webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Smith, Bradley A ccp ifs

see ifa ctr comp pol

MONTANA PLAN HAWAII 10 26

citizens united amicus koch?

inst for free speech

===

cu case koch ihs SPEECH NOW?

:{:{Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have attended these events. (According to Salon, "Thomas claimed he just made "a brief drop-by" at the Koch brothers' January 2008 Palm Springs political retreat to give a talk; in fact he was reimbursed for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” by the Federalist Society.[56]"). The attendance of Thomas and Scalia has sparked debate over judicial ethics and the2010Citizens United decision.[57]

 Common Cause filed a petition with the Justice Department in January 2011 alleging a conflict of interest for these Justices, as David and Charles Koch operate foundations that contribute to political groups, which might benefit from relaxed campaign finance rules. ^[58] Common Cause has also noted that the Cato Institute, which Charles Koch founded, filed an amicus brief in Citizens United opposing campaign finance. ^[59] The Center for Competitive Politics also filed a brief in the case; the Center is headed by Bradley Smith, who is affiliated with the Institute for Humane Studies where Charles Koch is Chair of the board and funder. ^[60] SW ^koch ^ind}:}:

===

MTA GMAIL 10 26

Signed into law on May 14, 2026, Act 11 uses the state’s authority over corporations and other artificial entities to remove their power to spend money influencing elections and ballot measures. The law is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2027. It targets corporate political spending rather than eliminating all money from elections.

For Move to Amend, this fight raises a fundamental question: Who governs—the people, or the artificial entities our laws create?

What Hawaiʻi’s law does

The approach begins with a straightforward principle: corporations exist because laws create them. Those laws grant privileges, including limited liability, and define the powers corporations may exercise.

Hawaiʻi’s legislature asserts that those powers should not include spending money to support or oppose candidates, political parties, political committees, or ballot measures. The legislation distinguishes the powers granted to artificial entities from the speech, petition, and association rights of human beings. It also includes exceptions for bona fide news coverage, commentary, and editorials, and provisions allowing qualifying political committees to operate.

Known as the Corporate Power Reset, this strategy seeks to address corporate election spending through the laws that define corporations themselves. Its supporters argue that states can withdraw political spending powers without directly overturning Citizens United. Whether courts accept that distinction is now being tested.

Who is challenging it?

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, represented by the Institute for Free Speech, filed its challenge in June. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a separate lawsuit on September 24. Both seek to block the law.

The Chamber argues that Act 11 violates First Amendment protections for corporations and other organizations and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. Hawaiʻi’s defense centers on its authority to define corporate powers.

At an October 13 hearing, U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi expressed skepticism toward the state’s arguments and indicated that she viewed the law as restricting political speech. She did not issue a ruling at the hearing, taking the competing motions under advisement. The law has not been struck down by that hearing.

Why this matters beyond Hawaiʻi

Move to Amend supports efforts to challenge corporate political power at the state level. Organizing around corporate powers can educate communities, build coalitions, and put a basic democratic principle into practice: the people should determine the privileges of the entities their laws create.

But the lawsuits also expose the constitutional obstacle confronting that work. When corporations invoke constitutional rights to resist public control, communities must defend their decisions within a legal framework that grants artificial entities protections intended for people.

That is why state action and constitutional change belong together.

Overturning Citizens United alone is not enough. Move to Amend’s goal reaches beyond one decision: ending corporate constitutional rights and the treatment of money spent influencing elections as protected speech.

...

-=-==

Democrats try draconian ‘For the People Act,’ take two - Washington Examiner

MAINE SUPERPAk

FEDSOC

Sep102025

Topics:

Free Speech & Election Law

Sponsors:

Free Speech Practice Group• Election Law Practice Group

Event Video

IFrame Content

Listen & Download

-44:24

InDinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.orgv. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.orgv. FEC.

The Dinner Table ActionDistrict Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed.

Featuring:

---

COC

KAREN FRINK WOLF MAGISTR JUDGE JUL 15 2025

Opinion-Dinner-Table-Action-v.-Schneider-D.-Me

---

we byron york

BRAD SMITH: WHAT I WOULD HAVE TOLD THE TRUMP JURY.In recent days, it has become clear that the Trump trial, in which Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg seeks to imprison former President Donald Trump for a maximum of 136 years over allegedly false bookkeeping, will somehow come down to federal campaign finance law. In this way: Trump is charged with falsifying his company’s business records regarding his payment for a legal nondisclosure agreement with the porn actress Stormy Daniels — and doing so with the intention of committing another crime. But prosecutors have never specified what that other crime is.

In various court filings, however, prosecutors have suggested they plan to argue that Trump intended, along with the false bookkeeping, to violate a state law that bars promoting a political candidacy “by unlawful means.” That’s the other crime, prosecutors will say, and the “unlawful means” will be a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, or FECA, the 1970s-era law that regulates political fundraising and spending in federal elections.

That would create a weird situation: a local district attorney in New York prosecuting federal law. “One would say Bragg is outside of his lane, but in this case, he’s on a completely different highway,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News in March. “This is an effort by a state official to effectively prosecute a federal crime, a crime that the Department of Justice decided not to prosecute.”

Washington Examiner

But that’s what Bragg apparently plans to do. And that led the Trump defense to consult an expert in federal campaign finance law to be ready to testify in the event that Bragg’s prosecutors do indeed characterize the Trump case as based on a violation of federal election law. The expert they chose was former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith, who is certainly one of the leading authorities in the nation on the application of FECA.

Smith has been an outspoken opponent of what he views is the overapplication of campaign finance law. Specifically, as this newsletter noted a couple of weeks ago, Smith “has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as ‘for the purpose of influencing any election.'” Among those things would be the nondisclosure agreement Trump reached with Daniels.

The problem for Trump is that Judge Juan Merchan does not want to hear from Smith. Early on, Merchan barred Smith from testifying about virtually anything that had anything to do with the Trump case. He barred Smith from testifying about the campaign finance laws at the heart of Bragg’s charges against Trump. He barred Smith from testifying about anything except general facts about the job of the FEC or the definition of some common campaign terms. In the end, the Trump team decided it was not worth calling Smith to testify under what amounted to a judicial gag order.

So Smith left the courthouse without testifying on Monday. As he headed home, we had a phone conversation about what he would have told the jury had Merchan allowed it.

Smith was not going to give the jury his views on the specific charge against Trump. He knew the judge would never allow that, and he didn’t intend to try. Instead, had he been allowed, Smith said he wanted the jury to know about the complexity of campaign law.

“Judges instruct the juries on the law,” Smith said, “and they don’t want a battle of competing experts saying here’s what the law is. They feel it’s their province to make that determination. The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex and just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much.”

Smith gave the example of a product liability lawsuit over a complicated piece of machinery. “And you just said to the jury they’re guilty if you find them negligent. Well, what is negligence? Negligence is not using ordinary due care. And the jury has no idea of what is technologically feasible, what are the industry norms, how do people understand it, and that sort of thing.” In this case, FECA is a very complicated piece of machinery.

The goal of his hoped-for testimony, Smith said, was “to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious.” As an example, Smith cited the phrase “for the purpose of influencing an election,” which has been heard during much analysis of the trial. “You read the law and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure,” Smith explained. “But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation — all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office.”

What is the point of that? “We would have liked to flag that exception for the jury and talk a little bit about what it means,” Smith said. “And also, we would have talked about ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ is not a subjective test, like ‘What was my intention?’ — it’s an objective test. So hiring campaign staff is for the purpose of influencing an election. Renting space for your campaign office, buying ads, maybe doing polling, printing up bumper stickers, travel to campaign rallies, renting venues for campaign rallies — all of those things exist only because you are running for office. But under the personal use rules, a lot of things candidates do running for office are not considered campaign expenditures, things like paying for a weight loss program or a gym membership, nicer clothes, teeth whitening, or all that sort of thing. It may be true that you do those things in part to help yourself get elected — you might not do them otherwise — but they are not obligations that exist simply because you are running for office. Lots of people do those things.”

Smith offered another example. “Go back to 1999. Hillary Clinton buys a house in New York. She bought it clearly to influence the election — I mean absolutely, right? — because she had to have a residence in New York. It is totally indisputable — that is a reason why she bought it. But it’s not a campaign expenditure. It doesn’t matter. People buy houses. We would have wanted to inform the jury about the notion of personal use and talked about the idea that what is a campaign expense is an objective test, not a subjective test.”

When it comes to the details of the Trump prosecution, knowing how campaign finance law works has led Smith to believe that what is alleged to be the core violation in the case, that paying Daniels amounted to a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure, is simply not true. “I can tell you my personal belief is that clearly paying hush money, or paying for a nondisclosure agreement, does not constitute a campaign expense,” Smith said. “To use an example I’ve often used, it’s not a campaign expense if a businessperson is running for office and his businesses are getting sued, and if he goes to his company lawyers and says, ‘I want to settle these lawsuits against us. We’ve got some wage employment lawsuits and a woman is alleging sexual harassment. We’ve got 36,000 employees, but we’ve got these three complaints and the press will make a big deal about them. So I want you to settle these.’ And the company lawyers say, ‘No, these are great cases we should win. We shouldn’t settle them.’ He says, ‘I don’t care. I’m running for office. I don’t want press stories on it. I want you to settle them quietly.’ Well, he cannot use campaign funds to pay that settlement, even though he is clearly doing it for the purpose of influencing his campaign.”

“It’s kind of similar to what went on here,” Smith continued, referring to the Trump case. “So my personal belief is that this clearly would not have been a campaign expenditure, never had to be reported, and therefore was not misreported.”

Smith stressed again that he did not plan to testify about the specifics of the Trump case. Instead, he hoped to “lay out some of the factual work of the law — how does the law work in practice?” But that’s not going to happen.

