A handful of newly elected Democrats, including Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Katie Porter of California put drug industry CEOs on the defensive Wednesday like they’ve never been before.
The trio of freshman lawmakers used an Oversight Committee hearing to press the CEOs of Teva, Celgene and Bristol-Myers Squibb — painfully and directly — on the results of an 18-month investigation into the pricing of two drugs: Teva’s Multiple Sclerosis drug copaxone and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s multiple myeloma drug revlimid.
Porter, a former consumer protection attorney who has made a name for herself by embarrassing CEOs with prosecutorial questions and a white board, lived up to her reputation. She used that white board to display Celgene’s repeated price hikes for revlimid, which now costs $763 per dose, up from $215 in 2005, and demanded that Mark Alles, who served as Celgene’s CEO until Bristol Myers Squibb acquired the company in 2019, on explain whether the drug had improved over the same time period.TODAY >> I asked a Big Pharma CEO to justify why his company raised the price of a lifesaving cancer drug by over $500 *per pill* since it first hit the market. He couldn’t answer.
— Rep. Katie Porter (@RepKatiePorter) September 30, 2020
This same CEO made $13 MILLION in 2017— including a $500,000 bonus for this price hike. https://t.co/3KWm6tcXC0
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
A Hearing
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
Turmoil in the US Chamber of Commerce
Several articles from this afternoon (examples from The Hill and The Washington Post) state that Scott Reed, the US Chamber of Commerce's top political advisor for almost a decade and a former executive director of the RNC, has been forced out of his position.
Reed, in response to Maggie Haberman on Twitter, said that he had resigned, but "A top chamber official disputed that account, saying he had been fired for cause," according to The Hill's article.
The Post's article points to a memo from Chamber CEO Thomas J. Donohue in which he states that Reed "repeatedly breached confidentiality, distorted facts for his own benefit, withheld information from Chamber leadership and leaked internal information to the press."
This is particularly interesting following Republican backlash to the Chamber's endorsement of 30 House Democrats this cycle. Neither of the articles claim a direct connection between this backlash and Reed's removal, but together, these events at least point toward increasing turmoil in one of the country's most prominent interest groups.
Business I
For Thursday, read Drutman through chapter 5. Looking forward to:
- Your reflections,
- Your blog posts,
- Your suggestions for the next assignment,
- Your thoughts about the topic of your research paper.
Transfer calls and other forms of Astroturf
The Privileged Position of Business?
There does not seem to be cause for alarm in the dual relationship of the press to the public, whereby it is on one side a purveyor of information and opinion and on the other side a purely business enterprise. Rather, it is probable that a press which maintains an intimate touch with the business currents of the nation, is likely to be more reliable than it would be if it were a stranger to these influences. After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life.Attitudes on regulation
Drutman's theory (p. 7):
Why the growth of corporate lobbying matters (p. 24)
How the growth of lobbying feeds on itself:
 |
Lobby jobs? My email list and websites
The Nadir of Business Influence
Everything about the 1970s sucked, except for the movies.
Business would agree. See Drutman 55-59
QED: A Republican president imposed peacetime wage-price controls even when inflation was just in single digits.
Saturday, September 26, 2020
So Cal Gas
Colby Bermel at Politico:
A state investigation into the country's largest natural gas utility is steadily piecing together details of how the company may have cloaked its advocacy by recruiting local politicians and minority groups to promote fossil fuels at California ports, according to people familiar with the probe and documents obtained by POLITICO.
Southern California Gas was already facing accusations of charging customers for its advocacy at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, which have long worked to reduce their air pollution. But public misrepresentations of campaign efforts may be against the law, and state utility watchdogs are examining whether SoCalGas acted unlawfully in its lobbying efforts as the company fights the state's transition away from oil and gas.
The Public Advocates Office, an independent branch of the California Public Utilities Commission, launched an investigation last year when it found SoCalGas spent ratepayer dollars to start a group opposed to cities phasing out or banning natural gas in new buildings. The company "is working to undermine state policy through lobbying and other efforts to misinform the public and encourage the continued usage of natural gas," the PAO wrote this summer.
The PAO probe has since widened to include other SoCalGas activities, including the company's relationship with Imprenta Communications Group, a public affairs firm focused on issues in minority communities.
Three years ago, SoCalGas and Imprenta recruited Latino and Asian American politicians to support natural gas-fueled "near-zero emission" trucks, rather than electric ones favored by environmentalists.
Newly obtained internal company emails show SoCalGas worked with Imprenta throughout 2017 to enlist politicians of color ahead of a key climate vote by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the busiest in the country, as they sought to reduce emissions from ships, trucks and other infrastructure.
...
— Imprenta helped SoCalGas start Californians For Balanced Energy Solutions, or C4BES, the group focused on natural gas bans in new buildings. It also created a campaign called Advanced Clean Trucks Now Los Angeles — or ACT Now L.A. — which said the ports should endorse off-the-lot "near-zero" trucks over zero-emission vehicles.
— SoCalGas and Imprenta wrote a speech for then-Montebello Mayor Vivian Romero to give at an October 2017 press conference on near-zero trucks, according to email correspondence between the company and the PR firm. They also wrote a November 2017 op-ed under the names of Romero and two other elected officials — current South Gate Mayor Maria Davila and current San Gabriel Council Member Jason Pu — that ran in the Orange County Register one day before the ports vote.
