Good morning, here are Monday’s political law links, 10/7/13

ETHICS RULES APPLY.  Story here.  “In a memo sent by the general counsel’s office to all branches and major commands, gay couples are told that their spouses’ financial interests are now also owned, in the eyes of the federal government, by the military member or civilian employee.”

ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED.  Story here.  “A watchdog group on Friday filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) for publicaly scolding a park ranger over the closure of the WWII Memorial in the government shutdown.”

BLOOMBERG PAC BUY FOR BOOKER.  Here.  “Bloomberg’s political action committee, Independence USA, is spending $1 million on the ad, according to The New York Times, which first reported the expenditure.”

WHY HAVE LIMITS?  The Times.  “Instead of this piecemeal approach, would it make more sense to just get rid of all limits on political spending, as Senator Mitch McConnell has suggested?”

MONEY, POLITICS, AND THE SUPREMES.  CNN.  “At issue is whether strict limits on direct campaign contributions by individuals — in the Federal Election Campaign Act — violate the First Amendment.”

CU II. The Hill.

MCCUTCHEON PREVIEW.  Nat’l Const. Center.  “The McCutcheon case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit its decision in Buckley with respect to the constitutionality of the aggregate contribution limits, clarify the Court’s understanding of what constitutes corruption, and the  scope of the government’s interest in preventing it.”

WILL ON MCCUTCHEON.  Here.  “There is no remaining reason to permit incumbents to stipulate how many candidates can receive contributions of a size that Congress itself has deemed innocuous. So, deference to that congressional judgment now requires repudiating Congress’s imposition of aggregate limits.”

SUN VIEW ON MCCUTCHEON.  Here.  “Think what this country needs is to give more political clout to the wealthy and those who seek special favors from government? Well, your wish may soon be granted.”

STAY STRONG, SUPREMES.  The Hill.  “There’s good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will uphold the law and decline to send us down that steep slippery slope. But the fact that this case has reached the Court at all is cause for real concern – and left, right, or center, it should be a wakeup call for anyone concerned with the future of our democracy.”

SUPER PAC SHUTDOWN HIT.  Here.  “It’s 30 seconds of a crying kid, and it’s being run against nine House Republicans, accusing them of shutting down the government because they didn’t get what they wanted.”

FDA AND EMAILS.  Story here.  “A scientific panel that shaped the federal government’s policy for testing the safety and effectiveness of painkillers was funded by major pharmaceutical companies that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to affect the thinking of the Food and Drug Administration, according to hundreds of e-mails obtained by a public records request.”

LOBBYIST EMAIL IN THE NEWS.  Adweek.  “It’s no secret in Washington that Time Warner Cable has been one of the biggest proponents of retransmission consent reform. The cable company has devoted considerable financial and lobbying resources to get Congress to act and is one of the biggest members of the American Television Alliance, which puts out several press releases a week.”

AZ:  LAW OVERTURNED.  Story here.  “A federal judge has declared a portion of Arizona’s campaign-finance law unconstitutional, finding the definition of political committee ‘vague’ and ‘overbroad.'”

CA:  LOBBYING V. PUBLIC AFFAIRS.  Here.  “In other words: The firm’s lobbyists, who operate under strict disclosure rules and are prohibited from giving politicians gifts worth more than $10, couldn’t legally invite government officials to the race. But they could make sure key politicians were invited by having their non-lobbyist colleagues make the invitation.”

CA:  MAZE OF RULES.  Story here.  “The U-T case raises a larger question about whether regulators can enforce the rules of fairness in a multimedia world.”

NJ:  SUPER PAC UP.  Here.  “Democrats say they’re following the law, which prohibits coordination between the campaigns and the super PAC.”

NY:  ILLEGAL LIMITS.  NY Post.  “Get ready to see a major New York campaign-finance rule get tossed out by the courts.”


Comments are closed.