Editorials: Michigan: Where voters pay for their disenfranchisement | Curtis Hertel Jr./Detroit Free Press

Our system of government is set up to advocate for the will of the majority, while also protecting the fundamental rights of the minority. That isn’t happening in Michigan. On the last day of session, Republicans rammed Senate Bill 571, a 53-page bill, through the Legislature with zero committee review and zero public input. This bill, SB 571, not only increases corporate influence and money over elections, but also silences school districts, local governments and even librarians from educating the public about local millages and bond proposals. Regardless of the fact that some Republicans have admitted that they never read the bill and probably do not support it, Gov. Rick Snyder signed it into law anyway.

Montana: State to use corruption ruling to defend contribution caps | Associated Press

A second Montana judge has ruled there was corruption in the state’s 2010 Republican primary elections, with candidates pledging loyalty to a national anti-union group’s cause in exchange for thousands of dollars in illegal and unreported corporate campaign contributions. State officials plan to use the two judicial rulings as evidence in their defense of Montana’s limits on how much political donors may contribute to a candidate’s campaign. A federal lawsuit seeking to strike down those limits is pending after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that states must prove “quid pro quo corruption” — or the appearance of it — to justify capping contributions.

California: Businessman pushes ballot measure for NASCAR-style disclosure | Politico

Business executive John Cox, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House and Senate in Illinois, has moved one step closer to placing an initiative on the ballot that would require state legislators to wear the emblems of their top donors. Cox is the sponsor of a landmark campaign finance initiative which would require all California state legislators to wear the logos of their biggest donors in a fashion that’s readily visible to voters — not unlike shirts worn by NASCAR drivers, which display their sponsors. In California, where big money and big lobbyists fuel political campaigns, “these politicians basically get put in office by donors, and they do what donors want,” he told POLITICO. “So let’s make them wear the logos to show where the real political power is.”

National: A Banner Year for ‘Dark Money’ in Politics | Bloomberg

The 2016 presidential campaign seems certain to feature not only more money than any since Watergate but also more money from undisclosed donors since the days when black satchels of illicit cash were passed around. This so-called dark money, or contributions to entities that are not required to disclose their donors, topped more than $300 million in the 2012 presidential race, and some experts believe that the levels may be far higher this time. Among the risks is that foreign money — barred from playing a direct role in the election — could be surreptitiously funneled into the campaign because it could move through channels where it wouldn’t have to be publicly disclosed.

National: Campaign Cash in State Judicial Elections Grows | Associated Press

With three seats open on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a chance to flip control of the judicial branch, a wave of campaign cash, independent expenditures and negative TV ads flooded the state in the weeks before the November election. Six candidates combined for $12.2 million in contributions, with two independent groups spending $3.5 million. The record sum for a state judicial election serves as a hint of what lies ahead when voters in two dozen states will cast ballots for state supreme court justices in 2016. The flow of money into state judicial races has been rising in recent years and shows no sign of slowing down. Races in a handful of states, including Ohio and North Carolina, are among those that will be watched closely.

Wisconsin: Federal judge’s ruling on evidence could fuel John Doe appeal to U.S. Supreme Court | Wisconsin State Journal

Investigators have asked a federal judge to overrule a state Supreme Court order that they turn over evidence from their secret criminal investigation into Gov. Scott Walker’s recall campaign. Should U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman grant the request, it would set up a high-level clash between state and federal courts, perhaps giving the U.S. Supreme Court another reason to intervene, according to a former state Supreme Court justice. “The (Wisconsin) Supreme Court has created a hornets’ nest over this evidence and I don’t know how they get themselves out of it,” former Justice Janine Geske said in an interview Monday. “I suspect there are going to be some justices at the U.S. Supreme Court who say, ‘We’ve got to look at what’s going on in Wisconsin.’ ”

New Mexico: State Struggles With Campaign Finance Enforcement | Associated Press

Former New Mexico Secretary of State Dianna Duran was able to funnel thousands of dollars in campaign donations to her private bank accounts during a gambling binge without any regulatory agency noticing that she was breaking the law. Duran’s own agency was in charge of regulating campaign finance, but it was a confidential tip about numerous cash deposits that led to her getting caught. In the wake of the violations by Duran, more lawmakers were accused of sidestepping campaign finance laws by spending political donations on satellite TV service, clothing from outlet stores and other personal expenses.