— Two high-level SoCalGas employees, George Minter and Ken Chawkins, coordinated much of the utility's alleged ports campaign, emails show, and left the company earlier this year. Minter, Chawkins and former SoCalGas CEO Bret Lane, who retired in June, did not respond to requests for comment.
Political Consultant, Civil Rights, Ballot Prop
I have said it before, and I say it again: If you finish this course with your idealism intact, you have not been paying attention.
Read through the voter handbook for California’s November election, and a name pops up over and over again: Alice Huffman. As leader of the California NAACP, Huffman has weighed in with positions that critics say run counter to the historic civil rights organization’s mission to advance racial equality in education, housing and criminal justice.
Should voters raise commercial property taxes to pour billions of dollars into schools? Should they make it easier for cities to pass rent control ordinances? Should California outlaw the use of cash bail?
No, no and no, Huffman argues in the ballot handbook, where she is repeatedly identified as president of the California State Conference of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People).
What the guide doesn’t tell voters is that Huffman’s political consulting firm has been paid more than $1.2 million so far this year by ballot measure campaigns that she or the California NAACP has endorsed. She’s been paid by campaigns funded by commercial property owners fighting the tax increase, corporate landlords opposed to expanding rent control and bail bondsmen who want to keep the cash bail system.
Friday, September 25, 2020
Independent Expenditures in Senate Races
Theodoric Meyer and Daniel Lipman at Politico Influence:
CREDIT UNIONS BACK FOUR SENATORS IN NEW ADS: The Credit Union National Association and its PAC are putting about $1.5 million in new digital ads and direct mail backing four senators up for reelectar ion. The trade group is spending about $450,000 through its PAC on ads backing Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), about $300,000 on ads supporting Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and about $500,000 on ads backing Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), all of whom are facing close races. The trade group is also shelling out about $250,000 to help Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) as part of a coordinated buy with the Minnesota Credit Union Network and her campaign targeting credit union households. Smith is favored to win her race against former Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.).
— Trey Hawkins, the trade group’s deputy chief advocacy officer for political action, said credit unions were trying to spend money in race “where we can step in and have an impact on the outcome of the election.” The ad backing Peters touts his work to address the pandemic, calling him “a serious leader for deadly serious times,” while the ad boosting Daines hails his work to help pass the Paycheck Protection Program. The trade group also plans to run ads in half a dozen or so competitive House races.
As we discussed, regular PAC contributions are mostly for access. Independent expenditures, if large enough, might have some impact on the outcome.
Thursday, September 24, 2020
A Skeptical View of Corporate Environmentalism
Richard Morrison (CMC `99) of the Competitive Enterprise Institute at The Washington Examiner:
An association of CEOs of large, U.S.-based corporations has joined the global warming bandwagon, releasing a new policy document, “Addressing Climate Change.” Is this move by the Business Roundtable “a sea change in corporate attitudes on climate action,” as the Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip called it?
Maybe. The statement really seems crafted to cover the collective backsides of association members and companies regardless of who ends up controlling Congress and the White House and to reduce exposure to financial risk. Not exactly a sea change. And not likely to garner the environmental halo they covet. ExxonMobil, for example, has been moving closer to the supposedly enlightened position on climate change for years yet still remains the top corporate target of public relations attacks and grandstanding lawsuits.
In coming out in favor of increased regulation, the Business Roundtable is doing what many big companies have done for decades: appear to support altruistic goals while using public policy to advance their own interests.
...
The Business Roundtable statement also calls for “regulatory certainty,” which in the world of special interest lobbying often translates into locking in a good deal for oneself against competitors. The statement says current federal and state climate policies have “negatively affected the long-term investment strategies of many U.S. companies.” Rather than calling for the repeal of those policies, they want the law rewritten to benefit them.
...
This ostensibly simple and equitable system would also require “targeted incentives” to “help to ease the transition.” That’s lobbyist talk for cronyism, in which every company that can afford it comes to Washington to stick their snout into the climate appropriations and tax loophole trough. If you want to know how that will work, just look at the steel and aluminum tariff exclusions that the Department of Commerce has been mysteriously granting and withholding over the last few years.
Lobbying II: Inside Game and Outside Game
For next Tuesday: Drutman, chl 1-3.
"Credibility first" and "Only the Facts Count" (Berry 135) GEORGIA T. ON LEBRON
Cigler ch. 11
- Small wins can equal big gains (212)
- The wins often take place in the bureaucracy
- Wins usually occur far upstream of public actions: bills that never see the light of day, provisions that go into the first draft of legislatin
PRE-PUBLIC PHASE
- Bill drafting
- Preliminary discussion of issues
PUBLIC PHASE
- Hearings
- News events
- Committee and floor action
- Presidential signing
POST-PUBLIC PHASE
- Regulations: APA
- Implementation
From a leading lobbyist:
- Lobbying is persuasive advocacy. … lobbying is attempting to convince 535 judges, based on their prior records, known beliefs, public comments and legislative histories that can be known by those who put in the effort.
