Federal Nonsense Round-Up: Mid-Feb 2018

WEEK IN REVIEW

Week in review compiled by:
​Shalin M, RepMD Volunteer

1. (Shalin M.)) Is This the Collusion We Were Waiting For?

ABOUT:  A loophole in campaign financing appears to have been a "golden vulnerability" for Russian interests to funnel money in support of Trump and other GOP candidates for the 2016 elections  

EXCERPT:  
"Here’s another way L.L.C.s could be used: as an intermediary between foreign agents and tax-exempt organizations that are not required by law to disclose their donors, often called dark money groups. Indeed, in July the left-leaning Center for American Progress put out a report warning that loopholes in campaign finance laws make it easy for foreign citizens or governments to influence our elections in precisely this way.
[...]  
Speaking of the F.B.I.’s investigation into the N.R.A., Liz Kennedy, the senior director of Democracy and Government Reform at the center, told me, “If this investigation in fact finds that illegal behavior occurred, this would really be the kind of illegal foreign spending that we were warning would happen.” (During the Obama administration, Senate Democrats twice tried to pass the Disclose Act, which would require greater transparency about the sources of political donations; both times Republicans filibustered.) 
Of all the so-called dark money groups involved in the 2016 election, none spent more than the N.R.A. The $30 million it expended to elect Trump was three times more than the N.R.A. spent on Mitt Romney’s behalf in the 2012 election. 
That $30 million, however, is just what the N.R.A. spent on the presidential race. It also backed other candidates, reportedly spending $55 million overall. The organization helped Republicans cement control of Congress. If it did so with Russia’s assistance, the whole party is implicated." 

READ MORE:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/opinion/nra-russia-investigation-trump.html  

OUR THOUGHTS:  With greater geopolitical instability, cases of abusing campaign finance are likely only going to get worse without passage of the "Disclosure Act" or similar bill.  This will only exacerbated the real voice of the voters if the IRS continues to be under-resourced to address the matter and if campaigns keep getting more expensive.  Oh, and knowingly allowing this is quite possibly treason-adjacent behavior!

---

2. (Shalin M.)) Dark Money, Not Russia, May Be the Best Way to Explain Trump's Win: Oh, and the crippling inequality overseen by elites from both parties that has nothing to do with collusion, Robert Mueller, or Moscow.   

ABOUT:  A study from Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) claims that Russian interference had a much smaller effect than right-wing demographic targeting and domestic based voter suppression.  

EXCERPT:  
"Vice: What did that infusion of cash you spotted late in the race actually look like? Where did it come from and where did it go?
Prof. Thomas Ferguson: Some of it is through super PACs and other parts of it are through the campaign. But it's pretty obvious what they did. The day after Bannon and Conway took over, the Washington Post printed what they were going to do, which was focus on a few industrial states and other states where they thought they could get white working-class voters. And they did exactly that. They stayed focused on it.
They were much better targeted than the Clinton campaign. We all know that.
[...]  
Vice:  How do we know we even have a full accounting of the internet mayhem here, though?
Prof. F: We don't, and we say that. But Breitbart and all these other [domestic] sources [of right-wing propaganda] were up for years. They were way practiced. And it just doesn't matter if some Kremlin folks... are bouncing back off Steve Bannon's [output] when Bannon and company are doing 24/7 for three years in advance.
Vice: You talk a good bit about voter suppression in your paper. Even if we purged the internet of "fake news" and prevented outside interference of any kind, this would still be a problem and maybe even get worse over time, right?
Prof. F: I think voter suppression needs more attention. We are way over-invested in what I call, technically, "overdetermined models of voting" [as opposed to] undetermined stuff that actually affects it, including money. There's an imbalance here that is deeply troubling to me."  

READ MORE:  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzn9v3/dark-money-not-russia-may-be-the-best-way-to-explain-trumps-win  

OUR THOUGHTS:  This is an interesting take on the run-up to the 2016 election.  Experts on online media and intelligence generally say that that it is quite difficult to gauge how much influence Russian interference had.  But the big takeaway of this story seems to be that dark money simply does most of the talking for elections and is associated with voter suppression! :(  This is another reason for anti-corruption efforts to ensure dark money comes to light and all voices (i.e. *votes*) are heard.

---

3. (Shalin M.)) Analysis: Lobbying activity at highest level since 2010

ABOUT:  Figures on lobbying efforts and lobbyists themselves is up quite a bit over the last year.  

EXCERPT:
"Major trade groups and organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Realtors again topped the list of top spenders on lobbying, according to the tally from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.  
[...]  
The total spending by groups included in the tally marks a near $200 million increase over 2016's total and is the highest amount spent on lobbying in the tally since 2010, which hit over $3.5 billion.
Despite his promises to "drain the swamp" of wealthy interest groups from politics, the first year of President Trump's tenure saw a 6 percent increase in annual lobbying spending compared to the previous year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
[...]  
Trump's first year in office also saw the first increase in the number of registered lobbyists since 2007, the Center found, with 11,444 registered lobbyists appearing in quarterly reports to Congress in 2017 compared to 11,169 the previous year."  

