started asking me about politics.  So over the years, I kind of became one of the guys he called.  I introduced him to...Don McGahn, one of my longtime friends."

In 2016, Bossie worked as the Deputy Campaign Manager for Donald J. Trump for President alongside Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski.  Bossie described in-depth his time on the campaign trail through election night and described how writing Let Trump Be Trump with Lewandowski about this experience was "natural" and "cathartic."

Bossie credited President Trump and the incredible accomplishments he has made from the economy to foreign relations during his tenure in office.  In regard to the upcoming midterm election Bossie stated:

"We have to tell the story of the good news of our accomplishments over the first year and a half.  It's an incredible list of accomplishments.  All of them good - for all Americans- not just conservatives or Republicans...

"If we do that, we're going to bring about real change because we will keep the House and add in the Senate."

To view Bossie's speech in its entirety, click here.  RNLA members may purchase a signed copy of his book Let Trump Be Trump, by signing into the Members Only section of RNLA.org after clicking here.

The Latest Liberal Attempt to Obliterate the First Amendment

RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder has a new article in the Daily Caller that points out the truth and consequences of the left’s description of Citizens United.  Citizens United, when you get down to it, is about whether you can make a movie critical of a Presidential candidate.  (Does anyone really think that the left would make as big a deal over Citizen United if it was a movie critical of Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?) 

More importantly, the article goes into how the left uses their mischaracterization of Citizen United to attack free speech and regulate politics on the local level.

In 2016, Multnomah County, Oregon, passed, and voters approved, a measure which created contribution limits, expenditure limits, registration requirements, and disclosure requirements for spending related to county races.  The expenditure limits provide that individuals and entities may only spend money if the money was collected subject to the contribution limits.. . .

The primary problem with this misguided effort restricting constitutional rights of political speech is that it ignores not only Citizens United but also 40 years of settled campaign finance case law.

The Oregon case is interesting because it is also clearly unconstitutional under Oregon law.  As Ryder notes:

Putting aside federal constitutional law, Oregon Supreme Court decisions prohibit both expenditure and contribution limitations under the Constitution of Oregon because “political contributions constitute expression.”  Because of these decisions, Oregon is one of the few states that does not impose contribution limits on either individuals or entities.

From campus to political speech restrictions, the left's continued efforts to limit the First Amendment are troubling and need to be fought.  Political speech is not something new discovered in Citizens United but rather a bedrock of our founding in the Constitution.  

Supreme Court Upholds Soft Money Contribution Limits on Donations to Parties; Gorsuch Objects

Today, in Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a three-judge court's upholding of the soft money contribution limits on donations to political parties:

The ban stems from the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, which prohibited unlimited and unregulated large contributions to party committees known as soft money. The high court on Monday affirmed without hearing oral arguments a lower court ruling that denied the Louisiana Republican Party’s challenge to soft money bans for state and local parties. 

“I’m disappointed in the decision, but it’s not that big of a surprise,” said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member who manages the Election Law Reform Initiative at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It’s now pretty clear that the court is just not going to get into this part of McCain-Feingold and if the parties want these provisions to change, they’re going to have to go to Congress.” 

On Capitol Hill, von Spakovsky’s side will meet intense resistance from Democrats, even as those who favor campaign finance deregulation have a pivotal ally in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who led the legal challenge to the McCain-Feingold law. They also have an ally in White House Counsel Donald McGahn, a former Federal Election Commission member.

Newly confirmed Justice Gorsuch, with Justice Thomas, wanted the Court to hear the case and noted his vote in the order, his first major decision since joining the Court.  Prof. Rick Hasen (with whom we frequently disagree but who is probably correct here) said of Gorsuch:

This also tells us something about Justice Gorsuch. He was not shy at all — not only about being willing to wade into this very controversial area, but about announcing publicly his vote to hear the case (something he did not need to do). It could well be that he will be as conservative as Justice Thomas is in these cases. (Justice Thomas believes all campaign finance laws—including disclosure—should be subject to strict scrutiny and are likely unconstitutional.) I expect that unlike most Justices J. Gorsuch may not begin his first few terms cautiously, and then work his way up to his full Supreme Court voice.  

RNLA member James Bopp led this challenge to the soft money party contribution limits, noting that Citizens United left a "grave inequity" between parties, to which contributions are limited, and independent organizations such as super PACs, which may receive unlimited donations.