How would the jury have reacted to Smith’s testimony? No one outside the jury can say. But perhaps they would have been grateful. After all, campaign finance law is extraordinarily complicated. Back in 2013, in an oral argument, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, “This campaign finance law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.” Scalia was, of course, one of the great legal minds of his or any other generation. If he had so much trouble, perhaps the Bragg jury would have benefited from some expert testimony.

===

fire

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith is perhaps best known for opposing many campaign finance regulations on First Amendment grounds. On today's episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we talk with the former chairman about how political campaign activity is regulated in America and how this regulation implicates the First Amendment. We also explore some of today's hot-button campaign finance controversies.

Smith is a professor of law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. From 2000 until 2005, he served as a FEC commissioner. He was FEC chairman in 2004 and vice chairman in 2003. In 2005, Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics, now known as the Institute for Free Speech.

Show notes:

www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Testimony of Bradley A. Smith before the House Committee on House Administration - Institute For Free Speech

...b. Excessive “Disclosure” Harms Political Speech

It may be tempting to dismiss these concerns as the price we pay for erring on the side of caution in our political system. This would be folly. These are not costless decisions. Excessively low reporting thresholds create traps for the unwary.

For example, in a matter that came before me when I was a Commission at the FEC, two friends decided to work together to buy a piece of plywood, hire a sign painter to paint a sign supporting Texas Governor George Bush’s campaign, and put it on the property of another one of their friends. The reward for their civic activism was to find themselves enmeshed in a federal inquiry over allegations that they did not include the appropriate disclaimer. SeeMUR 5165 (Mark Morton). As I’ve detailed elsewhere, depending on how much money they spent, they could easily have found themselves accused of a litany of other federal reporting violations. SeeBradley A. Smith, Campaign Finance Reform: Searching for Corruption in All the Wrong Places187-188, Cato Supreme Court Review 2002-2003, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2003/9/finance.pdf.

Low reporting thresholds and excessive reporting requirements can also chill protected political speech. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “it is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of governmental action.” NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958).

Free societies thrive on the free exchange of ideas. This includes ideas that are controversial or unpopular. Too often today, we see people being publicly hounded for their association with groups, sometimes years in the past, that have for one reason or another become controversial. For example, California’s Proposition 8 passed with over 52% of the vote in 2008, representing the votes of over 7 million people. Whether one agrees with Proposition 8, it was hardly outside of mainstream political discourse in 2008. Yet, nearly six years later, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was pressured into resigning due to controversy surrounding a contribution he previously made supporting Proposition 8. SeeJon Swaine, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Resigns in Wake of Backlash to Prop 8, The Guardian (Apr. 3, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/03/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-resigns-prop-8#::text=The%20new%20chief%20executive%20of,on%20gay%20marriage%20in%20California.~

If anything, our political culture has become more unforgiving in the decade since Mr. Eich’s resignation. When faced with this minefield, many people will simply refrain from supporting political or policy groups, rather than risk backlash that may come years later or in response to intervening decisions by the person or organization that were not contemplated at the time of the initial contribution. This is not healthy for our culture of self-government.

Compelled public association through disclosure discourages the free exchange of ideas. Outside of the narrow range of speech that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of federal candidates, it does little to further the core—and only legitimate—goal of preventing corruption or the appearance thereof.

The proposed legislation does not fix all of these problems. But it would make them better. First, it proposes to raise the registration and reporting thresholds for political committees and independent expenditure reporting. See, e.g.§§ 322; 323. Second, it limits unnecessary disclosure, including the overreporting of people who contribute to groups who engage in political activity as a secondary function of what they do. And third, it protects the free and open discussion of political ideas over the internet by codifying the internet exemption.

III. Political Parties Play an Important Role in Our Political System

Political parties play an important role in our political system. They help people come together and work for common goals. But they are currently at a large disadvantage. For example, independent expenditure-only committees are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, while national, state, and local party organizations are subject to strict limits on how much they can raise, and how they can spend it. For good or ill, this has impacts on politics. It makes politics more atomized, more focused on individual candidates, and less of a team sport.

===

off bs

Bradley A. Smith is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He has held prior visiting appointments at Princeton University and West Virginia University.

Professor Smith is the author or co-author of three books on election law and voting rights, and his articles have appeared both in academic publications including the Yale Law Journal, Georgetown Law Journal, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, George Washington University Law Review, the Harvard Business Law Journal, the Stanford Law & Policy Review, and many others, and in popular publications including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, the Atlantic, National Review, and elsewhere. He was recognized in 2016 as one of the nation’s top 10 scholars in the field of election law based on scholarly impact.

From June 2000 until August 2005, Professor Smith served as Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, including as Vice Chairman in 2003 and Chairman in 2004.

Professor Smith is also the founder and Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to promoting and defending American citizens’ First Amendment political speech rights.

He is a cum laude graduate of both Kalamazoo College and Harvard Law School.

Mar

4

2024

Monday

4:00 p.m.

EDT

The Fire at FIRE: Best Practices for Preserving Free Speech on Campus

Capital Student Chapter

Capital University Law School, Room A122

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

Speakers:

Tyler W. Coward • Bradley A. Smith

Topics:

First Amendment • Litigation • Culture

Sponsors:

Capital Student Chapter

In-Person Event

The Argument Against Abolishing the Electoral College, and Why Smaller States Would Suffer

This event has concluded.

Feb

27

2024

Tuesday

12:00 p.m.

EDT

The Argument Against Abolishing the Electoral College, and Why Smaller States Would Suffer

Lincoln Memorial Student Chapter

LMU Law Courtroom

601 W Summit Hill Dr SW

Knoxville, TN 37902

Speakers:

Bradley A. Smith

Topics:

Election Law

Sponsors:

Lincoln Memorial Student Chapter

In-Person Event

What Is the Federalist Society?

This event has concluded.

Aug

31

2023

Thursday

12:00 p.m.

EDT

What Is the Federalist Society?

Capital Student Chapter

Capital University Law School, Room 241

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

Speakers:

Bradley A. Smith

Topics:

Federalist Society

Sponsors:

Capital Student Chapter

In-Person Event

National Popular Vote v. The Electoral College

This event has concluded.

Oct

11

2022

Tuesday

12:00 p.m.

CDT

National Popular Vote v. The Electoral College

Illinois Student Chapter

University of Illinois College of Law

504 E Pennsylvania Ave

Champaign, IL 61820

Speakers:

Jason Mazzone • Bradley A. Smith

Topics:

Election Law • Free Speech & Election Law

Sponsors:

Illinois Student Chapter

In-Person Event

Brnovich v. DNC: A Debate on a State’s Ability to Regulate Its Elections

This event has concluded.

Oct

6

2021

Wednesday

12:00 p.m.

EDT

Brnovich v. DNC: A Debate on a State’s Ability to Regulate Its Elections

Capital Student Chapter

Capital University Law School & Zoom

303 E. Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

Speakers:

Mark Brown • Bradley A. Smith

Topics:

Election Law • Free Speech & Election Law • Politics • Supreme Court

more

Sponsors:

Capital Student Chapter

In-Person Event

From NAACP to AFP: The Fight for Your Right to Associate

This event has concluded.

Sep

15

2021

Wednesday

12:00 p.m.

EDT

From NAACP to AFP: The Fight for Your Right to Associate

Capital Student Chapter

Capital University Law School & Zoom

303 E. Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

Speakers:

Bradley A. Smith • Daniel Suhr

Topics:

Constitution • First Amendment • Jurisprudence • Litigation • Supreme Court

more

Sponsors:

Capital Student Chapter

In-Person Event

H.R. 1, the For the People Act, Explained

May

26

2021

Wednesday

1:00 p.m.

EDT

H.R. 1, the For the People Act, Explained

Teleforum

Speakers:

Bradley A. Smith

Topics:

Campaign Finance • Civil Rights • Constitution • Election Law • Federalism • Politics • Free Speech & Election Law • The Practice Groups

more

Sponsors:

Civil Rights Practice Group • Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group • Article I Initiative

Resolved: That Congress Should Pass H.R. 1, the For the People Act

Apr

8

2021

Thursday

12:00 p.m.

MDT

Resolved: That Congress Should Pass H.R. 1, the For the People Act

El Paso Lawyers Chapter - Online Event

Zoom Webinar

Speakers:

Bradley A. Smith • David Vandenberg • Daniel I. Weiner

Topics:

Civil Rights • Election Law • Free Speech & Election Law

Sponsors:

El Paso Lawyers Chapter

Mail-In Voting: Freedom or Fraud?

This event has concluded.

Oct

29

2020

Thursday

12:00 p.m.

EDT

Mail-In Voting: Freedom or Fraud?

Capital Student Chapter

Zoom Webinar -- Capital

https://capital.zoom.us/j/92235362082

Columbus, OH 43215

Speakers:

Mark Brown • Bradley A. Smith

Topics:

Election Law

Sponsors:

Capital Student Chapter

In-Person Event

Mailing It In: Legal Issues in 2020's Mail-In Voting Trend

This event has concluded.

Oct

15

2020

Thursday

6:30 p.m.