READ MORE:  http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/371033-lobbying-activity-at-highest-level-since-2010-report  

OUR THOUGHTS:  This sort of trend is taking us backwards and towards more special interest control of the government, not less.  The average citizen, especially the generationaly poor, isn't at the heart of nearly any of the lobbyists that have strong influence over congress members.  Trumps line about "draining the swamp" is now a verifiable bait and switch - all the more reason anti-corruption efforts are needed! 

---

c4. (Shalin M.)) Congressman removed from ethics committee amid reports he used taxpayer money to settle sexual misconduct complaint

ABOUT: Rep. Patrick Meehan of PA has been accused of unwanted repeated advances on a younger female member of his staff.  Due to the filed complaint by the staffer, and reported taxpayer money to settle the purported misconduct, he has been removed from the House Ethics Committee he was a part of.  

EXCERPT:
"Rep. Patrick Meehan was removed from the House Ethics Committee on Saturday after The New York Times reported that he had settled a misconduct complaint after a former staffer accused him of making repeated unwanted romantic advances, House Speaker Paul Ryan's office said.
It's unclear how much taxpayer money Meehan's office doled out to the former aide, but people familiar with the settlement told The Times that it was thousands of dollars from Meehan's congressional office fund. Ryan told Meehan on Saturday that he should repay the money, Ryan's spokeswoman AshLee Strong told The Times.
Meehan, a four-term Republican congressman, represents Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district. Meehan sits on the House Ethics Committee, which is partly responsible for investigating sexual misconduct claims in Congress."

READ MORE: http://read.bi/2DuXpKe

OUR THOUGHTS:  This is yet another case of an abuse of power and taxpayer money.  The most incredulous part is that Meehan was a member of an *Ethics Committee* and should have known better.  House Speaker Paul Ryan is right that Meehan should repay the taxpayer money used to the settle the issue.  This event comes just a couple weeks before the House unanimously passed bills to change response to sexual harassment On Capitol Hill. 

---

5. (Shalin M.))  O’Rourke’s no-PAC campaign paying off against Cruz

ABOUT: A "so far, so good" news story about a US Representative from Texas who has switched off the PAC money tap in his race against US Senator Ted Cruz for the Senate seat.  

EXCERPT:
"After voting against the 2014 Farm Bill, El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke was asked to apologize.
Not to the voters, but to a political action committee (PAC) that donated to his campaign.
“At that moment, I just said ‘You know what, I don’t want to take PAC money anymore,” O’Rourke said. “This is crazy.”
[...]  
“We’re far stronger than we would be otherwise,” O’Rourke said. “It is giving more people a reason to contribute and become part of this. They know that their five, 10 or 15 dollars is really going to make a difference. There is no PAC, there are no billionaires. This is really people.”
Since 2011, when Cruz began campaigning for the seat he now holds, his campaign has raised $119,383,925, according to September Federal Election Commission data. In the 2012 election cycle, Cruz outraised his opponent, Paul Sadler, more than tenfold."

READ MORE: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/orourkes-no-pac-campaign-paying-off-against-cruz/

OUR THOUGHTS: This certainly seems like a good news story, but what's better is that the move seems to have really connected with voters and otherwise has given them an outlet for their frustration against special interest money. 

---

5. (Shalin M.))  O’Rourke’s no-PAC campaign paying off against Cruz

ABOUT: A "so far, so good" news story about a US Representative from Texas who has switched off the PAC money tap in his race against US Senator Ted Cruz for the Senate seat.  

EXCERPT:
"After voting against the 2014 Farm Bill, El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke was asked to apologize.
Not to the voters, but to a political action committee (PAC) that donated to his campaign.
“At that moment, I just said ‘You know what, I don’t want to take PAC money anymore,” O’Rourke said. “This is crazy.”
[...]  
“We’re far stronger than we would be otherwise,” O’Rourke said. “It is giving more people a reason to contribute and become part of this. They know that their five, 10 or 15 dollars is really going to make a difference. There is no PAC, there are no billionaires. This is really people.”
Since 2011, when Cruz began campaigning for the seat he now holds, his campaign has raised $119,383,925, according to September Federal Election Commission data. In the 2012 election cycle, Cruz outraised his opponent, Paul Sadler, more than tenfold."

READ MORE: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/orourkes-no-pac-campaign-paying-off-against-cruz/

OUR THOUGHTS: This certainly seems like a good news story, but what's better is that the move seems to have really connected with voters and otherwise has given them an outlet for their frustration against special interest money. 

---