While today's opinion was very short, it does give us several interesting takeaways: 1. The principles outlined in Citizens United will only apply to outside organizations, at least for now.  2. Justice Gorsuch will likely be an active member of the Court from the beginning.  3. Justice Gorsuch, as his prior opinions indicated, is inclined to view campaign finance restrictions skeptically as infringing on important constitutional rights.  4. The legal challenges to contribution limits post-Citizens United will likely continue, until the right case and facts come before the Supreme Court to cause it to take up the issue once again or until Congress decides to amend the existing restrictions.

Highlights from Federalist Society Student Symposium Panel on Campaign Finance and Free Speech

Here are highlights of The Federalist Society’s second panel of the 2017 National Student Symposium at Columbia Law School. The topic of the Symposium was "The First Amendment in Contemporary Society" and it was held March 3-4, 2017.

This panel covered recent Supreme Court cases, including the much-discussed Citizens United decision, that struck down many campaign regulations on the grounds that they infringe upon individuals' First Amendment rights. The panel, consisting of well-versed law professors, weighed in on whether decisions like Citizens United are correct as a matter of law and if they are desirable from a policy perspective.

Panelists:

- Prof. Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former FEC Commissioner 

- Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law 

- Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law 

- Prof. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice; Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law 

- Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York

Selected Quotes:

“A corporation that is a publisher could be prohibited from selling a book?” - Bradley A. Smith, quoting a question posed by Justice Alito to Malcolm Stewart. Stewart said that yes, that it would be applied to a book. 

“Suppose a sign was held up in Lafayette Park saying vote for so-and-so. Under your theory of the Constitution the prohibition of that sign would be constitutional?” Bradley A. Smith quoting Justice Roberts' questioning during oral argument of Malcolm Stewart. “Noting that of course you could form a PAC, otherwise the answer would be yes…That is the case of Citizens United.” - Bradley A. Smith 

“Four judges on the United States Supreme Court say that the United States Government can ban a documentary movie about a political candidate in an election year if at any point in the process of production or distribution or sales there is a corporation involved. As there always is. As there has been in every movie you’ve ever seen in your whole life except for home movies. And that’s Citizen United.” - Bradley A. Smith 

“The requirement of [a neutral judiciary] seems to me to have a special residence in campaign finance law for 3 reasons. First, campaign finance decisions can change electoral outcomes and thus shape substantive results across the entire legislative policy space. Thus, if the Supreme Court does not apply neutral principles it permits speech to be silenced in a  way that may fundamentally distort politics. Second, the First Amendment is premised on a view that the government can’t be trusted with decisions about speech. But judges themselves are government officials thus the more a constitutional provision reflects an economy of distrust the more it requires the strict application of mutual principles to promote strict fidelity to the law. And [finally] judges aren’t just any government officials, they are appointed by politicians. . . .” – John McGinnis

The entire panel was an interesting discussion of how campaign finance regulation and First Amendment free speech interests intersect and conflict. 

By RNLA Law Clerk Daniel Boatright

Chilling View of the Clinton Supreme Court

If Hillary Clinton wins in November, she could remake the Supreme Court into a bastion of "liberal jurisprudence" that would last for another generation:

The unfilled vacancy of Antonin Scalia’s seat combined with a Hillary Clinton victory in November could set the Court on a new course. . . . The result would be a solid 6-3 liberal majority of a kind not seen in many decades. 

The implications of such a shift are massive. The Court is not a legislative body, and it can’t simply undo all of the conservative rulings of recent decades. The doctrine of stare decisis means the Court tries not to contradict its past rulings except in rare cases. But after speaking to a number of prominent legal scholars and experts, it appears there are some notable areas where a liberal Court could make a significant difference.

Specifically, the Court could overturn or limit Citizens United and the free speech rights contained in it:

Clinton promises to "appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect Americans’ right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections," and has reportedly told her own donors that she will make prospective justices pledge to overturn Citizens United. . . . But most of the experts I spoke with expressed skepticism that the decision will be overturned outright. . . . That being said, the legal scholars I asked suggested that a more left-leaning Court could subtly undermine Citizens United by upholding distinct campaign finance regulations at the federal and state levels. 