EDT

Mailing It In: Legal Issues in 2020's Mail-In Voting Trend

DC Young Lawyers Chapter - Online Event

Zoom Webinar

Speakers:

John S. Baker • Bradley A. Smith

Sponsors:

DC Young Lawyers Chapter

wikifluff 7 24 edit war

Bradley Smith (law professor) - Wikipedia

bradley Alan Smith (born 1958) is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. He previously served as commissioner, vice chairman, and chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He has held prior visiting appointments at Princeton University and West Virginia University.[1] He is best known for his writing and activities on campaign finance regulation.[2]^

Career

Academia

Smith received a B.A. from Kalamazoo College and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1990.[3] After briefly practicing law with the Columbus, Ohio-based law firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, Smith joined the faculty at Capital University Law School in Columbus in 1993.[4]^

In 1996, Smith published "Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform" in the Yale Law Journal. In "Faulty Assumptions", Smith set forth a case against campaign finance regulation, arguing that efforts to regulate money in politics had been based on a series of incorrect beliefs about the effects of money in politics and that as a result reform efforts had failed to accomplish their objectives and had made many of the problems of money in politics worse.[5] "Faulty Assumptions," and later articles by Smith, have been cited in numerous recent Supreme Court decisions striking down campaign finance laws on Constitutional grounds, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[6] In 2010, The New York Times called Smith the "intellectual powerhouse" behind the movement to deregulate campaign finance.[7] Smith followed "Faulty Assumptions" with a series of academic articles, including "Money Talks: Speech, Corruption, Equality and Campaign Finance", which focuses on Constitutional principles of campaign finance regulation.[8]^

Smith also wrote Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, published in 2001. Writer Eliza Newlin Carney called it a "reasonably lively read" and deemed his First Amendment defense of "issue-advocacy messages by interest groups" to be convincing, but she wrote that his other arguments for campaign finance deregulation lack credibility and are too dismissive of the risk of corruption.[9] Law professor J. Clark Kelso described the book as a "provocative work", and concluded that "Smith’s work is at its weakest in suggesting that large campaign contributions do not generate corruption or the appearance of corruption in political processes, and at its strongest in criticizing campaign finance regulation’s failure to live up to its promises and to solve the problem of corruption in a meaningful way".[10]^

Federal Election Commission

Smith became a recurring witness before congressional panels on election matters. He was nominated to a six-year term on the FEC on February 9, 2000, by then-President Bill Clinton and confirmed to the post by the United States Senate. By this time, Smith was considered a leading expert on campaign finance in the United States,[11] with his writings on campaign finance and election issues having appeared in academic publications in addition to the Yale Law Journal, including the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and the Harvard Journal of Legislation.[12] The Brennan Center for Justice, a harsh critic of Smith's work, nevertheless recognized him as "the most sought after witness" to make the case for deregulation of campaign finance before congressional committees.[13]^

Because of his contrarian, deregulatory views on campaign finance, there was a strong objection to his nomination from reform advocates. The libertarian magazine Reason noted that virtually all reform advocates "agreed that he was the wrong person for the job".[14] His nomination, however, received encouragement from supporters of campaign finance deregulation, such as the Cato Institute.[15]^

As commissioner and, later, chairman of the FEC, Smith remained controversial, particularly in 2004, when, as chairman, he bucked the Republican Party and refused to support new regulations of "527 groups", organizations largely unregulated by campaign finance laws, that were generally believed to favour Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.[16] As commissioner, he maintained an active speaking schedule and continued to criticize campaign finance laws.[17] He resigned from the FEC in August 2005 to return to teaching, writing in his resignation letter to President Bush, "Political activity is more heavily regulated than at any time in our nation's history."[18]^

Non-profit work

After leaving the FEC, Smith returned to teaching at Capital University and founded a non-profit organization, the Center for Competitive Politics to promote deregulation of campaign finance. In 2017, the center changed its name to the Institute for Free Speech.[19] Smith served as a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute, a member of the Board of Scholars at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a member of the board of trustees of the Buckeye Institute, and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He also sat on the advisory board of the Institute for Law and Politics at the University of Minnesota Law School and serves on the editorial advisory board of the Election Law Journal. In 2007–08, he was an adviser on the Constitution and the Courts for the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

"Unfree Speech" was cited in the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations have a right to spend money in candidate elections. Smith's organization, the Center for Competitive Politics, was co-counsel for plaintiffs in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 Court of Appeals case that created Super PACs.[20] In 2012, Commentary called him "the single most important voice in the fight to roll back restrictions on political speech."[21] In May 2010, he was announced as one of four winners of the year's Bradley Prize, awarded annually by the conservative Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, "to innovative thinkers and practitioners whose achievements strengthen the legacy of the Bradley brothers."[22]^

Smith is a board member for American Edge, a lobbying group for the technology industry.[23]...

===

CAMP FIN OVERVIEW:

Kochs key among small group quietly funding legal assault on campaign finance regulation – Center for Public Integrity

...

But the funding that is known offers key clues about the players behind the greatest unraveling of campaign finance regulation in U.S. history.

‘Buckley’ and Cato

One must travel back in time more than 40 years to understand how today’s motley collection of campaign money laws came to be — and how limits on political fundraising and spending have unraveled along the way.

It began with the Supreme Court’s *Buckley v. Valeo* decision of 1976, a reaction to Watergate reforms passed by Congress. The court upheld limits on contributions to political campaigns, but in a critical part of the ruling which would play a major role years later, allowed for unlimited spending on campaigns.

IFrame Content

The Buckley v. Valeo fight also helped inspire Ed Crane, former national chairman of the Libertarian Party, which was one of the case’s plaintiffs, to create a libertarian equivalent to the predominant think tanks of the day — the liberal Brookings Institution and the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

With $500,000 from Charles Koch, Crane became the leader in 1977 of the Cato Institute, previously named the Charles Koch Foundation. In 1981, it moved from San Francisco to the heart of American political power — Washington, D.C.

Ever since, the Cato Institute has tirelessly fought against campaign finance laws it considered antithetical to its philosophy of small government and largely unencumbered speech.

“We stand against campaign finance laws in general,” Cato Institute research fellow Trevor Burrus said. “We believe that most campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. They are clear impediments of political speech.”

For the Kochs, was Cato an ideological enterprise or vehicle for self-interest? Both, to some degree. Avowed libertarians, the Kochs control a vast empire of heavily regulated companies that would undoubtedly benefit from less government intrusion. Coloring the political system red instead of blue has practical, financial implications for the Kochs, who overwhelmingly support Republican candidates and causes.

The nation’s campaign money system largely stood unchanged until 2002, when Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, named for its two Senate sponsors. The law curtailed a variety of political activities and included a ban on unlimited “soft money” contributions — corporate and union cash — given to political parties.

It also attracted an immediate backlash by foes of campaign finance legislation. Twelve suits brought by more than 80 plaintiffs — were consolidated as McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, named for Mitch McConnell, a U.S. senator from Kentucky and current majority leader, who has long been in favor of liberalizing restrictions on campaign contributions.

‘McConnell’ et. al.

Those joined together under McConnell included the National Rifle Association, the Republican National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

Generally, the backers of these campaign finance case litigants are well-known, but not always.

And some are surprising.

Take the ACLU. Despite its reputation as an unabashedly liberal organization, the ACLU has routinely aligned itself with libertarians and conservatives in recent legal fights against campaign finance regulations. Who are the top donors to the ACLU?

Tops is the left-leaning Sandler Foundation, having given more than $24 million to the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation since 2001, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax records.

Other known funders of the ACLU’s 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit arms include the ACLU Foundation; Equal Justice Works; Proteus Action League; GLBTQ Legal Advocates; and the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Together, they’ve given more than $856,000 since 2010, tax filings show.

Proteus Action League is an affiliate of Proteus Fund, a left-leaning philanthropic organization. It also creates and oversees grants aimed at limiting money and politics, according to its website. Between 2013 and 2015, the Proteus Fund and the Proteus Action League have together given $306,000 to the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation.

Publishers Clearing House money has infused the LuEsther T. Mertz Charitable Trust, which in turn has contributed more than $6.6 million to the ACLU Foundation for various initiatives, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s review of available tax documents from 2005 to 2015.

The National Rifle Association is prominent for its passionate support of firearms rights, and more recently, the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. But it, too, began supporting campaign finance deregulation in earnest at the time of the McConnell case.

One of the NRA nonprofit’s more notable funders is the Cabela’s Outdoor Fund, a social welfare organization connected to the famous outdoor outfitter Cabela’s, which is also a major firearms retailer.

From 2012 to 2015, the fund gave the NRA $1.3 million. Richard Cabela, the now deceased founder of Cabela’s, was a passionate supporter of the NRA. The company, which Bass Pro Shops acquired earlier this year, had about $4.1 billion in revenue last year, according to its annual report.

Koch-connected organizations have also been quite active.

Cato intervened by filing an “amicus brief” in McConnell, as did the Institute for Justice, a group that got its start thanks to the Kochs.

The Supreme Court, for the most part, upheld the “soft money” and political advertising restrictions of the McCain-Feingold law but struck down the age restrictions on minors’ ability to contribute money to politicians as a violation of free speech rights.

The mixed ruling gave pro-political speech advocates fuel to continue challenging campaign laws, and the chipping away of the reforms began in earnest.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC in 2007 further eroded the McCain-Feingold law by allowing certain nonprofit groups to air political issue ads within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc., a nonprofit advocacy group, wanted to run ads that would ask voters to call their senators urging them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees.

Emerging as a national figure in this case after working for years in lower courts was James Bopp, who was counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life.** A bevy of organizations intervened in the case, many arguing for religious freedom of speech. The American Civil Liberties Union, a regular stalwart opponent of limits on free speech, had its say, as did a number of Koch-connected organizations.

Among them, the Center for Competitive Politics (now the Institute for Free Speech), the Cato Institute, the Goldwater Institute and the Institute for Justice.

The Goldwater Institute is a public interest legal organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, named after former U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. Timothy Sandefur, vice president for litigation for Goldwater, said its primary mission is “to defend constitutional principles, through direct litigation and amicus participation.” Donors Capital Fund, the Mercer Family Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation are among its most generous funders with a combined total of $4.2 million.

‘Citizens United’

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations, unions and certain nonprofits could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against politicians. The enormity of the impact of the decision would not be realized for months, even years.