- Lobbyists spend most of their days reading & researching. As with the law, effective advocacy requires preparation. Your meetings are with crazy-busy staffers who have maybe 15 minutes for you amidst receiving texts & emails. You need to be concise, compelling and clear
- Most lobbying meetings are with young(ish) staffers, to help them understand thins they don’t know (about technology or medicine or energy or countless other areas where staffers are getting up to speed). Their jobs are to research the issues to help educate their bosses.
- Lobbyists are specialists like so many others inside companies… just as businesses have specialists who handle HR, niche lawyers to deal with niche legal matters and investor relations, they need and have government relations. Government is an essential stakeholder, especially for regulated industries.
- The majority of lobbying fights are between big dogs… rather than screwing the little guy, patent reform is Big Tech vs Big PhRMA vs Big Universities. Tax reform was a clash of the titans.
- If you were re-designing Washington to be better and more effective, you would still create lobbyists… to stand between Members & staff who mean well but lack expertise, and businesses where most people are inventing, manufacturing or selling products.
- Lobbying entails more than face-to-face meetings with Members & staff. Effective advocacy campaigns are surround sound…. deploys its lobbyists to meet with staffers on the Hill, flys-in executives to meet with Members, invites local representatives to visit in-district factories, encourages its industry allies and trade associations to follow-up with similar visits, runs TV ads to influence what staff sees, runs radio ads to influence what they hear in the car, runs digital ads to influence what appears on their phones, hires academics and think tanks to influence what they hear from others and see on social media, works the press to influence what they read in the papers, organizes local advocates to shape what they hear from the grassroots, potentially invests in political activities to bring political pressure and salience to the issue, engage NGOs (that by one estimate spend $10B annually on policy), etc. etc.
- Of all of the individuals involved in the effort described above, ONLY lobbyists (who spend at least 20% of our time on meetings) disclose our clients and fees. All the other media advisers, grassroots specialists, digital strategists, legal analysts, hired-academics, etc. – at least 65% of the total spend according to Prof. Tim LaPira, are part of the influence industry but not (technically) lobbyists. It’s a swamp because the waters are opaque… we lobbyists are the turtles who swim atop the brackish waters
The lay of the land"
- Know the news -- much of lobbying is monitoring (Cigler 202)
- Know the jurisdictions: tax, appropriations, regulation
- Know the process
- Know the calendar
- Know the people
- Plant seeds
How to lobby
- Soft sells and building relationships
- Lobbying staff: what to do (see video above)
- Lobbying staff: what not to do
- Ethics
The Outside Game
Punctuated Equilibrium, News Media and Framing (Cigler, ch. 8)
Clearest example: ballot measures https://yeson22.com (h/t Eric)
Outside validators (or Carville's earthier phrase)
- Think tanks and their funding
- Heritage and Heritage Action for America
James Rufus Koren at the Los Angeles Times:
Paid protesters are a real thing.
Crowds on Demand, a Beverly Hills firm that’s an outspoken player in the business of hiring protesters, boasts on its website that it provides its clients with “protests, rallies, flash-mobs, paparazzi events and other inventive PR stunts.… We provide everything including the people, the materials and even the ideas.”
The company has hired actors to lobby the New Orleans City Council on behalf of a power plant operator, protest a Masons convention in San Francisco and act like supportive fans and paparazzi at an L.A. conference for life coaches.
But according to a lawsuit filed by a Czech investor, Crowds on Demand also takes on more sordid assignments. Zdenek Bakala claims the firm has been used to run an extortion campaign against him.
Bakala has accused Prague investment manager Pavol Krupa of hiring Crowds on Demand to pay protesters to march near his home in Hilton Head, S.C., and to call and send emails to the Aspen Institute and Dartmouth College, where Bakala serves on advisory boards, urging them to cut ties to him. Bakala alleges that Krupa has threatened to continue and expand the campaign unless Bakala pays him $23 million.
Wednesday, September 23, 2020
Alaska Pebble Mine Executives Taped Detailing Sway over Politicians
The Pebble Mine is a major open-pit mine in a remote part of Southwest Alaska. Alaskans have been fighting on this issue for over a decade and a half, with supporters arguing for much-needed economic development while opponents argue that development will cause environmental harm, especially to the salmon population. The project is a major issue in the Alaska Senate race between Dr. Al Gross (D) and Senator Dan Sullivan (R), one of the most competitive Senate races this election cycle. Gross staunchly opposes the Pebble Mine while Sullivan has not taken a strong stance on the issue.
NYT writes that "The Corps of Engineers issued a final environmental impact statement last month that found that the project as proposed would not cause 'long-term changes in the health of the commercial fisheries.' The Corps is expected to make a final decision on a permit for the project within weeks. That would allow construction to proceed after state permits are obtained, which is expected to take three years."
Yesterday, an environmental group released secretly recorded tapes of Pebble Mine executives Roland Thiessen and Tom Collier boasting about their sway over elected officials:
"Thiessen described both of the state’s Republican U.S. senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, as politicians who might make noises about the project to appear sensitive to environmental concerns but ultimately won’t stand in their way. “It’s an age-old practice where when you have constituents, you have important people who support you on two sides of an issue, all right, you try to find a way to satisfy them both,” he said in the recording.