Alaska: Trial set in lawsuit challenging campaign contribution limits | Associated Press

A federal judge has set an April trial date in a case that could affect state campaign contributions limits in Alaska. U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess said the trial is estimated to take five days. It is scheduled to start April 25, about four months before the state’s primary elections. An Anchorage state Republican party district and others are suing leaders of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, challenging the constitutionality of certain campaign contribution limits.

Wisconsin: Conservative groups helped gut Wisconsin election laws | Center for Public Integrity

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed into law on Wednesday measures that transform campaign finance rules and a government accountability board — two bills pushed by the very same conservative political groups implicated in an investigation into his campaign. The new laws arrive five months after Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court closed a three-year investigation into whether Walker and moneyed conservative nonprofits illegally coordinated campaign strategy during the Republican’s 2012 recall campaign for governor. The court cleared Walker and conservative allies of any wrongdoing on the basis that Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws were “unconstitutionally vague and broad,” opening the doors for legislative rewrite.

National: Campaign Finance Disclosure Efforts Dealt Severe Blow in Omnibus | Election Law Blog

While campaign finance reformers were busy fighting off an attempt by Sen. McConnell to include a rider in the omnibus which would allow for unlimited coordinated party spending with candidates, three other very bad campaign finance provisions slipped into the must-pass congressional omnibus as riders. All three relate to disclosure. Via Jason Abel, one provision stops the IRS from engaging in rulemaking on 501c4 activity, which would rein in shadow Super PACs who have been engaging in heavy federal election activity without publicly disclosing their donors.

National: Inside the 2016 black market for donor emails | Politico

Scott Walker has begun selling access to his email list to pay off his leftover presidential debt, renting out the email addresses of hundreds of thousands of supporters to former rivals, including Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. The solicitations arrive as if Walker’s donors magically landed on the lists of his old foes, as they plead for cash for themselves, linking to their own campaign sites. But there’s a catch. While it never says so in the emails from his old foes, or anywhere, the money that donors give isn’t necessarily all going to whichever smiling candidate is pictured on the site and writing the email. That is because Walker’s committee has struck secret deals with at least some of his old competitors to split the proceeds — unbeknownst to those doing the giving. It’s part of the presidential campaign’s hidden world of digging for donors online, where so-called revenue-sharing agreements — rev-shares, for short — are skyrocketing in popularity. “Is that ethical to the donor? I’m not sure,” Vincent Harris, chief digital strategist for Rand Paul’s campaign, said of such pacts. “I can say, if I was the donor, I would probably be pretty upset.”

Utah: Salt Lake City Council slashes campaign contribution limits | The Salt Lake Tribune

In its last meeting of the year, the Salt Lake City Council followed through on its campaign-finance-reform pledge by slashing contribution limits. In a unanimous vote Tuesday, the council cut maximum contributions to a mayoral candidate from $7,500 to $3,500. It also reduced maximum donations to council candidates from $1,500 to $750. Those limits apply to individuals, corporations, nonprofits and unions. The caps apply only to Salt Lake City. Utah state law contains no limits on campaign contributions. Tuesday was the last meeting for council members Luke Garrott and Kyle LaMalfa, who will leave office Jan. 4. Garrott has long been an advocate for reducing money in politics.

National: Backlash grows over McConnell’s campaign spending measure | The Hill

A bipartisan backlash is growing against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s efforts to insert an obscure measure into a year-end spending bill that would allow unlimited spending by political parties in coordination with candidates. McConnell — who has long believed that money is an expression of free speech and that restrictions should be removed on political spending — is trying to mimic a tactic that was employed last year. In late 2014, congressional leaders from both parties used a massive year-end bill as a vehicle to greatly increase the amount of money that can flow into political parties. But while last year’s rider was snuck in at the last minute, this year McConnell’s plan has been smoked out early. The backlash now comes from both the left and — perhaps surprisingly given conservatives’ fervent advocacy of looser restrictions on political spending — the right, but for different reasons.