But those who argued the case and participated in it were well aware of its importance. The usual liberal reform groups chimed in, as well as a cadre of Koch-backed crew members, including: the Cato Institute, the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice.

A few months later, a federal court ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC allowed for the creation of “independent expenditure-only committees” — political groups soon nicknamed “super PACs.” These super PACs could themselves accept unlimited money from corporations, labor unions and even 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofits and business trade associations that themselves could keep their donors secret.

Four years later in *McCutcheon v. FEC*, the Supreme Court axed limits on how much money a person could give, in aggregate, to political parties, candidate committees and PACs. The practical effect: people are now allowed to directly pump hundreds of thousands of dollars more into party and candidate coffers.

Among the organizations involving themselves in the case? The Cato Institute, the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice.

Institute for Justice

The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, libertarian public interest law firm headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with satellite offices in states including Florida, Minnesota and Arizona.

It was co-founded in 1991 by former Department of Energy Deputy General Counsel Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick, a former assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch provided $350,000 in seed money for the organization.

IFrame Content

The players who have shaped campaign finance »

The Center for Public Integrity combed through tax information for the Institute for Justice and found some of its top donors include the Claws Foundation, Dunn’s Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking, Searle Freedom Trust and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, totaling about $19.8 million since 1998. But the largest donor identified for the Institute for Justice was the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust, giving more than $15.5 million since 2003, according to tax records.

Wilson was a notable hedge funder and philanthropist who jumped to his death from his New York apartment in 2013.

Donors Trust, a Virginia-based free-market charity and “donor advised” fund that distributes money to charities across states has been the Institute for Justice’s most consistent supporter.

Tax records show that Donors Trust has contributed to the Institute for Justice every year since 2004, giving it more than $1.6 million. Charles Koch’s foundation is one of the heavyweights that holds an account with Donors Trust. Koch’s organization also directly gave the Institute for Justice $9,600, according to 2014 and 2015 tax records. The David H. Koch Foundation gave $250,000 in 2001, according to records.

The Jewish Communal Fund, another donor advised fund, has given $317,050 to the Institute for Justice since 2010, according to tax records. The John Templeton Foundation, an avid promoter of free market ideas, gave $900,000 between 2013 and 2014, according to a review of tax records.

One of its other generous donors, however, is the National Christian Charitable Foundation, which gave almost $2.8 million since 2007.

This donor advised fund typically gives to Christian churches and ministries with a mission of “mobilizing resources by inspiring biblical generosity.”

The political leanings of organizations such as the Institute for Justice are not a basis of scrutiny for the National Christian Charitable Foundation, and they’re mostly unknown to the foundation, Chief Creative Officer Steve Chapman said.

“NCF doesn’t have any stance on campaign finance issues,” he said in a statement. “We don’t hold positions on such political topics, and we don’t hold stances on whether charities to which we make grants should or should not be active on that issue.”

Richard Uihlein, a wealthy conservative donor who increased his political giving after the *Citizens United* decision, gave the Institute for Justice $17,500 between 2014 and 2015. But, he wasn’t the only well-known donor to contribute. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which usually contributes to global health and economic development causes, donated $600.

The Institute for Justice has more than 8,000 donors, said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice who specializes in First Amendment litigation. No one donor provides more than 8 percent of its budget. In its most recent fiscal year, donations comprised more than 96 percent of its income, while the rest came from court-ordered awards of attorneys’ fees.

But that doesn’t mean those donors shape the Institute for Justice’s work, Sherman said.

“IJ’s donors give to us because they support our mission,” he said, noting that the organization has litigated in the same areas for more than over 25 years. “We have never taken a case or passed on a case because of pressure from a donor.”

Other notable contributions to the Institute for Justice include $90,000 from the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, which was started by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her husband in 1989. The foundation has given yearly since 2004, except for 2012 and 2014.

‘SpeechNow.org’ victory

The Institute for Justice notched a win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a critical lower-court case.

In the case, the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics represented David Keating, who now serves as president of the newly renamed Center for Competitive Politics.

Together, the groups questioned whether the federal government had the legal right to make Keating’s SpeechNow.org group register as a political committee — forcing it to adhere to contribution limits for political committees.

The court ruled in SpeechNow.org’s favor, thereby allowing it to raise unlimited amounts of money to independently advocate for or against political candidates. Limits on how much it could receive were found to be in violation of the First Amendment. It was the first time the Citizens United decision was applied in federal courts.

And it gave birth to a kind of political committee that would soon be dubbed a “super PAC.”

Although the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice have no formal affiliation, they are “allies in the fight to defend political speech from government regulation,” Sherman said.

Sherman said both organizations have supported each other’s work with amicus briefs, and SpeechNow.org v. FEC was a great match of their strengths.

“CCP’s people had extensive experience with practice before the FEC, and IJ’s people had extensive experience litigating in federal court,” he said. “And we all knew one another. The world of libertarian public-interest lawyers is not huge.”

But the Institute for Justice isn’t always taking up the long, arduous process of going to court. Like other groups that want to provide suggestions and expertise to courts on matters, it has done so through amicus briefs in McConnell, Wisconsin Right to Life, McCutcheon and Citizens United.

The positions that the Institute for Justice has taken on campaign finance issues are made clearer when looking at who funds their endeavors, which include many donor advised funds and conservative-leaning family foundations and charitable groups.

While the Institute for Justice has some history with big money and politics because of its founding relationship with the Kochs, the Center for Competitive Politics can also be counted among the names of Koch beneficiaries.

Center for Competitive Politics

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics in 2005, lamenting the extent of federal regulation on political activity.

The Center for Competitive Politics has waged war against the FEC as litigators, and it has represented others when political free speech is under attack.

David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said the organization is simply honoring the guarantees of the First Amendment more so than political ideology or deregulation.

IFrame Content

The players who have shaped campaign finance »

The Center for Competitive Politics prides itself on being part of changing the scope of campaign finance laws since its founding, while noting that there is still more freedom to be sought, especially when it comes to contribution and disclosure rules.

“Our country didn’t have campaign contribution limits until the 1970s,” he said. “I don’t see there’s any evidence that it’s made people we’re electing better than they were before the 1970s.”

Keating said government should make it easier for average citizens to become politically involved and, therefore, it should rethink contribution laws.

While the Center for Competitive Politics has not objected to disclosure by candidates and PACs, it is not in favor of pushing for more disclosure. Doing so, said Keating, would result in more difficult fundraising for groups and misleading disclosure information.

“Disclosure is where a lot of the action is right now,” he said. “That’s going to be in the courts and we may well be the ones representing the plaintiffs.”

Because the Center for Competitive Politics’ mission is the protection of free political speech, its legal argument in Wisconsin Right to Life, McCutcheon and Citizens United cases are just part of that mission.

The terrain of money and politics has the Center for Competitive Politics’ opponents questioning whether its ideals are truly its own — or if it’s just the mouthpiece for its wealthy benefactors.

Although the Center for Competitive Politics does not disclose the identity of its donors, the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax and other financial records indicates the group is funded by a bevy of right-leaning organizations.

Since 2006, the Center for Competitive Politics has received more than $5.3 million from Donors Capital Fund, $1.3 million from the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust and $511,000 from the Ed Uihlein Family Foundation — itself funded in full by Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein — and $440,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

As far as its Koch alliances? The Charles Koch Institute gave $20,700 from 2014 to 2015, and the Charles Koch Foundation donated over $57,000 from 2012 to 2015, the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax and other records shows.

A Koch spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about the brothers’ giving. In a statement, spokeswoman Tonya Mullins said the Charles Koch Foundation “gives to non-profit organizations and more than 300 colleges and universities around the country that are exploring diverse ideas to meet the challenges of our day.”

The majority of the Charles Koch Institute money goes toward a fellowship program between the Center for Competitive Politics and the Charles Koch Institute, in which both organizations split the cost to pay for the fellow’s compensation, Keating said. The fellowship seeks to groom future free enterprise workers. The Charles Koch Institute provides support for internships and job placement for free-market professional hopefuls.

Keating said the Center for Competitive Politics’ donors give because they’re genuinely concerned with protecting free speech and they have a right to maintain their privacy.

If the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics are just mere soldiers in an overall battle plan to charge against reform, their success makes them among the most decorated and skilled in the field.

War on disclosure?...

===

clc

SpeechNow.org v. FEC | Campaign Legal Center

in March 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the federal contribution limits as applied to “independent expenditure committees,” finding that the Supreme Court’s analysis in Citizens United required it to “conclude that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent expenditure group.” The court, however, upheld the political committee disclosure requirements as applied to such groups. These independent expenditure only committees are today commonly referred to as “Super PACs.”...

ABOUT THIS CASE

In March 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the federal contribution limits as applied to “independent expenditure committees,” finding that the Supreme Court’s analysis in Citizens United required it to “conclude that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent expenditure group.” The court, however, upheld the political committee disclosure requirements as applied to such groups. These independent expenditure only committees are today commonly referred t to as “Super PACs.”

In February 2008, SpeechNow.org filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia challenging the federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements as applied to political committees that make only independent expenditures in elections. In July 2008, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. However, the court of appeals stayed the case to await the outcome of the then pending Citizens United case.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens United struck down the prohibition on corporations making independent expenditures in elections.

The government declined to appeal the D.C. Circuit decision. SpeechNow.org petitioned for certiorari for review of the Court’s decision on the challenged disclosure provisions, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari on November 1, 2010.

The CLC and Democracy 21 filed an amici brief in 2008 with the district court to defend the contribution limits and CLC filed two amici briefs in 2009 with the D.C. Circuit.