He noted that Murkowski declined to move a bill that would have barred the federal government from permitting the mine. Instead, she included language in a spending bill that raised some questions about Pebble Mine but did not hinder it. “She says things that don’t sound supportive of Pebble, but when it comes time to vote, when it comes time to do something, she never does anything to hurt Pebble, okay?” Thiessen said."
Collier and Thiessen also discuss how they play to both parties:
"Collier, who worked as chief of staff to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt during the Clinton administration, said that he registered as an independent in Alaska but was “a well-known Republican fundraiser” in the state. He describes how he helped lead a successful effort to defeat nine state GOP legislators last election because they worked with Democrats and did not support Pebble Mine.
“Now, having said that, it’s entirely possible that we may have [former vice president Joe] Biden as a president, and if we do, I’m gonna brush off my Democratic credentials and start using them a little more actively than I do,” he added."
Thiessen boasts about his connections and sway over the White House, an interesting claim considering how Berry Chapter 8 talks about how the White House is one of the more difficult branches of government to influence.
“I mean, we can talk to the chief of staff of the White House any time we want. You want to be careful with all this because it’s all recorded,” Thiessen said. “It’s not that they tape the call, it’s just that it’s recorded that ‘He had a call with Tom Collier, the CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership.’ You don’t want to be seen to be trying to exercise undue influence. It’s better for us if we want to push that envelope that Tom talks to the governor of the state of Alaska and the governor of the state of Alaska picks up the phone and calls the chief of staff to the White House, yes.”
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
Looking Ahead to the Research Projecct
In the next week or so, each of you should choose an interest group or lobbying firm. You will become our "resident expert" on that organization, and you will make a very brief oral presentation on it later in the semester.
Examples could include:
- AARP
- GOA
- NRLC
- ACLU
- Pfizer
- Exxon
- SEIU
- AMA
- Autism Speaks
These examples are a tiny sample of what you could choose.
By November 13, write an essay analyzing the organization that you have chosen. In your answer, please answer these questions:
- Whom does the organization represent?
- How does the organization make decisions?
- What are its top current policy priorities? Tell how it is seeking to change or preserve certain statutes, rules, or practices.
- What strategy is it pursuing? Inside game or outside game? Legislative, executive or judicial action?
- In light of the 2020 election, what are its prospects for success over the next year?
Instructions:
- Document your claims. Do not write from the top of your head.
- Essays should be typed (12-point), double-spaced, and no more than eight pages long. I will not read past the eighth page. As always, please submit papers to the Sakai dropbox as Word documents, not pdfs.
- Cite your sources with endnotes in Chicago/Turabian style. Endnote pages do not count against the page limit.
- Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you.
- Due date is 11:59 PM on November 13. Papers will drop a gradepoint for one day's lateness, a full letter grade after that.
Outside Spending in Senate Races
From CFI:
A Campaign Finance Institute analysis of independent expenditures (IEs) reported to the Federal Election Commission shows that competitive Senate races are dominating the IE landscape in the 2020 congressional general elections. With the battle for majority control of the Senate at stake, there have been nearly $310 million in IEs in Senate races through September 20 -- an increase of 121% over the $140.3 million spent as of the same date in 2018. In contrast, the $76.9 million in IEs on House races is substantially less than the $103.3 million spent by the same date in 2018.
The difference, of course, is that the battle for majority control has switched chambers. Most political professionals saw majority control of the House as being at stake in 2018, but not in 2020. The situation is reversed for the Senate.
The full report shows eye-openers such as North Carolina's $66.7 million, where the incumbent Thom Tillis (R) faces a spirited challenge by Cal Cunningham (D). Nearly $13 million of the IEs in this race have occurred over the past seven days.
Cumulative and most-recent-seven-day IE totals in each House and Senate race (combined with the candidates' receipts and other information) will be updated daily from now until Election Day on the CFI website.
Track all IEs in Congressional races on the CFI website.
House and Senate race data to be updated daily.
Lobbying I
- Data on lobbyists
- An example of a DC/CA firm with Claremont ties
- Bipartisan DC firm
Shadow Lobbying: Karl Evers-Hillstrom and Dan Auble at Open Secrets:
Political operatives and lobbyists continue to take spins through the revolving door between government and the private sector ... And without action from Congress to change lobbying rules, undisclosed lobbying activities are still running rampant, an OpenSecrets analysis indicates.
When an individual engages in advocacy to influence public policy but does not register as a lobbyist, it's typically referred to as "shadow lobbying."
It's common, for example, that a top government affairs employee oversees lobbying activity but never actually registers under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) by exploiting its various loopholes.
This phenomenon extends to former members of Congress who advise lobbying firms but don't register, or heads of trade associations who run multi-million dollar lobbying operations but don't register. This can leave a portion or, in some cases, all of a lobbying operation's details hidden from the public. Also not disclosed in public lobbying filings are the millions of dollars corporations and trade associations spend on public relations and ad campaigns to influence policymakers.
In this report, OpenSecrets looks into several aspects of unreported lobbying and advocacy. Click the links below to navigate the report:
"The Most Permeable Branch"
- Members and staff (and yes, you can find salaries)
- Committees
- Party Leadership
- Congressional Member Organizations
ACCESS: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) says that if she finds 30 phone messages, "of the thirty, you're going to know ten of them. Anyone is going to make phone calls to the people they know first. I'm going to call the people I know. Among the people I know are donors."