Editorials: A Gift From Congress, to Congress | The New York Times

Congress is getting ready to give itself loads of extra campaign dollars again this holiday season. The catchall spending bill scheduled for a vote by Dec. 11 is what’s known in Washington as a “Christmas tree”: legislation festooned with amendments that are gifts to legislators and their home districts, or that create new, ideologically based policy that has little to do with the bill’s purpose, which is funding the government. Now the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and some House Republicans are reportedly planning to add four campaign finance riders to the $1.1 trillion bill’s already-groaning branches, hoping to help Republicans in elections next year. Mr. McConnell has personally put forward the rider that would expand his colleagues’ campaign coffers. It would allow the National Republican Senatorial Committee and its Democratic counterpart to escape restrictions on expenditures they make in coordination with an individual candidate.

National: Campaign Finance Riders Face Fight in Year-End Spending Bill | Roll Call

Progressive and political money groups say they will intensify their lobbying in the coming days to prevent four campaign finance measures from hitching a ride on a year-end spending deal. With a deadline to reach agreement on government-wide funding less than two weeks away, the effort will be no easy pitch. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., authored one of the measures, which would relax limits on coordination between political parties and candidates. “They’re swimming upstream every step of the way,” said Costas Panagopoulos, a Fordham University professor who specializes in campaign and election issues. “Legislators are going to be hard-pressed to vote against an appropriation bill that’s otherwise appealing to them on the basis of some of these riders.”

Editorials: Next Chance To Gut Campaign Finance Law Heads For Supreme Court | Paul Blumenthal/Huffington Post

The next domino in the effort to erase campaign finance restrictions has just been pushed. A case attacking the McCain-Feingold reform law’s ban on unlimited contributions to political parties has been set on a path that almost certainly ends at the Supreme Court. With the help of Citizens United lawyer Jim Bopp, the Republican Party of Louisiana and the Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish Republican Party sued to allow state and local parties to raise enormous sums under looser state laws and then spend them on federal elections. That practice is currently banned by restrictions on the use of “soft money” — unlimited contributions to political parties that pay for so-called party-building activities, as opposed to supporting specific candidates. The ban came after Senate investigations found that both parties had abused their soft money accounts to evade campaign contribution limits. Money meant for party-building activities was spent on ads promoting candidates. The Senate’s investigations also found that soft money donors were provided increased access and influence in policy making.

National: GOP rider would boost party spending | Politico

Senate Republicans plan to insert a provision into a must-pass government funding bill that would vastly expand the amount of cash that political parties could spend on candidates, multiple sources tell Politico. The provision, which sources say is one of a few campaign-finance related riders being discussed in closed-door negotiations over a $1.15 trillion omnibus spending package, would eliminate caps on the amount of cash that parties may spend in coordination with their candidates. Pushed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a longtime foe of campaign finance restrictions, the coordination rider represents the latest threat to the increasingly rickety set of rules created to restrict political fundraising and spending on elections.

Alaska: GOP supporters file suit to loosen Alaska’s strict campaign donation limits | Alaska Dispatch News

A new lawsuit in federal court seeks to overturn Alaska’s strict limits on donations to political candidates and groups using a pair of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions as precedents. The suit, filed by an Anchorage Republican district and three supporters of Republican candidates, challenges the state’s $500 annual cap on individuals’ donations to candidates, as well as three other contribution limits. If the lawsuit prevails, it could reshape the political landscape for next year’s state legislative elections by allowing donors to spend more money on their favored candidates. A trial is tentatively scheduled for late April before U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess.