"My guess is that [a more liberal court] wouldn't overrule Citizens United in the short run, but that it would narrow the decision and uphold a range of possible regulations of money in the political process," Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and specialist in free speech cases, says. "Over time, these decisions would significantly erode Citizens United."

The Court could also threaten the integrity of elections and states' ability to administer their own elections -- for example, by upholding a legislative revival of the preclearance process struck down in Shelby County v. Holder or by raising the standard of scrutiny of laws regarding voting:

For example, in Crawford v. Marion County in 2008, the Court ruled that Indiana's photo ID requirement for voters was not an undue burden, because, as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote." . . . But [Pam] Karlan notes that the Court wouldn’t even have to totally reverse course and start applying strict scrutiny to make progress on these issues. "One of the things I’ve been thinking about is a more liberal version of the undue burden–style standards that the Court has employed," she says. "A version of that test that really takes into account socioeconomic disparities and the like could have a major impact." . . . 

That’s a particularly promising avenue for the Court since it requires minimal change in the Court’s doctrines. "It’s not necessarily the legal tests themselves that are the problem," Karlan notes. "It’s the sensibilities and the understandings and the world-awareness of the people applying the tests." That’s something that changing the membership of the Court could shift substantially, even if the new Court isn’t eager to overturn precedent.

These are just a few of the ways a Supreme Court remade by liberal lawyer Hillary Clinton could threaten the rule of law and the role of the courts by enacting liberal policies by judicial fiat.  Electing Donald Trump is the only way to prevent this chilling picture becoming reality.

Finally Some Good News For Free Speech Advocates

Free speech has continued to be in the news as of late. Most recently we have addressed digital free speech and the left’s persistent attacks focused on regulating the last bastion of truly free speech available to citizens of this country. For free speech advocates who were listening to Republican Nominee Donald J. Trump’s speech on July 21, 2016, we heard something out of this candidate that should make everyone celebrate. Trump vowed to repeal the IRS restriction on churches’ free speech.

He told GOP delegates on Thursday night that “the evangelical and religious community” has “so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views.”

“Their voice has been taken away,” Mr. Trump said. “I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans.”

President Johnson pushed Congress to pass the Johnson Amendment during his fierce primary battle against Dudley Dougherty. The IRS explains that the rule means that religious institutions that receive a tax-exempt status may not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

As the DNC convention moves forward with Hillary and several speakers continuing their unjust assault on the Citizens United decision seeking to silence those who would otherwise voice opposition to her vision of America. This is a “solution” she proposes to fix our country. Limiting speech and ideas is clearly a step down the wrong path. Still she proposes to do just that either through judicial appointments or constitutional amendments. It is extremely refreshing to see a nominee seeking to expand freedom of speech in our country, not squash it.  

Regulating Digital Speech Is Closer Than You Think

We have addressed the left’s persistent attacks on the first amendment frequently on this blog. Take a look back at Obama’s Lawyer, the attacks on Fox News, Ann Ravel’s unintelligible partisan dribble about her own agency, and even Attorneys General issuing harassing subpoenas on non-profit organizations for expressing a point of view.  The concerns are numerous and provide a grim picture of the underlying intent of the attacks.  

Those who get in the way are being dealt with through threats, intimidation, and far worse. Kimberly Strassel recently published a book detailing the various methods and actions taken by those who would see the First Amendment limited to only their point of view on any range of topics.  Liberal Senators and Congressmen/women are taking a cue from Commander in Chief. They are seeking to expand and lop side government agencies to allow for extensive regulatory overreach. Nowhere is this more prevalent than at the FCC and the FEC. For those familiar with the legislation, the concern is that the left has been and continues to seek to regulate the internet.

The Cato Institute recently held an event discussing the reality of the situation. Digital speech is under attack and has been for some time. The event featured Lee Goodman, Commissioner, FEC; Ajit Pai, Commissioner, FCC; and Rudy Takala, Watchdog Reporter, Washington Examiner. Goodman, Pai and Takala provided an exceptional overview of the current state of “Digital Speech”. In the interest of brevity, this is a paraphrase of the bulk of the concerns discussed.