The Green Chamber
Historically, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not been a friend to climate activists. The world’s largest pro-business lobbying group has pushed against clean air and water regulations, criticized the Kyoto Protocol as “bad for the American economy, American workers, and American families,” and roundly rejected the science of human-caused climate change.
“You name the environmental issue, and they are opposing the protections,” said Dan Dudis, former director of Public Citizen’s Chamber Watch, in a 2017 interview with Racked.
So many business leaders were surprised when, after contributing millions of dollars to Republican climate deniers over the years, the Chamber of Commerce announced last month that it was endorsing nearly two dozen first-term Democratic candidates for Congress, including two in highly competitive toss-up races. While this is hardly the first time the lobby has endorsed Democrats, it’s rare for the Chamber to do so in such large numbers.
“The Chamber of Commerce is trying to reinvent itself,” said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the nonprofit Public Citizen. Since the 2016 election, when it threw its support behind Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, the group has gradually retreated from the far right, he said. “They’ve started endorsing more Democrats, they’ve been tolerating more environmental issues.”
...
The Chamber’s pro(ish)-climate moves might seem controversial to some of its members, but in the wider business landscape, they are somewhat belated. Many of the Chamber’s own members — companies like Gap, Pepsi, and Disney — have long had ambitious corporate sustainability pledges, promising to slash emissions or conserve resources for years. In fact, since 2009, Apple, Pacific Gas & Electric, Starbucks, Unilever, and General Mills have all left the Chamber, citing its anti-climate advocacy.
Now, the Chamber of Commerce is playing catch-up. On top of the news slew of Democratic endorsements, the group recently added a whole section to its website affirming that “the climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes” before going on to endorse leadership in climate science, climate-resilient infrastructure, and energy efficiency.
Sunday, September 20, 2020
Throwback: NRA Kavanaugh Lobbying
Because of the upcoming SCOTUS battle, I was curious about lobbying activity during Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. The nomination was highly controversial due to sexual assault allegations. I wondered if organizations would be hesitant to formally support someone in the midst of such controversy.
Prior to the accusations, the NRA planned to spend $1 mm to support Kavanaugh. The Hill article writes:
The NRA released its first ad in the campaign, which touts Kavanaugh as the potential tie-breaking vote on gun rights.
“Four liberal justices oppose your right to self-defense. Four justices support your right to self-defense,” the narrator in the ad states.
“President Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh to break the tie. Your right to self-defense depends on this vote,” the narrator warns.
USA Today reported that regional ads will target Democratic Sens. Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.). All represent states President Trump won in 2016, and all but Jones are up for reelection in November.
Ads will also air in Alaska, targeting Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), who is considered one of two Republicans who may oppose Kavanaugh. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the other.
An NRA spokeswoman went on Fox and Friends after the allegations became public and tried to delegitimize them:
Loesch begun her interview by calling into question the veracity of the three accusers' claims, saying "every person that comes forward, it gets flimsier and flimsier."
. . .
"As a women, and as a mother of sons, I am horrified by where this is leading for boys in our country," she said.
"Boys are considered guilty until proven innocent," Loesch added later. "Now granted, there are some predatory men out there who have done terrible things to women, but there are also some bad women who have done some horrible things to men."
Loesch brought up several examples of false accusations, including rape claims lodged against former NFL players Colin Kaepernick and Brian Banks, saying that we should not find people guilty just because they are men.
SCOTUS: The Lobbying Has Begun
Michael D. Shear (CMC `89) and Nicholas Fandos at NYT:
Just hours after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death was announced on Friday, the leaders of three of the left’s most potent advocacy groups, Demand Justice, Naral Pro-Choice America and Indivisible, were on a call with 1,000 progressive activists and strategists to begin to unfurl a plan they hoped they would not have to use.
Demand Justice, a relatively new group led by the longtime Democratic aide Brian Fallon to match the powerful conservative legal apparatus, quickly pledged to spend $10 million “to fight to ensure no justice is confirmed before the January inauguration.”
At the same time, a coalition of President Trump’s conservative allies said Saturday that it was preparing for an intense confrontation over Justice Ginsburg’s seat, and was gearing up for a lobbying and public relations blitz.
The message: Move quickly to replace her.
Friday, September 18, 2020
Big Business and Police Foundations
This article illustrates a point from chapter 10 of Cigler: influence campaigns do not aim just at public officials. This one goes after charitable foundations that police officers have set up.
Zachary Warmbrodt at Politico:
Wall Street banks and other big corporations are under pressure to cut ties with nonprofit police foundations, which racial justice activists say are increasingly funding law enforcement practices that fuel violence against Black people.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Chevron are among the businesses that watchdogs are targeting for making donations to the privately run foundations associated with local police departments. Banks such as JPMorgan Chase have touted multimillion-dollar gifts to the police groups. One foundation last year honored Morgan Stanley’s CEO at its annual gala.
Color of Change, an online racial justice group with 7 million members, is calling on the companies to sever their relationships with the foundations, which for some police departments have become a resource for surveillance technology, SWAT team guns, armor, drones and K-9 dogs. Critics say the gifts by the nonprofits to police departments escape public accountability.