Wisconsin: Assembly GOP approves rewritten campaign finance laws, GAB overhaul | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Assembly Republicans on Monday sent Gov. Scott Walker bills rewriting campaign finance laws and replacing the state’s ethics and elections board with two new commissions. The bills were prompted, in part, by ire over an investigation of Walker’s campaign that was terminated this summer by a state Supreme Court ruling. A provision of the campaign finance bill would put into law the court’s finding that candidates and issue groups can work closely together. The campaign finance bill would also double the amount donors can give candidates; allow corporations and unions to give money to political parties and campaign committees controlled by legislative leaders; and end the requirement that donors disclose their employers. That would make it harder for the public to find out which industries are funneling money to candidates. That measure passed 59-0, with all Republicans favoring it and all Democrats refusing to vote because they argued it was a conflict of interest for lawmakers to vote on changes to campaign finance laws that would take effect before the next election.

Montana: Montana Is Latest State to Reform Campaign Finance Rules | Associated Press

Montana is the latest state to overhaul its campaign-finance rules in an attempt to cast out dark money after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts in elections. The architect of the changes in Montana said the new rules will create a high level of transparency in the state with a history of election corruption, and will be effective because of Montana’s relatively small population of 1 million people. “You can put a lightbulb in a big cave and not see very far,” Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl said. “In Montana, you’re going to see a lot of corners.”

Connecticut: Election reform advocates blast plan to halt public money | Associated Press

Election reform advocates warn a budget-cutting proposal from Democratic lawmakers to suspend Connecticut’s public campaign financing system for the 2016 elections could roll back a decade of efforts to eliminate special interest money in elections. The bipartisan State Elections Enforcement Commission on Tuesday issued an unusual joint resolution that opposes the proposed changes. It warned such a suspension would set the Citizens Election Fund “on course for permanent underfunding” and lead candidates to once again rely on campaign contributions from lobbyists and special interests. The program provides publicly funded grants to state candidates who raise qualifying funds in small contributions and agree to spending and fundraising limitations. It was created in 2005 following the corruption scandal that ultimately sent then-Gov. John G. Rowland to prison.

Connecticut: Democrats Would Scrap Clean Election Program To Balance Budget | CT News Junkie

The legislature’s Democratic majority released a proposal Monday to close a $350 million budget shortfall by, among other things, suspending Connecticut’s landmark campaign finance system for the 2016 election cycle. The suspension of the program would only help close $11.7 million of the $350 million to $370 million budget gap. But Michael Brandi, the head of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, said the one cycle suspension would start the “death spiral” for the program. “The CEF has been a huge success and this move would put it on life support if not kill it entirely,” Brandi said in a statement. “It will not leave the fund enough money to fund the 2018 elections — so this is not a one-time suspension, it’s a permanent weakening, that will likely result in a death spiral — and it will return all of our elected officials to the culture of soliciting special interest money to fund their campaigns. This is not what the citizens of Connecticut signed up for when the Citizens’ Election Fund was created.”

New York: Legislation introduced to tighten New York City campaign finance rules | NY Daily News

A package of bills to tighten the city’s campaign finance rules is set to be introduced in the City Council this week. The legislation would bar more people from giving big bucks to candidates because they do business with the city, and slap more restrictions on fundraising by such donors. “We’re taking on the onslaught of dark money and special interests in the city’s elections,” said Councilman Ben Kallos, chair of the government operations committee and one of the sponsors. Right now, owners of firms with city business are bound by strict contribution limits – but their parent companies and those companies’ execs aren’t covered. That means real estate titans who hide their business in multiple LLCs can get out of the rules.

Editorials: In Seattle, a Campaign Finance Plan That Voters Control | The New York Times

On Tuesday, Seattle voters advanced the city’s reputation for progressivism when they approved a bold and unusual campaign finance reform plan. The plan will draw on real estate taxes to give every registered voter $100 in “democracy vouchers” to spend on candidates in the next city elections. The 10-year, $30 million experiment in taxpayer subsidized elections was approved by a 20 percent margin in an initiative that supporters said was a reaction to the ability of affluent donors to dominate campaigns. Under the plan, every voter will receive four $25 vouchers in every election cycle to be used only as campaign contributions to candidates in city races.