===

Institute for Free Speech (IFS), formerly the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), promotes the deregulation of U.S. elections, being against the McCain-Feingold act, the Disclose Act, the Fairness Doctrine, and being in favor of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations to spend money to promote or oppose candidates in elections. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit which states on its website that its mission is "to educate the public on the actual effects of money in politics, and the results of a more free and competitive electoral process." The Center was founded in 2005 by Bradley A. Smith, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Stephen Hoersting, formerly Smith's Legal Counsel at the Election Commission, served as the Center's first Director. The current President of IFS is David Keating.[1] [2] [3] ^[4]^

(Smith was a Republican appointed to the FEC by President Clinton in 2000 as part of the statutory requirement no more than three of the FEC's six commissioners come from any one political party. His nomination was promoted by Republican Senators, but was opposed by Vice President Al Gore and others because Smith opposed campaign finance regulations and thus they considered him "unfit" to regulate those campaign finance practices.[5] He was confirmed as part of a package deal to secure the confirmation of other nominees. 

In 2004, Smith was elected Chairman of the FEC. (Unlike most federal agencies, the FEC Chairman is not designated by the President. Rather, by law each year the FEC Commissioners elect one of the six Commissioners to serve as Chairman for a one year term. By custom, the Chairmanship of the Agency rotates between Republicans and Democrats; by law, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman must be from different parties.))

The Institute for Free Speech is an "associate" member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country.[6]^

The Center for Competitive Politics changed their name to the Institute for Free Speech in October of 2017.[7]^

News and Controversies

Report Calls IFS a "Front Group" of Libertarian Activist Howie Rich

Lee Fang, writing at the blog "Think Progress," has claimed that Center is a "front group" of libertarian activist Howie Rich, which the Center has denied.[8] The Center for Competitive Politics, along with groups such as the Cato Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, worked in favor of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The groups filed amicus briefs to the Court.[9]^

Opposing the Disclose Act

The DISCLOSE Act would require corporations to publicly disclose contributions to organizations and trade associations that might make expenditures for campaign ads. The bill was introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case allowing corporate spending in campaigns. Advocates of stricter campaign finance laws say that the public has a right to know exactly who is funding political ads.[10]^

The Center for Competitive Politics and other groups including Americans for Tax Reform, The American Conservative Union, CatholicVote.org, and Citizens Against Government Waste argue that provisions in the DISCLOSE ACT go beyond disclosure to actually prohibit speech, and sent a letter to Congress calling the bill "an unequivocal ban on free speech, masquerading as an exercise in accountability."[11]^

Questionable Research Methods

The CCP releases regular research studies on the role of money in US elections. This research has been criticized by groups such as the Brennan Center for Justice, which generally takes the opposite side from the CCP on questions of campaign finance and corporate speech. The Brennan Center argues that the CCP's research is plagued by methodological flaws and inappropriate conclusions drawn from undisclosed data points.[12] CCP's original research reports, as well as copies of legal briefs, legislative testimony, and commentary published by the organization, are available through the organization's website.

Background on Founding of IFS

In August 2008, Jeanne Cummings of Politico wrote, 'Encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court, conservatives are launching a wholesale legal assault on campaign finance laws. And among the leaders is a man once charged with enforcing those laws: former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith. His goals are big. He doesn't want to just scale back the laws; he wants to pretty much wipe them out.'

Bradley Smith opened the Center for Competitive Politics to build a case against the regulatory system that limits individual donations to candidates, reins in the role of outside groups, and bans union and corporate contributions to political parties. With financial support that came largely from individuals he declines to name, Smith opened the Center for Competitive Politics a year later to begin challenging the current campaign finance system in both federal court and the court of public opinion. "What the Center for Competitive Politics can do and is trying to do is to bring the right kind of cases before the court," Hasen said, so Chief Justice John Roberts and his new coalition of conservatives can "knock them out of the park."'[13]^

Ties to the Council for National Policy

As of February 2022, IFS founder and chairman Bradley Smith is a Gold Circle member of the Council for National Policy.

Council for National Policy

The Council for National Policy (CNP) is a secretive, Christian Right organization of funders and activists founded in 1981 by activist Morton Blackwell, commentator Paul Weyrich, direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie, right-wing activist Phyllis Schlafly and Left Behind author Tim LaHaye. Anne Nelson's book about CNP, Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right, describes how the organization connects "the manpower and media of the Christian right with the finances of Western plutocrats and the strategy of right-wing Republican political operatives.”

CNP membership as of September 2020 is available here.

Ties to the State Policy Network

IFS is an associate member of SPN. SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of January 2022, SPN's membership totals 166. Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party. SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told the Wall Street Journal in 2017 that the revenue of the combined groups was some $80 million, but a 2019 analysis of SPN's main members IRS filings by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that the combined revenue is over $120 million.[14] Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.[15]^

In response to CMD's report, SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told national and statehouse reporters that SPN affiliates are "fiercely independent." Later the same week, however, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer caught Sharp in a contradiction. In her article, "Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?," the Pulitzer-nominated reporter revealed that, in a recent meeting behind closed doors with the heads of SPN affiliates around the country, Sharp "compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA." She reportedly said that SPN "would provide 'the raw materials,' along with the 'services' needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. 'Pick what you need,' she said, 'and customize it for what works best for you.'" Not only that, but Sharp "also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization's often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. 'The grants are driven by donor intent,' she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, 'the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'"[16]^

A set of coordinated fundraising proposals obtained and released by The Guardian in early December 2013 confirm many of these SPN members' intent to change state laws and policies, referring to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings." These activities "arguably cross the line into lobbying," The Guardian notes.[17]^

Ties to the Koch Brothers

Between 2012 and 2015 the Center for Competitive Politics received $57,237 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Institute for Free Speech, “like Cato and the Institute for Justice ... has Koch connections [and] has also received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation.”[18]^

Koch Wiki
Charles Koch is the right-wing billionaire owner of Koch Industries. As one of the richest people in the world, he is a key funder of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on Charles Koch and his late brother David include: Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity, Stand Together Chamber of Commerce, Stand Together, Koch Family Foundations, Koch Universities, and I360.

Ties to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Between 2008 and 2016 the Center for Competitive Politics received $640,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

In 2010, Bradley A. Smith, founder of the Institute of Free Speech/Center for Competitive Politics, was a winner of the “Bradley Prize,” which “honor scholars and practitioners whose accomplishments reflect the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation mission to restore, strengthen and protect the principles and institutions of American exceptionalism.”

Bradley detailed the most recent grants in internal documents examined by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). Below are the descriptions prepared by CMD. The quoted text was written by Bradley staff.

2016: $125,000 to support general operations (litigation, research and public education activities). The grant will be used by CCP to fight those calling for greater disclosure rules “to chill speech,” part of a national effort to allow campaign finance donors to hide their identities.

2015: $100,000 to support general operations.

2014: $75,000 to support general operations. Key factors in CCP’s selection of cases, in addition to the existence of a favorable plaintiff, are as follows: “the probabilities of winning and anticipated cost and resource allocation; the impact of victory on the legal landscape and campaign finance law generally; opportunities to publicize favorably deregulation through litigation; and the potential of a favorable decision to impact positively legislature incentives to deregulate… Litigation in 2014 and beyond focuses on draconian disclosure laws to harass groups through the reporting process resulting from the Citizens United decision. Recent enactment of disclosure laws in Delaware and Utah present strong vehicles for constitutional challenges. CCP will also be studying options to seek judicial review of current IRS practices regarding political activity by nonprofits… CCP increased attention to the increasingly worrisome donor disclosure legislative initiatives across the country especially aimed at non profits, will be at most a timely and valuable contribution to ensuring the protection of free speech.”

Bradley Files

In 2017, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), publishers of SourceWatch, launched a series of articles on the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, exposing the inner-workings of one of America's largest right-wing foundations. 56,000 previously undisclosed documents laid bare the Bradley Foundation's highly politicized agenda. CMD detailed Bradley's efforts to map and measure right wing infrastructure nationwide, including by dismantling and defunding unions to impact state elections; bankrolling discredited spin doctor Richard Berman and his many front groups; and more.

Find the series here at ExposedbyCMD.org.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

IFS's Matt Nese attended ALEC's 2020 States and Nation Policy Summit.

Former CCP President Sean Parnell served on the Public Safety and Elections Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). At the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting, he introduced the "Resolution in Support of Appropriate Disclosure Requirements" model policy for adoption by the Public Safety and Elections Task Force.[19] On July 20, 2011, Parnell published an article in The Daily Caller (conservative/Republican news organization founded by conservative reporter Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney aide Neil Patel) criticizing Common Cause for requesting that the Internal Revenue Service look into claims that ALEC, in violation of the laws governing 501(c)(3) organizations, has engaged in lobbying.[20] According to an August 2013 ALEC board document obtained by The Guardian, CCP terminated its ALEC membership on March 19, 2013 because the Justice Policy Project (JPP), which replaced the Public Safety and Elections Task Force at ALEC, "no longer works on issue."[21]^

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our ExposedbyCMD.org site.

Litigation

The Institute for Free Speech characterizes their previous legislative battles in the following way on their website:

‘’’Carey v. FEC Carey et al v. FEC, asks the FEC to acknowledge what the courts have already decided: that any political action committee may make contributions to federal candidates using limited funds while also engaging in independent expenditures using segregated funds raised for that purpose. The FEC has demanded that grassroots organizations jump through burdensome regulatory hoops just to speak out about candidates running for office.

Center for Competitive Politics v. Federal Election Commission

The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) seeking a controversial agency document denied to CCP despite a Freedom of Information Act request. That document relates to a complaint against Crossroads GPS that was dismissed by the FEC last December.