The Internet is the last stronghold of what is truly free speech available to Americans and for that matter, the world.  As much as the left paints Citizens United as a horrible SCOTUS decision (which both Democratic presidential candidates seek to overturn), the internet as it is equalizes the decision by giving a voice to anyone willing to use it. Money makes little difference in the world of the internet. And while it may not be the end-all solution, it is the best and most readily available to all in our country. The wealthy, indigent, blacks, whites, Catholics, Muslims, conservatives, liberals, and moderates . . . we all have a chance to voice our opinion to weigh in on issues and express our opinions and partake in rational debate.

Debate is one of the things that makes this country great. The ability to share ideas and disagree with one another is what moves our nation forward. If you can get to a computer, at home or at the library, you have a platform to share your thoughts and ideas with others from across the world. That should be encouraged, not stifled through regulation overreach and the left-leaning media.  

You need not look too far to see oppressive governmental regimes heading down the path of over regulation, stifling speech and ideas, as well as outright banning of content. This is the path envisioned by many who continue to seek additional regulations. The intent is to regulate and control the flow of information, to tax it, and ensure that the ideas of many are drowned out in the favor of the ideas of a select few. This is the risk. These are the ideas being put forth by those who claim to be supporting minorities and giving them a voice. Which voice is that? Because if all remains constant, in the end, it most certainly will not be their own unless they can afford to pay for it and its message supports that of the current administration. 

Lee Goodman – A Steadfast Defender of the First Amendment – Part I

Well, I’m Lee Goodman, I’m Chairman of the Federal Election Committee and I’m here to help.  – Lee Goodman, LPAC 2014

It is not very often that I start a blog off with a quote; however, given the impact Goodman’s speech undoubtedly had on those who were fortunate enough to attend Liberty Political Action Conference back in 2014 or who have had the pleasure of viewing it since, it seemed a fitting introduction for a series of blog posts. 

Goodman has spent the bulk of his time with the FEC defending the First Amendment. This speech came at a time where he was personally subject to two federal suits for standing up for the constitution and the rights conferred upon us all by the First Amendment. Goodman continued . . .

We know that what distinguishes America from totalitarian regimes is fundamentally the First Amendment, which is the first freedom on which all of our other freedoms are based [. . . ]

The First Amendment is the very foundation of all our freedoms. If we choose to allow others to grind down those freedoms then we will undoubtedly lose our way. This should be a primary concern for everyone, right or left. Our ability to discuss and debate issues has come under attack. Sharing or speaking opinions, even unpopular ones, is how this country was born. The left seeks to overturn Citizens United (either by a decision or Constitutional Amendment) and it clearly is a step in the wrong direction. The ability to communicate, share diverse perspectives, and generally disagree with others' opinions are what makes this country the icon of freedom in the world today. Simply because you do not agree with something someone else says does not mean that an individual or association should not have the right to say it.

[T]hen in 2010, in the Citizens United v. FEC decision, the Supreme Court recognized that people form associations to speak and they do not shed their First Amendment rights just because they incorporate their association.

Associations serve only to amplify the voice of the individual and in turn, clarify the common voice of the association. An association is merely a group of likeminded individuals working together toward a common goal. Sharing their opinions with the public demonstrates the most basic of freedoms provided by the Constitution. This does not mean that the public has to listen to them. The holding in Citizens United affirms that speech expressed by individuals in this context was meant to be protected. To seek its overturning is to seek the ruination of First Amendment itself.

Now, those people who prefer more regulation of speech, and prefer to banish certain speakers and their ideas from the public debate are very frustrated with those decisions.

Regulation of speech is rarely a good thing and even more rarely does it help to provide any feasible solutions to actual problems. As Goodman pointed out, this is what separates the United States from other “totalitarian regimes.”  As the assault on First Amendment continues, it has become clear that we need voices like Goodman’s to speak out against those who seek to silence the speech and ideas of others, lest we allow ourselves to develop into one of those totalitarian regimes. 

An Honest Liberal on Citizen's United

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have stated they will only appoint Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Citizens United, a promise that would go against judicial ethics.  Noted liberal Michael Kinsley points out why they are wrong on the substance:

The First Amendment right of free speech is generally considered to be a liberal cause. So it's disappointing to see how quickly liberals abandon it when the speech is something they disagree with. Money isn't speech? Ridiculous. Of course it is.