"Our end goal is to have an intervention on the funneling of private money into police forces and into policing," said Scott Roberts, senior director of criminal justice campaigns at Color of Change. "If the police foundations existed to raise money for the families of fallen police officers, we wouldn't say we need to abolish police foundations. It's the specific type of work that they're doing that we object to."
Some corporations are beginning to reconsider the support. Wells Fargo says it has paused donations, while other companies including Goldman Sachs have agreed to hold discussions with activists.
Super PAC News
POLITICAL DONATIONS are a bit like financial investments. Sometimes they’re a sign of confidence, sometimes they indicate desperation, and sometimes they’re a hedge.
GET A LOAD OF THIS: The SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND -- the Senate GOP super PAC -- raised $37.3 MILLION in August. For a point of comparison: They raised $3 million in August 2018 -- that’s a 12x increase. They have $126 MILLION on hand, which is more than 3x what they had on hand at this point in 2018 ($40.5 million).
OF COURSE, the battle for the Senate is far more competitive this time around. But when you compare this level of enthusiasm with the TRUMP fundraising, you’ll find a bit of a disconnect. ALEX ISENSTADT: “Cash-strapped Trump campaign awaits a bailout from big donors”
The Lincoln Project, a Super PAC run by anti-Trump Republicans and ex-Republicans, is doing Spanish-language ads:
Thursday, September 17, 2020
Into Darkness
For next Tuesday, read Berry, ch. 6-8
Ballot Measures
Explaining Open Secrets
- How the Center for Responsive Politics assigns individual contributions
- The columns in the Industries table
Why give to disclosing groups rather than dark money?
- Many givers (Adelson) want to get credit.
- Some givers are leery of dark money.
- Late Super PAC disclosure (Schatzinger) sometimes makes it a distinction without a difference.
"[The] main criterion for super PACs and their independent expenditures remains the competitiveness of races." (Schatzinger 119)
Congressional Leadership Super PAC (Schatzinger 128-131)
Advertising
- Ads matter less than people think.
- The effect is inversely proportional to the level of the office at stake. That is, ads have more effect in a race for school board than for US president.
- All other things being equal, negatives have more effect than positive. Why? Cognitive biases.
Foreign Influence (more later in the course!)
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
Challenger to Rep. Ilhan Omar uses Mysterious LLCs as "Strategic Consultants"
This cycle, Antone Melton-Meaux ran for Congress in Minnesota's 5th District against incumbent Representative Ilhan Omar. His campaign raised $3.2 million in the last 3 months before the primary, where he ultimately lost by 18 points.
Before the election, he came under scrutiny for paying over $100,000 to two LLC companies which were formed in 2019. These companies had no record online or any presence in campaign filings for any other candidate. One week before the primary, the Democratic Party of Minnesota (called the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party) filed an FEC complaint against his campaign alleging he was failing to disclose donors who had contributed to the millions raised and was illegally moving money to vendors that did not exist.
Melton-Meaux's campaign also paid $1.1 million to an LLC created on May 29, 2020 for media buys and direct mail. Between this and the other two LLCs, this has accounted for 65% of his campaign expenditures going through anonymous and newly founded Delaware LLC companies. Political strategists believe this was likely to conceal the identity of the vendors actually doing work for the campaign given that the DCCC has made it a policy to blacklist any vendor that works with a primary challenger to a current incumbent.
Tuesday, September 15, 2020
Political Marketplace
For Thursday, read Schatzinger, ch. 6.
Balancing Acts (Schatzinger, ch. 2)
- Do corporations have rights? Aren't corporations just groups of people?
- Is money speech? Can people effectively express themselves without it?
- What is the line between responsiveness and corruption?
- Do voters have a right to know who is funding campaign communication?
The donor class
- The NYT article on donors to outside groups (Schatzinger and Martin, 54) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html
- LLCs to conceal identities https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/surge-in-llc-contributions-more-mystery/
- Essential Consultants LLC https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/michael-cohen-shell-company-payments.html
Liberal dark money in 2018 (p. 63):
- Limitations of public information
- Guidestar/Candid and Form 990
- More at Candid
- SourceWatch (liberals investigating conservatives) and Capital Research Center (conservatives investigating liberals)
What do they get for their money?
Coordination.
- B-Roll: Mitch McConnell and Steve Bullock doing stuff
- Micro-sites
- Personnel
Congressional Leadership Super PAC
Monday, September 14, 2020
$996 Million in Dark Money spending since Citizens United
According to the good governance group Issue One, groups that do not disclose their donors–mainly 501(c)(4) groups– have spent $996 million since the 2010 Citizens United ruling, with $33 million being spent so far this cycle. This also only accounts for direct spending reported to the FEC, so it does not include the spending outside of the electioneering window that is not deemed as "political spending". An estimate of total dark money spending towards the elections, including what is not disclosed to the FEC, estimates it closer to $182 million this cycle. While Democrats outspent conservative dark money groups for the first time in 2018, spending by groups aligned with either party is very evenly matched so far this cycle.
This cycle there have also been many "pop-up" Super PACs which are created just before the election (primaries so far) so that they do not have to disclose donors until after that election is over. This happened most notably in the case of Elizabeth Warren, famous for her pledge to not receive any help from Super PACs earlier in the primary. Persist PAC, formed in early 2020, formed at a time so that it would not have to disclose its donors until after Super Tuesday. While Warren asked for them to disclose their donors before Super Tuesday, the PAC refused to do so.