Coalition for Secular Government v. Williams

Colorado resident Diana Hsieh, a doctor of philosophy, organized the non-profit Coalition for Secular Government with her friend Ari Armstrong in order to promote a secular understanding of individual rights, including freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. Because of unconstitutionally vague state laws, confusion as to what constitutes political speech and what is covered under a press exemption, and a refusal by the state to abide by a federal court order, Hsieh and CSG have found it nearly impossible to carry out the activities of a small non-profit group without fear of running afoul of complex Colorado campaign finance laws. With CCP’s Help, the Coalition for Secular Government was victorious in court. The Colorado law was ruled unconstitutional in this case.

Corsi v. OEC

Supreme Court rulings over the past four decades have limited the scope of federal committee status to groups that are “under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate.” Ohio purports to incorporate the major purpose test required by the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling. But the OEC’s interpretation, upheld by the state courts, interpreted the statute to require an organization to register as a PAC even where political advocacy does not comprise a majority—or even a substantial portion—of its activity or expenditures.

Delaware Strong Families v. Denn

Should the state have the power to regulate groups that publish nonpartisan voter guides in the same way that it regulates candidate committees, political parties and PACs? That’s the issue at stake in Delaware Strong Families v. Attorney General of the State of Delaware, a case challenging a new Delaware law that violates the First Amendment by placing unconstitutional burdens on groups publishing nonpartisan voter guides.

Emineth v. Jaeger

The Center for Competitive Politics filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, challenging a state ban on “electioneering on election day.” The complaint states that the ban, which prohibits all election-day attempts to “induce or persuade” any North Dakota resident to vote a particular way, is a prior restraint on speech and unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Holmes v. FEC

Can Congress impede political participation and association by forcing an individual to split her political donations between primary and general elections? Federal law forces individuals to split their campaign contributions on a per-election basis. Thus, in 2014, a donor was forced to split her donation into $2,600 for the primary election and $2,600 for the general. This rule impedes the political participation of a donor who only wants to support her party nominee—and avoid wasting her donation on the intra-party squabbles of a primary election. IFS filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Florida couple who are challenging this law, saying that the per-election requirement mandated by Congress force them to either potentially waste $2,600 on a candidate for the party nomination or give up exercising their constitutional rights to the full extent allowed by law.

James v. FEC

The case stems from the efforts of Virginia James, a private citizen, who seeks to give contributions directly to candidates up to the biennial aggregate limit of $117,000. However, federal law allows only $46,200 of that amount, in aggregate, to be given directly to candidates; the rest must be contributed to PACs and party committees. James is not challenging the overall limit, but rather wishes to give the entirety of her contributions to candidates directly, instead of being forced to act through PACs and other political organizations.

Independence Institute v. FEC

Can a think tank run ads advocating for public policy without first registering with the federal government and disclosing its donors? That is the question at the core of Independence Institute v. FEC. The Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank, wants to run genuine issue ads that happen to mention a name of a political candidate. Campaign finance law currently requires that the Independence Institute register with the government and report certain donors to the FEC in order to be able to run the issue ads. While speech related directly to campaigns may require disclosure, genuine issue speech does not fall under this category. In this case, CCP is defending the right to speak on public policy issues without first reporting its activities in a government database and disclosing donors who give to causes they believe in.

Independence Institute v. Williams

Can a think tank run ads advocating for public policy without first registering with the federal government and disclosing its donors? That is the question at the core of Independence Institute v. Williams. The Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank, wants to run genuine issue ads that happen to mention a name of a political candidate. Campaign finance law currently requires that the Independence Institute register with the government and report certain donors in order to be able to run the issue ads. While speech related directly to campaigns may require disclosure, genuine issue speech does not fall under this category. In this case, CCP is defending the right to speak on public policy issues without first reporting its activities in a government database and disclosing donors who give to causes they believe in.

Lake Travis Citizens Council v. Ashley

This case challenges the definition of a political committee under Texas state law. There are two key issues. First, the law itself is unconstitutionally vague because it defines a campaign expenditure as speech made “in connection with a campaign for an elective office or on a measure.” Second, the Texas Ethics Commission has defined principal purpose, a term used to determine if a group is a political committee, as expenditures on electoral advocacy constituting 25% or more of a group’s calendar year spending. The Lake Travis Citizens Council wishes to run a series of Facebook ads on issues facing the community, but because of Texas’s overbroad definitions regarding the regulation of campaign ads, the Council reasonably fears that the Texas Ethics Commission will attempt to regulate the organization and its communications as political speech.

Libertarian National Committee v. FEC

The case was filed in 2011 and concerned the estate of Raymond Groves Burrington of Knox County, Tennessee, who left the Libertarian Party $217,734 in his will. Because that amount exceeded the annual limit on contributions to national party committees, the LNC was forced to place funds in escrow, withdrawing only the amount permitted by the FEC. The LNC seeks the full amount of the bequest, as well as the ability to implement a planned giving program that would solicit bequests exceeding the annual contribution limit.

Patriotic Veterans v. Indiana

Can a group of veterans be prohibited from advocating for public policy, because they wish to use robocalls? That is the question at the heart of Patriotic Veterans v. Indiana.

Patriotic Veterans, a small advocacy organization, is challenging an Indiana law that bans automated phone calls containing a political message. Political groups with limited resources use automated phone calls to inexpensively spread their message and gain support, but Indiana regulations have effectively targeted political calls. This infringes on Patriotic Veterans First Amendment rights, limiting their ability to advocate for causes they believe in. Groups with more resources can afford live operator calls and other communication methods that are unaffected by the ban. By imposing more costs on smaller politically active groups like Patriotic Veterans, while exempting other kinds of speakers, Indiana has unconstitutionally limited their ability to speak out about issues and campaigns.

Rubin v. Theobald

David Rubin is a resident of the Town of Manlius, New York. He wishes to exercise his First Amendment right to engage in political speech by posting yard signs in support of his favorite political candidates on his private property. The Town of Manlius, however, prohibited individuals from displaying political yard signs except during the thirty days before and seven days after an election. Even when citizens are allowed to display such signs, they were first required to obtain a permit. The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) legal team, representing Dr. Rubin, filed a lawsuit challenging the town’s unconstitutional restrictions on political yard signs. In early September, the Town of Manlius repealed the code and agreed to not enact further unconstitutional restrictions on yard signs. The case was voluntarily dismissed.

Utah Taxpayers Association, et al. v. Cox, et al.

When a state decides to regulate the speech of citizen groups, it must specify in an understandable way what speech triggers regulation and detailed reporting to the government. Even if a state does this correctly, does it have the power to force groups that spend only a small portion of their funding advocating for or against ballot initiatives to file reports in the same manner as it regulates candidate committees, political parties, and PACs? On behalf of the Utah Taxpayers Association, Utah Taxpayers Legal Foundation, and Libertas Institute, the Center challenged this dangerous and expansive new donor disclosure law. On July 14, 2016, Utah conceded that the law in question did indeed violate the First Amendment, and the state signed a consent decree acknowledging that it would not enforce the unconstitutional statute.’’’

Funding

IFS does not disclose its funders and it is not required to by law. On its website only writes, "In order to maintain its independence, the Institute for Free Speech accepts no government funding. We receive funding from individuals and foundations. Approximately five percent of the Institute’s funding comes from for-profit corporations."[22]^

However, major foundation supporters can be found through their IRS filings. Here are some known contributors:

Core Financials

2020 ^[23]^

2019 ^[24]^

2018 ^[25]^

2017 ^[26]^

2016 ^[27]^

2015 ^[28]^

2014 ^[28]^

2013 ^[28]^

2012 ^[28]^

2011 ^[28]^

Personnel

Staff

As of May 2022:[29]^

Former Staff

Board of Directors

As of May 4, 2022:[30]^

Board of Academic Advisors

As of May 2022:[31]^

Contact Details

Institute for Speech

124 S. West Street, Suite 201

Alexandria, VA 22314

Tel: (703) 894-6800

Fax: (703) 894-6811

Website: http://www.campaignfreedom.org

Blog: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/centerforcompetitivepolitics

Twitter: https://twitter.com/campaignfreedom

Employment Identification Number (EIN): 20-3676886

Articles and Resources

===

odd pick, given mission in life at ctr of comp pol was to overtuen camp finance reform?

Bradley A. Smith was "nominated to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by President William Jefferson Clinton on February 9, 2000, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 2000.

"Prior to his appointment, Smith was Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, where he taught Election Law, Comparative Election Law, Jurisprudence, Law & Economics, and Civil Procedure. Smith's writings on campaign finance and other election issues have appeared in the Yale Law Journal, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Georgetown Law Journal, the Harvard Journal of Legislation, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, and other academic journals. As a law professor,Smith was a much sought-after witness in Congress on matters of**campaign finance reform**, and also a frequent guest on radio and television and a contributor to popular publications such as the Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

"Prior to joining the faculty at Capital in 1993, he had practiced with the Columbus law firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, served as United States Vice Consul in Guayaquil, Ecuador, worked as a consultant in the health care field, and served as General Manager of the Small Business Association of Michigan, a position in which his responsibilities included management of the organization's political action committee.

"Commissioner Smith received his B.A. cum laude from Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan and his J.D., cum laude from Harvard Law School."

Copied from FEC web site.

===

bs

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder

Brad is one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law. He served as a Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, resigning as of Aug. 21, 2005. Smith was elected as Vice Chairman of the Commission in 2003 and Chairman of the Commission in 2004.

A recent New York Times story referred to Smith as the “intellectual powerhouse” of the movement to roll back campaign finance restrictions. His 2001 book, Unfree Speech: the Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, was lauded by George Will as the year’s “most important book on governance.” Once called “the most sought after witness in Congress” on campaign finance issues, Smith has authored over 40 articles on campaign finance reform, appearing in academic publications such as the Yale Law Journal and Georgetown Law Journal, and popular publications such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and National Review. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Bill Moyers Journal, the Lehrer News Hour, Fox News Special Report, ABC News, Washington Journal, and numerous other national and local television and radio programs.