As Kinsley further explains:

Liberals hope that someday the Lousy Decision Hall of Fame will include Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which held that corporations (and unions) have the right to free speech under the First Amendment. . . . For liberals, Citizens United has come to represent the nefarious role of money in politics, which many feel has eroded if not destroyed our democracy. Money is blamed above all this year for Donald Trump, although Citizens United doesn't apply to him if, as is widely supposed, he is a human being and not a legal fiction.

Kinsley cattiness aside, the success of Trump and for that matter Sanders proves that Citizens United is not the bogey man the left makes it out to be.  One of the reasons Kinsley cites:

The analogy I like (as did the Supreme Court in its ruling) is to a newspaper. Suppose Citizens United were reversed and President Trump decided one day that he was sick of The New York Times. So he proposes a law setting a ceiling on the amount any individual or organization can spend putting out a newspaper. Constitutional? I hope not. But it's hard to see the difference in principle between this and a law limiting the amount a corporation or union may spend promoting a political candidate.

Part of the left’s opposition is based on scoring political points.  Part it is just wrong.  Kinsley has it right.  

Hillary Clinton v. The ABA’s Judicial Code of Judicial Contact

On February 11, we wrote about Bernie Sanders demanding judges violate one of the most basic judicial tenants, bind themselves to decide a case in advance of hearing the case.  Bernie did this as part of his war of on free speech in discussing Citizen’s United.  

Last night in the Democratic Presidential Debate, Hillary Clinton did him one better:

The only people that I would ever appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe that Roe v. Wade is settled law and Citizens United needs to be overturned.

Let us restate this basic tenant of judicial ethics, from the ABA’s Code of Judicial Conduct - Canon 2, Rule 2.4:

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

Judges must refrain from speaking about topics that are currently before or may be before the court for just this reason. Their task is to apply law to the facts of cases; it is not to make good on a promise that directly procured their appointment.

To be clear, Senator Sanders also did it again last night, and seemed to imply that he might oppose President Obama’s current nominee, Merrick Garland, for failing to violate judicial ethics:

I think that we need a Supreme Court justice who will make it crystal clear and this nominee has not yet done that, crystal clear that he or she will vote to overturn Citizens United.

The assertions in the statement above speaks to the potential Democrat nominees' misunderstanding of the purpose and power of the Office of the President of the United States and likely of the Judicial Branch as well.

Hillary Clinton's Wisconsin Speech, Part 1: Hypocritical Attack on Citizens United

Among other things, Hillary Clinton discussed using a litmus test for potential Supreme Court justices during a visit to Madison, Wisconsin, yesterday. We addressed a similar issue some time ago coming from another Democrat, Bernie Sanders.

Hillary made several comments about election law during her speech, echoing the earlier comments from Sanders on current election law:

A lot of Americans are concerned about money in politics, and rightly so. It’s a serious problem that we have to address.  

But Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.  They’re not making decisions based on campaign contributions . . . . And consider, if you will, the dangerous turn the Court has taken in recent years toward protecting the rights of corporations over those of people. 

Now you may have heard of the case Citizens United.  The Court ruled that corporations have an unfettered right to free speech, just like you and me.  That means no limit on what corporations can spend independently to influence elections.  And – big surprise – a flood of money from rich people, corporations and special interests has poured into our politics.  

Citizens United opened the door to the creation of Super-PACs and between the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, spending by outside groups tripled.  In 2014, the top 100 donors to super PACs spent nearly as much as all 4-million-750-thousand small donors in the country combined.  

Now the idea, I believe, that money is speech turns our Constitution upside down.  Wealth should not be privileged in the courts – in fact, it should have no privilege.  Yet at a time when inequality between working Americans and those at the top is starker than ever, the Supreme Court has given the wealthiest Americans even greater power to affect what happens in our democracy.  

. . . If the Court doesn’t overturn Citizens United, I will fight for a Constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in elections.  It is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics. 

Hillary seems exceptionally concerned about super PACs. Yet the super PAC supporting her is leading the fundraising race of the super PACs supporting all candidates remaining in the field. She is benefitting from the corporate spending and speech that she rails against.

As we have detailed regarding Clinton's calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in the past, scholars on the right and left agree that such an amendment would have disastrous effects on the right to free speech and protect the power of the political establishment against the voice of ordinary citizens.