More on the spending in the Politico Newsletter here and Warren Super PAC here.
The NRA's Slide
Sara Fischer and Alayna Treene at Axios:
The National Rifle Association has spent $9.2 million on political expenditures this cycle, about one-sixth of the $54.4 million reported in 2016, according to Federal Election Commission data tracked by Open Secrets.
Why it matters: While the group has vowed to support President Trump's re-election, mounting fees from fights with regulators, internal infighting and the pandemic have devastated its finances — and could mute its future influence.
By the numbers: The NRA has spent less than one-fifth on TV ads this year compared to what it spent in 2016, according to data from Advertising Analytics.NRA spokesperson Amy Hunter told Axios that given that it's still September, it "wouldn't be fair to compare where we are now with our spending with what we spent total in 2016."
- So far this year, it's spent $4.7 million on TV ads compared with $27.34 million through the end of 2016.
- It's spent about $3.7 million for online ads this cycle, mostly Facebook and some Google ads, per Advertising Analytics. The group doesn't track digital advertising dating back to 2016.
- To her point, about 56% of the NRA's television ad spend last cycle occurred in October. But according to Advertising Analytics, the group hasn't booked any ads yet for October or November.
- And it still spent more than $10 million through September 2016. It's spent less than half of that so far through mid-September 2020.
Saturday, September 12, 2020
Theresa Greenfield's Campaign Runs Ad Against Joni Ernst on Campaign Finance
The race for Joni Ernst's (R) Senate seat is one of the races to watch this election as Theresa Greenfield (D) tries to flip the seat. The race is one of the eight races categorized by RealClearPolitics as a toss up and millions of dollars have gone into the race on both sides of the aisle.
On July 15th, Greenfield tweeted a new ad highlighting Joni Ernst's history with campaign finance laws, saying that “Joni Ernst was caught knowingly accepting illegal contributions from corporations and had to pay the largest penalty EVER for an Iowa politician.”
In their filing in 2017, the FEC levied a $14,500 civil penalty against the Joni for Iowa campaign and its treasurer for having “received excessive and prohibited contributions totaling $37,190.00 for the 2014 General Election” from 26 individuals, one partnership, one multicandidate political action committee, one nonmulticandidate political action committee and three corporations.
More information on the specifics of the campaign finance violation here.
Friday, September 11, 2020
Higher Education Contributions
Kery Murakami at Inside Higher Ed:
Though the nation finds itself deeply divided, it’s clear whom employees at the nation’s higher education institutions are supporting financially in the presidential race.
According to federal elections records, those who listed their employer as a college or university have given Democratic candidate Joe Biden about $4.9 million in contributions, more than five times as much as the $890,000, including donations from for-profit college executives, that they have given President Trump.
The contributions to Biden have come widely, from about 8,800 donors, compared to the 2,800 higher education employees who want to see another four years of a Trump administration.
Even more pronounced are whom those college or university employees, who listed their occupation either as professor, instructor or teacher, are giving to. The educators have given about $2.7 million to Biden, according to Federal Election Commission records in the election cycle beginning in January 2019 -- or seven times as much as the $353,00 they have to Trump.
Thursday, September 10, 2020
The Age of Outside Spending
For Tuesday, read Schatzinger, ch. 3-5.
- 1971 Election laws: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and the 1971 Revenue Act were passed, initiating fundamental changes in campaign finance laws. FECA required full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and also limited spending on media advertisements. In addition, FECA provided the legislative framework for PACs established by unions and corporations, which allowed unions and corporations to use treasury funds to establish, operate and solicit voluntary contributions for federal PACs.
- The Revenue Act allowed citizens to check a box on their tax forms authorizing the federal government to use one of their tax dollars to finance Presidential campaigns in the general election. From the time this was first implemented in 1973, enough money had been collected to fund the 1976 election George W. Bush began the exodus from the public finance system in 2000, when he refused to take matching funds for the primaries and caucuses. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first candidate to decline public financing in the general election. In 2016, only one candidate took public money for the primary campaign: Martin O'Malley
- 1974 Amendments: Following the documentation of campaign abuses in the 1972 elections, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was established and given jurisdiction in civil enforcement, authority to write regulations and responsibility for monitoring compliance with FECA. The President, Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate were each allowed to appoint two voting members of the commission, and the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House were designated as nonvoting Commissioners.
- The 1974 amendments also provided for partial Federal funding, in the form of matching funds, for Presidential primary candidates. Public funding was also extended to political parties to finance their Presidential nominating conventions. Congress also enacted strict limits on both contributions and expenditures for all federal candidates and political committees involved in federal elections.
- Buckley v. Valeo: Portions of the 1974 amendments were challenged as unconstitutional, and a lawsuit was filed by Senator James L. Buckley against the Secretary of the Senate, Francis R. Valeo. The Court upheld contribution limits, but overturned expenditure limits, saying that limiting expenditures would limit the quantity of campaign speech, which in turn violated First Amendment rights. In addition, provisions of the law regarding public funding, disclosure and record keeping were upheld. The Court also found that the method of appointing members to the FEC violated the principle of separation of powers. ALSO NOTE THE "MAGIC WORDS" FOOTNOTE
- 1976 Amendments: In response to the Court's ruling, Congress repealed expenditure limits and revised the method of appointing Commissioners. Beginning in 1976, the President appointed six Commissioners, to be confirmed by the Senate. These amendments also included provisions to limit the scope of PAC fundraising by corporations and labor organizations by specifying who could be solicited for contributions, and how those solicitations could be conducted. In addition, a single contribution limit was adopted for all PACs established by the same union or corporation.