As an FEC Commissioner, Smith won plaudits for his integrity and refusal to put partisan interests ahead of his duties, as well as his steadfast support for free speech. For his honesty and integrity, the Wall Street Journaldubbed him, “the only honorable man in this bordello.” Smith now serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School. He has won numerous awards for his scholarship and teaching, and is a past member of the Advisory Committee to the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Election Law. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Election Law Journal, and the Editorial Advisory Board of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Smith also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Studies, is a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute and is a member of the Board of Scholars of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Smith is a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and Kalamazoo College and holds an honorary doctorate from Augustana College.

Most Recent Post: Limiting “Coordination” Between Citizens Groups?

 ===

https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC65581/text?s=1&r=2

  CITIZENS UNITED AT 10: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR DEMOCRACY AND POTENTIAL :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
						RESPONSES BY CONGRESS:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\==:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

								HEARING:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

							   BEFORE THE:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

				   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
					CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL JUSTICE:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

								OF THE:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

					   COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
						HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

					ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

							SECOND SESSION:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

							   \_________\_:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

							FEBRUARY 6, 2020:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

							   WITNESSES:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

The Honorable Ted Deutch, Member of Congress:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Oral Testimony...............................................     9:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Prepared Testimony...........................................    34:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of Congress:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Oral Testimony...............................................    39:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Prepared Testimony...........................................    41:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner, Federal Election Commission:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Oral Testimony...............................................    45:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Prepared Testimony...........................................    48:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Oral Testimony...............................................    53:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Prepared Testimony...........................................    55:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
  Professor of Law, Capital University Law School:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Oral Testimony...............................................    56:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Prepared Testimony...........................................    58:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law, Stetson University :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
  College of Law:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Oral Testimony...............................................    71:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Prepared Testimony...........................................    73:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

		  LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

Statement by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, submitted by the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
  Honorable Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
  Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................     6:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Items for the record submitted by the Honorable Ted Deutch, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    10:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Items for the record submitted by the Mary Gay Scanlon, Committee :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
  on the Judiciary...............................................    92:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Items for the record submitted by the Steve Cohen, Committee on :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
  the Judiciary..................................................   106:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
...:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Weissman.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Our next witness is Mr. Bradley Smith. Rarely is a witness :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
thanked for coming and complimented by the other side, so you :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
are special.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Bradley Smith holds the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Nault Professor of Law position at Capital University Law :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
School. He is one of the nation's leading authorities on :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
election law and campaign finance, and co-author of ``Voting :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Rights and Election Law,'' a leading casebook in the field. He :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
previously served for five years as a member of the FEC and :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Chair of the Commission in 2004.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	He received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Do any of you ever get accepted at another school? :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
[Laughter.]:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	And his B.A. from Kalamazoo College.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Professor, you are recognized.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

				   TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY SMITH:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

	Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
committee.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I guess I would begin simply by saying that repeatedly :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
calling a decision a disaster doesn't really make it so, and we :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
haven't really heard much evidence that actually ties the idea :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that people can't enact their preferences to anything that has :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
come about from Citizens United.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	In fact, Citizens United has had a number of beneficial :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
effects on American society. We were told that it would lead to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
an oligarchy, an entrenched group of people who would strangle :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
American democracy. And yet instead, in the years since :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Citizens United, politics in America has been more fluid. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Congressional incumbent reelection rates have declined. That :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
may not be good news for all of you, but it cuts against :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
certainly the argument that has been made against Citizens :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
United.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	We have seen that either Congress or the presidency has :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
changed hands in four of the five election cycles since :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Citizens United. There are more newcomers in Congress by about :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
40 percent each time around. That may be good news for some of :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
you who are among those newcomers.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Outsiders such as the President himself, such as at least a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
contender to the President in the general election, Senator :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Sanders, people such as Representative Ocasio-Cortez or former :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Representative Braut have been complete outsiders who have :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
dramatically shaken up the system and defeated entrenched :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
insiders, typically by spending far less money.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	We find that the trend of more women being elected to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
office has continued, and there are other things that are just :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
kind of interesting. For example, the rate of spending increase :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
in American politics has actually declined considerably since :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Citizens United. I don't think that is because of Citizens :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
United, but it certainly cuts against the notion that this is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
some disaster leading to this massive explosion in spending. It :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
is just not really so.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	We find that most money in politics, dramatically so, still :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
comes from individuals in amounts limited under the law. The :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
vast majority still comes in limited individual contributions. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
But corporate contributions, which make up at most\--I don't :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
know how we want to calculate it and what we do with this small :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
percentage of money, about 2 or 3 percent that is so-called :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
``dark money,'' how much we think that might be corporate :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
money. If we take the worst case, so to speak, the highest case :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
scenario, we are talking about 5 percent of spending, maybe 6 :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
percent coming from for-profit corporations. That is hardly :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
drowning anybody out. And, in fact, it is a good thing. The :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
American people have a right to hear those voices, they should :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
hear those voices, and polling data shows that they actually :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
want to hear those voices and believe that business has a right :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
to comment on issues of concern.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Finally, it is important to remember what the case was all :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
about. It was the position of the United States Government that :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
it could censor a book or a movie if that book or movie was at :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
any stage produced or distributed with corporate funds, like :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
every other book or movie you have ever bought on Amazon or in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
a book store or seen in a theater or seen on cable or streaming :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
television. That was the position of the government, that you :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
could censor this. In that respect, the position that four :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
members of the Supreme Court actually endorsed that is the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
truly radical view that we saw in Citizens United.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	We have heard a lot in both the opening panel and from my :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
colleagues here about all these policy initiatives that have :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
been blocked, and it is curious to me that they all happen to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
be policy preferences of the American political left. There is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
nothing wrong with the political left having policy :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
preferences, but the idea that you are not able to enact your :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
policy preferences unless you can kneecap people who oppose :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
those is hardly something that the First Amendment endorses. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Indeed, that is why we have a First Amendment, so you can't :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
kneecap your opponents in order to shut them up so that you can :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
pass whatever policies you want.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I find it interesting. We had the NRA used as an example. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
The NRA has 3 to 5 million members. These are U.S. citizens, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
people who are out there, and they care intensely about these :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
issues. They talk to their neighbors and they work on these :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
issues, and that is why these things sometimes don't come :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
through.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I remind you, it is not impossible to pass legislation. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Medicare, Social Security, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Rights Act, these things all passed when contributions even :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
from individuals were unlimited and almost never reported :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
because there was no enforcement mechanism even on reporting.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	So I think when we look at things more rationally, we see :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that while the American people certainly don't like Citizens :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
United when they are asked specific questions like ``Do you :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
think corporations should be able to speak in elections?'', :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
when we ask ``Do you think Citizens United should have been :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
able to show its movie?'', we find that majorities, in some :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
cases substantial majorities, do, in fact, favor those :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
positions.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	So again, I would say Citizens United has been good for the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
United States, but mostly it is really good for the First :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Amendment precisely because it does what the First Amendment is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
supposed to do. It is a check.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Thank you.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	   :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Finally, our last witness is Ms. Ciara Spelliscy. She is a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Professor of Law at Stetson College of Law in Florida. She :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
teaches election law, corporate governance, business entities, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
and constitutional law. Prior to joining Stetson's faculty she :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
was Counsel to the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Justice at NYU School of Law, where she provided guidance on :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the issue of money in politics. She was a staffer for Richard :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Durbin up here on the Hill.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	She received her J.D. from Columbia University and her A.B. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
from Harvard.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Professor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

			  TESTIMONY OF CIARA TORRES-SPELLISCY:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

