These are the day’s political law links

DONOR PRIVACY URGED.  The Hill.  “By lumping in donors to these causes protected under the donor privacy bill with what they claim to be a bad influence in politics, opponents disparage true and worthy beneficence done for purposes of conscience. And what is America without protecting rights of conscience?”

UBER HYPE.  BG.  “On June 1, Uber disclosed an unprecedented $3.5 billion investment from the Saudi Arabian government. Aside from its stock ownership, which totals more than 5 percent, the kingdom bought itself a seat on the company’s board of directors.”

ANOTHER COMPLAINT.  WMUR. “Cullen said campaign finance reports show that Guinta personally loaned his campaign $81,000 during the 2010 congressional primary. The campaign repaid that money to Guinta in the following years.”

BUSINESS MIX.  KUOW.  “The FEC bars candidates from directly pocketing campaign contributions. And yet, Potter said, companies owned by candidates are barred from giving money to their bosses’ political efforts. So if the Trump campaign is using Trump properties and services, it does have to pay Trump’s companies.”

NEW SUPER PAC.  RC. “The timing of the group’s creation will raise eyebrows, given that it came on the same day that Rubio announced he was running for re-election.”

KEEP THE PROMISE, CHANGE THE NAME.  BN.  “Robert Mercer, the GOP mega-donor and co-founder of Renaissance Technologies hedge fund who once backed Texas Senator Ted Cruz, is launching a super-PAC with a novel twist to get establishment-minded donors off the sidelines.”

IL:  INVESTIGATION SOUGHT.  CT.  “Michelle Fajman, election board director, said that under state law corporations are allowed to contribute $2,000 a year across all campaigns. Companies listed as limited liability corporations do not have the same limits.”

MO:  AIR WAR.  STL.  “The PAC-backed ad, financed by the State Conservative Reform Action PAC, or SCRAP, targets Schaefer for supporting legislation as a member of the Senate that allowed foreign ownership of Missouri farmland.”

MT:  COMEDY ALLEGED.  IR.  “Are Mr. Motl’s other cases capricious and sloppily done? No notification, no verification of data? Is this slipshod incompetence? A Laurel and Hardy comedy?”

SC:  BETTER FUTURE SOUGHT.  FN.  “This is political speech – and politicians have absolutely no right to muzzle it just because it criticizes them.  In fact we’ve repeatedly opposed so-called ‘ethics reforms’ that seek to shut down precisely these sorts of ads.”


Comments are closed.