- 1979 Amendments: Following the 1976 and 1978 elections, Congress further amended the law to include provisions to simplify reporting requirements, encourage party activity at state and local levels and increased public funding grants for Presidential nominating conventions.
- 2002: The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed, which sought to limit the use of "soft money." Soft money is money raised by national parties and political action committees for "get out the vote" campaign efforts and other organization-building activities. This money wasn't regulated by the federal government, and parties were raising unlimited funds for these activities but using them for purposes aside from voter registration. Notably, 501(c) and 527 organizations were exempted from the soft money ban, though they were banned from running ads prior to primaries and elections, and from providing direct advocacy for a candidate.
- 2003: The BCRA was sent to the Supreme Court via suits filed by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell (R), the California Democratic Party and National Rifle Association, under the complaint that the law was too broad and limited their First Amendment rights. The Court upheld the law in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission.
- 2007: The Supreme Court reversed their on issue ads in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, saying that limits on electioneering spending by nonprofits were unconstitutional.
- 2008: Senator Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate from a major party not to take public financing for the general election, citing a broken system for his actions.
- 2010: In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions were protected by the First Amendment, which struck down BCRA provisions that banned these types of expenditures. A few months later, the decision from Citizens United was applied to Speechnow.org v. FEC in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges decided arguments that unlimited independent expenditures would lead to corruption were invalid after the Citizens United decision.
- 2012: For the first time, both presidential candidates decline public financing. Also, the Supreme Court decided that Citizens United applied to Montana's 1912 legislation banning direct corporate political spending in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock.
- 2014: The recent Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC ruled that aggregate contribution limits infringed on First Amendment rights. This decision removes a cap on the amount of money any single donor, including PACs, can give to candidates or party committees. Previously, the limit had been a total of $48,600 every two years for all federal candidates and an aggregate of $74,600 to political parties and committees. There is no limit to the number of PACs that can exist, so donors could theoretically increase their contributions to certain candidates considerably if they had enough PACs supporting them. The base limits for campaign contributions of $2,600 for individual candidates and $5,000 for PACs remain in effect
Outside money
- Super PACs and conglomerates
- Single-candidate super PACs
- Dark Money
Outside spending totals for 2020
Presidential Campaign Finance and 2020 Super PACs
Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee raised $210 million in August, falling $154 million short of Joe Biden’s haul over the same period.
Biden and the Democratic National Committee previously announced raising a stunning $365 million last month, a record-shattering total that Trump failed to match. Neither campaign has yet released their cash-on-hand totals, but last month’s fundraising disparity means Biden may have closed Trump’s once-formidable cash advantage.
...
{ NRCC spokesperson Ken] Spain added that the Trump campaign “has already sent up the bat signal to the donor community and it's likely they will respond in kind.”
Part of that response is coming through pro-Trump outside groups, who have helped to even out that TV spending disparity. On Wednesday, America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC, announced $22 million in digital and TV spending on behalf of the president in a slate of battleground states, including Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The new total comes on top of the group’s $18.6 million spending commitment in September.
Last month, senior Republicans launched another super PAC, Preserve America, to boost the president. It is backed by several GOP megadonors, including Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus.
Dino Grandoni at The Washington Post: [Note the threat theme, below. Cigler 40-42]
To defeat President Trump, a big-spending green group is planning to drop more money than ever on the 2020 election.
A super PAC affiliated with the League of Conservation Voters and related groups is aiming to spend more than $100 million to elect Joe Biden and other Democrats in November, breaking the Washington-based organization’s previous record of $85 million in 2018.
The prospect of granting Trump four more years to unwind climate regulations is motivating deep-pocketed Democratic donors to give to Biden. In opening their wallets to green campaign groups, they are signaling their desire for legislation to address rising global temperatures. A similar surge in donations helped Democrats retake the House in 2018, say environmentalists.
“A lot of people realize how high the stakes are,” said Pete Maysmith, senior vice president of campaigns at the LCV Victory Fund, the super PAC affiliated with the LCV. “Whether it’s wildfires blanketing the West with smoke, whether it’s the hurricanes hitting the Gulf Coast, the flooding inundating the Midwest, the time is now to act on climate change.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Parties and Interest Groups
For Thursday, Schatzinger, ch. 2, Cigler, ch. 7.
Polarization
Interest groups
- JFK accepted life membership in the National Rifle Association
- In 2018, polarized view of the NRA
- Strong (but not perfect) polarization on guns in the Senate
- Janise's question about why corporate PACs often avoid tossup races: ACCESS MONEY v. BELIEF MONEY.
- Compare NRA in 1990 with NRA in 2020 (to date)
- Abortion
- For economic interest groups, a key variable is chamber control: consider insurance, casinos, banks
Limits
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)