Wisconsin: Senate clears election overhaul in early morning vote | Madison.com

The state Senate voted early Saturday morning to approve sweeping changes to the state’s election and campaign finance systems, ending weeks of uncertainty surrounding the bills’ fates. One bill would alter state campaign finance law by increasing contribution limits for campaign donations and loosening restrictions on political action committee giving. That measure passed 17-15 with state Sen. Robert Cowles, R-Green Bay, voting with the Democratic minority to oppose the measures. The second bill, designed to split the state’s nonpartisan election board into two entities comprised equally of Republicans and Democrats, passed on a party-line vote.

Wisconsin: GOP lawmakers reverse course, balk at campaign donor reporting | Milwaukee Jounal-Sentinel

GOP state senators reversed course early Saturday and voted to let people make political donations without disclosing their employers as part of a broad overhaul of campaign finance laws. The bill passed just after midnight 17-15, with all Democrats and Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Allouez) opposing the measure and all other GOP senators supporting it. The measure now returns to the state Assembly, which will have to agree to the changes made by the Senate. GOP senators also approved a bill to eliminate the state Government Accountability Board, which runs elections and oversees ethics laws, and to give those duties to two new commissions. The proposal, which passed on a strictly party-line vote of 18-14, goes to the Assembly as well. Together the proposals would represent a significant shift in how elections are run and how money flows in the world of Wisconsin politics.

National: The battle over campaign finance reform is changing. Here’s how. | The Washington Post

Flying under the radar in the red-blue drama of this week’s off-year elections were a series of election-reform laws that passed on both coasts — measures that campaign-finance reform advocates hail as turning points in their movement. In Maine, 55 percent of voters agreed to strengthen their two-decade-old Clean Elections Act by boosting public funding for campaigns and putting in place penalties for those who break campaign finance law. In Seattle, 60 percent of voters put in place a first-in-the-nation “democracy voucher” system. Starting in 2017, citizens will get four $25 vouchers they can hand out to the campaign or campaigns of their choice. (It was modeled off a successful 2014 Tallahassee initiative giving local campaign donors there a $25 tax credit rebate.) Both were framed by supporters as attempts to push back against a 2010 Supreme Court decision, known as Citizens United, and subsequent decisions that allow anyone or any corporation or union to spend as much as they want on elections.

Wisconsin: Senate GOP tight-lipped as campaign finance, GAB bills near Friday extraordinary session | Wisconsin State Journal

Senate Republican leaders are keeping a tight wrap on forthcoming changes to bills splitting the state’s elections and ethics agency and rewriting campaign finance law — both of which appear headed for a Senate vote Friday in a so-called “extraordinary session.” The office of Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, signaled Tuesday that changes will be offered to the bills in extraordinary session, since Thursday marks the end of lawmakers’ scheduled period to convene. Proponents of the bills have said it’s important to pass them this fall, in advance of the 2016 election cycle. Fitzgerald said Wednesday the Senate has the votes to pass the ethics and elections bill.

Wisconsin: Republican leader says he has votes for elections board bill | Associated Press

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said Wednesday he has the votes to pass a compromise bill that would put two retired judges on a new ethics commission, a move that also won support from the measure’s sponsor and other reluctant lawmakers. GOP senators struck the deal Tuesday during a closed-door meeting called to break an impasse that was holding up the bill after it passed the Assembly last month. The Senate planned to pass it Friday, and the Assembly was scheduled to vote Nov. 16 to send the final version on to Gov. Scott Walker. “I wouldn’t go to the floor if I didn’t have the votes,” Fitzgerald said Wednesday. Details were still being worked out and would be released later, he said.

Washington: ‘Democracy vouchers’ win; first in country | The Seattle Times

The way candidates’ campaigns are financed in Seattle dramatically changed Tuesday night. Initiative 122 took a 20 percentage point lead in first-day returns, which makes Seattle the nation’s first jurisdiction to try taxpayer-funded “democracy vouchers.” “Seattle leads the nation, first on $15 an hour and now on campaign-finance reform. We look forward to seeing more cities and states implementing their own local solutions to the problem of big money in politics,” said Heather Weiner, I-122 spokeswoman.