The assertions in the statement above speak to Clinton's misunderstanding of the importance of free speech, the nature of the political system, and the purpose and power of the Judicial Branch, especially given the clearly articulated ABA Rules of Judicial Conduct. On one hand Clinton argues that the Court has a great deal of impact and should be respected; on the other she states that it’s irrelevant and she will work to amend the constitution should the Court decide contrary to her assessment of Citizens United. 

Either Pointless or Wrong - Sanders' Claim Not to Have a Super PAC

In last night's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated what has become one of the themes of his campaign: 

We had a decision to make early on, do we do a Super PAC? And, we said no. [I]t ends up I'm the only candidate up here of the many candidates who has no Super PAC. 

At face value, Sen. Sanders' assertion is a pointless statement.  No candidate "has" a Super PAC.  Super PACs are political action committees that only make independent expenditures and are prohibited by law from coordinating or cooperating with the candidate(s) they support.  Candidates may have varying opinions of the Super PACs that support them, but the candidates cannot control or work with them.  

If Sen. Sanders means that he is not supported by any Super PACs, that is simply incorrect.  Sen. Sanders is supported by three independent expenditure-only committees, the legal definition of what is commonly called a Super PAC.  The Super PACs supporting Sen. Sanders are certainly less well funded than the Super PACs supporting other candidates, but that does not mean they do not exist.

While Sen. Sanders' claim not to have a Super PAC may fit well with his opposition to Citizens United, it is either correct but pointless or factually incorrect. 

The next target for the Democrats? Freedom of Speech.

The NY Times released a transcript of the Democratic debate that took place on February 4, 2016. The debate took place in a vivid dream world where priorities, reason, and logic cease to exist and are replaced by individual desires, general disregard for the laws and judicial system of our country, and a desire to place limitations on our freedom of speech. It is a world where hopeful democratic politicians believe that being president would grant them the right to throw Supreme Court decisions out the window and threaten our most fundamental of rights. The level of absurdity was ample, depressing, and quite frankly terrifying.

MODERATOR: So there are three big lifts that you’ve talked about: immigration, gun reform, climate change. What do you do first? Because you know the first one is the one you have the best shot at getting done.

[. . . ]

[SEN. SANDERS:]

... I am absolutely supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and a path towards citizenship for 11 million people today who are living in the shadows. All right? We got to do that.

But you miss — when you looked at the issues, you missed two of the most important. And that is you’re not going to accomplish what has to be done for working families and the middle class unless there is campaign finance reform.

No nominee of mine, if I’m elected president, to the United States Supreme Court will get that nomination unless he or she is loud and clear, and says they will vote to overturn Citizens United.

Thus, according to Sen. Sanders, one of the most important problems facing our country and one of the first things he would do as president is overturn Citizens United v. FEC. With all due respect Sen. Sanders, it does not work that way. I wonder where he got that idea. Perhaps, it was through watching the actions of our current administration.

Sen. Sanders' sheer level of disconnect from the actual problems facing this country is almost unfathomable. Poll after poll, citizens point to general economic/employment concerns, immigration, terrorism, and the federal budget/deficit as the most important problems for the United States. 

Overturning Citizens United would have a drastic effect on our First Amendment rights, as without it, books could be banned in the United States.  Our freedom of speech is under attack and overturning Citizens United is merely the first shot.  If this is the type of issue that is the top priority for a potential Sanders administration, I shudder to think of what other fundamental rights would come under fire if he became President.

Feingold-founded PAC Spending Points to Feingold Hypocrisy

Democrat Russ Feingold’s PAC spends little to support candidates. Feingold lost to Republican Ron Johnson in 2014, and just a few months later set up the Political Action Committee, Progressive United, and a non-profit, Progressives United, Inc. Only 5% of the PAC is directly funding candidates while most of the funds are directed towards fundraising and salaries, including Feingold’s own salary.

Before Feingold took his leave of absence from the PAC, he stated he founded the PAC to “combat the corrupting influence of corporate money in our elections and government.”

According to Federal Election Commission documents, the PAC spent more than $40,000 from February 2011 and June 2013 on travel expenses for Feingold and his staff. Spending was directed towards airline tickets, lavish hotel rooms, and according to Watchdog, some of the nation’s finest restaurants for its small staff. Most of 2012 was spent promoting Feingold’s book “While America Sleeps.”

As Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee said:

He was a godfather of campaign-finance reform, this was his No. 1 crusade in the Senate, and now he is so desperate to get back to Washington he's willing to throw out all of his previous convictions.

However, as Joe Fadness, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin stated,

For a politician who built a career on championing campaign finance reform, Senator Feingold has a long and hypocritical record of manipulating his own PAC for personal gain. These lavish expenditures are further proof that Progressives United was nothing more than a slush fund that Feingold used to exploit unsuspecting donors to fund his celebrity lifestyle.

Ultimately, the PAC spent above $3.50 for each $1 given to each candidate it supported.

Larry Lessig’s Corruption Copout

Having retooled Mayday PAC, Harvard professor Larry Lessig has jumped to his next project: describing the political system as ‘corrupt’ while avoiding the term for participants. His intellectual voyage travels as well as Mayday’s maiden venture.

Lessig argues corruption has two components: macro (the private funding system); and micro (quid pro quo bribes). “It is perfectly conceivable — conceptually — to imagine a corrupt institution filled with non-corrupt individuals.” But his argument logically fails. Any human system, especially a political one, is composed of aggregated individual actions. Thus, broadly, capitalism is a series of individual voluntary economic choices. Similarly socialism involves the sum of coercive bureaucratic decisions about those same choices. The system can’t be separated from the actions comprising it.

Private campaign funding either “corrupts” the individual politician through access, influence, and other perquisites or it doesn’t—regardless quid pro quo concerns.

If it doesn’t, Lessig has simply adopted Justice Kennedy’s Citizens United position: “The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.”

But if it does Lessig cannot avoid saying those politicians are ‘corrupt’ or at least ‘corrupted.’ His strategy to reduce micro-level corruption to quid pro quo while absolving individuals ‘macro’ corruption is a copout allowing him to avoid the uncomfortable extensions of his logic.  

Elsewhere Lessig states how private campaign funding “corrupts” individual politicians:

•  they constantly adjust their views to what they know will help them raise money
•  [politicians] make sure they haven’t alienated those people
• changes in government policy are because of the way we fund campaigns

It’s telling Lessig is reduced to analogizing a heating and air condition system with mixed wiring to explain his discordant theory.

But earlier this month, when he applied it to a real political problem, his distinctions crashed. Lessig testified before the Cambridge City Council. He said their zoning decision was “unwise at best.” Corruption was at issue because of a “tight correlation between these [zoning] changes in Cambridge’s planning process, and significant contributions to members of this Council.” In fact, “No citizen . . . would . . . believe that the deviation from normal planning practice here is driven by reason, or the public interest of Cambridge citizens alone.” Despite this Lessig insists he is not calling any individual corrupt. Shockingly, not everyone bought it.

Lessig’s singular focus on private money exposes a reformer misconception about politics. He believes money is the source of political credibility and thus must be controlled for egalitarian reasons. But credibility hinges on several factors, all of which must be present in some combination; money alone can’t provide it, see Donald Trump.

Again Lessig’s real-world example fails him. Regarding fellow reformer Zephyr Teachout’s run for New York governor, he states her “[lack of] of credibility was a function of the money.” Either Lessig is being disingenuous or his political obliviousness is off the charts. Despite Teachout’s countless political shortcomings: no previous office-holding experience, scant name recognition, scarcity of policy positions, bland public speaking, zero political infrastructure, questionable state roots, among many others, she was taken seriously. The New York Times dissected her candidacy and seeing her one-trick-pony show declined an endorsement. Money had nothing to do with it—the paper endorsed her running mate. Her relatively strong showing means, despite her flaws, no one will ignore her next run. That’s how it works.

But Lessig refuses to see all the moving parts. To him politics is a function of money; it can be read from a graph and taught with a PowerPoint. It’s this vanity that convinced him Mayday PAC could raise enough money to “pay the ransom” and “reclaim democracy,” with slick adverts and celebrity endorsements.

In Bob Bauer’s formulation, Lessig is the guy searching for his lost keys under the street lamp because it’s the only place lit; or in Bastiat’s words, the guy applauding the derelict that breaks the window because it employs the glazier. What Lessig sees is only a fraction of the political world he purports to explain.

By Paul Jossey