	Ms. Torres-Spelliscy. Thank you. Good morning. My name is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. I live in a swing district in the swing :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
state of Florida. My law students are Republicans, Democrats, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
and Independents, and I am here to tell you that American :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
voters are worried about the state of our elections after the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
attacks on our democracy in 2016.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	What American voters see from Congress and from the Federal :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Election Commission is not reassuring. It looks like they :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
cannot get out of their own way to protect the integrity of :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
American elections. This was true before 2016, but after 2016 :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
it is nothing short of excruciating to watch Congress and the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
FEC not act in the face of eager enemies.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Now without a quorum, the FEC is more powerless than ever :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
at a time when the 2020 election already has candidate debates, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
large-scale rallies, primary votes, and big political :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
fundraising to the tune of over $2 billion already.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Nearly a decade ago, I told Congress right after Citizens :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
United that I could predict two problems with inviting :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
corporate money into our democracy: a lack of shareholder :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
consent, and a lack of transparency. And I wish my prediction :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
had not come true, but it did.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Today I will focus on the lack of transparency, which is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
better known as the dark money problem. Dark money has :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
blanketed our elections since 2008. To date, over a billion :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
dollars in dark money has been spent in Federal elections :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
alone. With dark money you can see the public dance, but you :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
can't see the puppeteer. And after the 2016 election, Americans :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
really deserve to know whether any of those puppeteers were :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
foreign nationals or foreign governments.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	As I note in my book, Political Brands, we know from the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
redacted Mueller Report, as well as indictments of Russians by :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the Special Counsel's Office, that Russians were trying to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
influence the 2016 election, including by purchasing political :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
ads on Facebook with rubles. In nearly any other area of the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
law, what happens with dark money would be akin to money :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
laundering. But in election law, most dark money is actually :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
legal.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	The FEC is the primary regulator with the ability to stop :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
dark money, and instead they have basically done nothing. The :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
FEC could have started rulemakings to end dark money even :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
before Citizens United, because the problem appeared before :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
2010. The typical way that dark money is created is by spending :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
through an opaque non-profit, like a 501(c)(4) or a 501(c)(6), :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
and the porous rules at the FEC have allowed donors to remain :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
anonymous. The only change that has come was at the order of a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Federal court in CREW v. FEC.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	One thing American voters still do not know is whether dark :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
money is hiding illegal foreign money. And because the FEC has :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
largely been stuck in deadlocks, even investigations or :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
punishment for foreign spending has largely been lacking.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	As I discussed in my first book, Corporate Citizen, in a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
particularly colorful episode, a foreign pornographer spent in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
a Los Angeles election in 2012. This spending violated :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
longstanding bans on foreign money in American elections, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
whether they are Federal, state, or local. But the FEC would :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
not enforce the law against the foreign pornographer. If the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
FEC is not going to stand up to a foreign pornographer, it begs :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the question who would they stand up against?:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	This general lack of enforcement against foreign spending :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
has sent a terrible message to anyone who was paying attention. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
The message is that campaign finance laws are basically not :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
being enforced at the Federal level by the FEC, and as American :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
voters face 2020, the Department of Justice is the only cop :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
left on the beat. But DOJ can only enforce willful and :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
egregious violations of law. This leaves a vast wasteland of :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
unenforced campaign finance laws where cheating and corner\-:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
cutting is all but invited.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	And this happens as American voters are asked to choose the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
next president, all of the members of the House, a third of the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Senate, 11 governors, and 45 state legislatures.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Given the experience of 2016 with Russians breaking :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
American election laws with abandon, the lesson for North :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Korea, China, Iran, or any other hostile nation is that :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
interference in our elections can be done with little :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
consequence.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	So the FEC needs a full complement of commissioners so that :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
they can at least act. And if you are serious about reform, you :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
need to add an additional seat to the FEC so that, like every :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
other Federal agency, they have an odd number of commissioners :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
so that they can enforce the law instead of ending in a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
deadlock.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	And you can improve disclosure by either changing election :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
laws or changing securities laws, or possibly both. And, of :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
course, you could expand what Congress can constitutionally :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
regulate if the Constitution is amended to address Citizens :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
United and other campaign finance cases like Buckley.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	But in our constitutional system, the fate of the nation is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
in your hands. Thank you.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	[The statement of Ms. Torres-Spelliscy follows:]:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	...    Mr. Raskin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Welcome to all of our distinguished witnesses today, and :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
all of the natural persons who have come to participate in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
today's proceeding.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	The first thing that I want to point out is that Citizens :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
United did not enlarge the free speech rights of any citizen in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the United States, not even CEOs or corporate executives who :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
could spend already whatever they wanted as independent :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
expenditures under Buckley v. Valeo. All that Citizens United :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
did was to transform every corporate treasury in America into a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
potential political slush fund and thereby authorize and :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
empower the CEOs of the corporations to spend whatever they :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
wanted of other people's money in the corporate treasuries in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
political campaigns.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	This declaration did transform, to my understanding, two :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
centuries of jurisprudential understanding of what a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
corporation is. You can go back to Chief Justice John :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Marshall's opinion in 1819 in the Dartmouth College v. Woodward :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
case, where he said that a corporation is an artificial entity, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
possessing only the rights conferred upon it by the state :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
legislature and not the constitutional rights of the people. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
And yet the Roberts court in Citizens United endowed private :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
corporations, these invisible, intangible, artificial entities, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
with the political rights of the people, essentially arming the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
CEOs with the power to spend other people's money, as Justice :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Brandeis termed it, in political campaigns. And for all of the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
reasons stated by the witnesses, that has occasioned a dramatic :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
change in the character and the quality of American politics.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Now, I favor a constitutional amendment for the same reason :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that I support all the constitutional amendments that have :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
reversed reactionary jurisprudence by the Supreme Court. That :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
is how we got women's suffrage in the 19th Amendment which :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
toppled the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
saying that women did not get the right under the 14th or 15th :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Amendment. The 14th Amendment, and the 15th and 13th, of :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
course, reversed the Supreme Court's reactionary decision in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the Dred Scott case before the Civil War. It is how we got the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
26th Amendment. It is how we got the 24th Amendment. Most of :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
our amendments have been democracy-deepening, suffrage\-:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
enlarging, democracy-perfecting amendments where the people :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
have to overturn pinched and reactionary understandings of the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Supreme Court.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	But until we get there, I wanted to take up an issue that :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
comes out of Citizens United, because Justice Kennedy's conceit :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
in his majority opinion is that the corporations are speaking :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
for the shareholders, the corporations derive their First :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Amendment political rights from the First Amendment rights of :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the human beings who actually own stock in the corporation. But :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
there is a problem, which is that the corporations are spending :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
all of this money and putting money into political campaigns :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
and dark money channels and so on without ever consulting the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
shareholders themselves; and, in fact, in most cases not even :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
notifying the shareholders. And they have been doing everything :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
in their power to fight in both the SEC and the FEC efforts to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
get just notice to people of how their money in the corporation :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
is being spent.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I introduced a measure which became part of H.R. 1 which I :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
call Shareholders United. Shareholders United says that no :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
corporation shall be allowed to spend any money in politics :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
until you have first notified the shareholders of the proposal :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
and they are authorized in advance by majority vote that their :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
money be spent in a political campaign.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I am wondering if each of you, if you could go quickly\--and :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
forgive us because we have our 5-minute stricture here. But :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
would you agree that as long as we are living under the regime :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
of Citizens United, that the shareholders should have the right :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
to be apprised of proposed political spending by corporations :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
of their money, and they should have the right to vote on it? I :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
know there is an argument that there should have to be a 100 :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
percent vote, but at the very least there should be a majority :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
vote before the corporation goes ahead and spends their money.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	And I could start with you, Madam Chair.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Ms. Weintraub. Yes.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Weissman. Absolutely. And as you know, more than a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
million people have requested the SEC to issue a rule to do :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
exactly what you are suggesting.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Raskin. Professor Smith, do you agree?:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Smith. No. This is a complex question of corporate :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
governance and there are many things corporations do, including :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
things that affect politics, that they don't require :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
shareholder approval for.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Raskin. Okay. And Professor Spelliscy?:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Ms. Torres-Spelliscy. I wholeheartedly endorse your bill. I :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
think shareholders should have the right to consent to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
corporate political spending, and that would bring American law :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
in line with the U.K., where shareholders in U.K. companies do :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
have the right to pre-approve corporate political spending.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Raskin. Okay.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Raskin.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Raskin. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I would note that one of the things that we have that the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
U.K. doesn't have is the First Amendment.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	The majority in Citizens United maintain that political :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
justified by a governmental interest in providing the :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
electorate with information about election-related spending :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
resources.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
political advertising sponsors and upheld the ban on direct :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	What it did not do is overturn centuries of law. Rather, it :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
overturned portions of McCain-Feingold which had become law in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
2002, another law that went into effect in the 1940s, and two :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Supreme Court decisions in whole or in part, Austin v. Michigan :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Chamber of Commerce from 1990 and McConnell v. FEC from 2003.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	So I would ask Professor Smith, in your prepared testimony :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
you quote part of the oral argument in Citizens United in which :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the government argues that as a matter of constitutional law it :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
can ban books or movies if corporate resources are used in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
their production or distribution. Is that correct?:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Smith. Yes.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Cline. And can we talk about whether this is really a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
danger?:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Smith. Yes. Citizens United was rescheduled after that :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
first oral argument, and in the second oral argument then\-:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Solicitor General Kagan argued, well, we would never actually :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
do that. But, in fact, the FEC from time to time has done that. :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
In a little-noticed 1987 advisory opinion, the FEC informed :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
U.S. News and World Report that their publication of a book :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
would not be exempt under the press exemption because it was :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
not a periodical, that it would therefore be potentially :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
illegal to distribute a book.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Now, maybe that wasn't noticed so much because in the end :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
U.S. News wasn't really going to do that. It was dismissed on :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
other grounds. But the FEC made that point.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Just in the last decade, in 5642, the FEC spent almost two :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
years investigating publication and distribution of a book, one :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that was written by George Soros, and it was eventually :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
dismissed. But it should be noted that the General Counsel in :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that case recommended that the FEC find a violation due to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
distribution of a book about policy, a book called The Bubble :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
of American Supremacy, because it included such radical :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
statements as ``It is not enough to defeat President Bush at :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
the polls,'' and ``We can regain the moral high ground only by :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
rejecting President Bush when he stands for reelection,'' and :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that was considered enough that that book could have been :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
potentially banned.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	So I do think it is a real issue.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I would also note that when Justice Kagan, or now-Justice :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
Kagan, then-Solicitor General Kagan, was asked what about :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
pamphlets, she said pamphlets we ban, we definitely go in for :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
pamphlets.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I have here a copy of Common Sense, the great revolutionary :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
tract by Thomas Paine. It is 54, 58 pages. That includes a :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
couple of cover pages here. Is this a book or a pamphlet? I :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
will ask you all to vote for it because you are the legislators :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
who will get to decide whether or not this can be published or :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
whether or not this can be banned as a pamphlet.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Cline. Thank you.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Some of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
previously introduced a constitutional amendment to undo or :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
overturn Citizens United. The amendment would allow Congress to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
regulate the giving and spending of money on political advocacy :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
but explicitly carves out the press. Do you have any views on :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that approach?:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	Mr. Smith. Well again, if I may, Mr. Cline, I want to :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
briefly address something that my old colleague\--we were law :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
professors going back. You got your J.D. from Harvard, too; is :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
that right?:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should probably note that :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
again.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
	But in any case, one thing I did want to comment, though, :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
is that who has benefitted\--...we haven't seen this torrent of money from Fortune 100 companies. The corporations that have :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
benefitted are small corporations, and most of those :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
corporations can't afford to operate a PAC, they can't afford :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
to have a lobbyist here, and those are the corporations that :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
are really benefitting from this, and those are closely held :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
corporations where I think we can usually find the shareholder :(style="font-family:Merriweather"):
benefits.:(style="font-family:Merriweather"):

===

===