With today’s news that President Biden will not be seeking reelection, one of the big questions is what happens to his considerable campaign war-chest, which as of the end of July totaled roughly $240M. Here’s what we know: A little more than $90M is with Biden’s principal campaign committee—the official vehicle for his reelection campaign. This is ALSO the principal reelection committee for VP Harris. Most campaign finance experts (including me) believe that she can tap into the money immediately if, as expected, she seeks to move to the top of the ticket.

A major new campaign finance decision from the DC Circuit dropped today, ordering the Federal Election Commission to do more to enforce rules requiring super PACs to operate independently of candidates. (This is a big win for the folks at @CampaignLegal). Here’s a quick primer:

cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini… Thanks to Citizens United, super PACs can raise unlimited $$. But to minimize the risk of corruption, they are supposed to operate independently from candidates who are subject to stricter fundraising limits—in campaign finance parlance, they can’t “coordinate” with them. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…

Campaign finance thread alert! We just filed a comment in an important rulemaking the @FEC commenced last December on candidate salaries. This is a sleeper issue where I think there may actually be hope for some bipartisan agreement. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea… Running for federal office is a full time job, one that often requires giving up other paid work and taking on new expenses like extra childcare, among many other sacrifices. Without some means to continue earning money, it’s simply out of reach for many working Americans.

Signs of new life at the @FEC? The Federal Election Commission had a very productive open meeting this morning--arguably the most productive that I have seen in years. Two areas where there has been significant bipartisan progress stand out: First, at long last the Commission seems to be on track to approve a final rule that will require more transparency for online political ads (they have been contemplating doing this for more than a decade). fec.gov/resources/cms-…

More on FEC v. Cruz. The bottom line is that this decision, while it’s actual implications for campaign finance are pretty limited, has deeply troubling implications not only for this area of law but also the #SupremeCourt’s broader approach to the 1st Amendment. #SCOTUS. Long 🧵 The law at issue put a $250K cap on how much wealthy candidates could raise after an election to recoup personal $$ spent on their campaigns. The corruption risk here, where donations go directly into the candidate’s pocket, is clear + well documented, as Justice Kagan explained

Despite what some continue to argue on this website and elsewhere, the #FreedomToVoteAct (which the Senate is poised to start debating) offers an extremely robust response to the growing threat of election subversion. The concerns being expressed focus on the risk of manipulating the electoral college count. That's important to address, but as many others have said, its just one facet of a much bigger problem, which the #FreedomToVoteAct confronts head on.

Poignant note from @POTUS about past bipartisan support for #VotingRights. And guess what? It’s not just the #VotingRightsAct. Almost all the key provisions in the #FreedomToVoteAct have also enjoyed robust Republican support in the past: 👉Automatic voter registration —enacted by Republicans in many states, including GA
👉Early and mail voting—used for years by tens of millions of Republican voters
👉Ending gerrymandering—championed by prominent Republicans across the country, incl. former governors of CA and OH

Don’t believe disinformation you read about #HR1 (a/k/a the #ForThePeopleAct or #S1). Here are answers to some of the most common myths floating out there. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea… No, #HR1 is not a “partisan power grab.” Key provisions like automatic voter registration, early voting and redistricting reform are based on policies Republicans overwhelmingly support at the state level, and under which they have done very well electorally.

Wow. Powerful call from @POTUS to pass the #ForThePeopleAct and the #JohnLewis #VotingRightsAct and send them to his desk “right away.” What would these bills do? A lot. #JointAddress #JointSession 👉 First, they would guarantee the freedom to vote, and take a huge bite out of the wave of voter suppression laws sweeping the country, as explained here: brennancenter.org/sites/default/…

Yesterday’s #Acquittal of Fmr. President Trump (by senators representing barely 1/3 of the country) underscores the urgent need to repair American democracy, beginning with swift passage of the landmark #ForThePeopleAct (a/k/a #HR1 and #S1) brennancenter.org/our-work/polic… #HR1 includes the most ambitious expansion of voting access for eligible voters since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Automatic + same day voter registration. Restoration of voting rights to the formerly incarcerated. Expanded early + mail voting. A commitment to restore the #VRA

The Supreme Court has dismissed the remaining lawsuits against Fmr. President Trump for violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments clauses, constitutional provisions barring POTUS from taking benefits from foreign govts and US states. The ball is now in Congress’s court. The Emoluments Clauses are critical safeguards whose enforcement would have stopped some of the worst corruption of the Trump years. Huge credit to the many individuals + orgs that rescued them from relative obscurity and brought them into the public consciousness.

The @WSJ is out with an editorial today slamming the historic democracy reforms in #HR1 with the same tired arguments they and others have deployed many times before. Let’s take them one by one, shall we? 1/many First, we have dog whistle arguments about “California-style election rules” —a/k/a rules that make it easier for all eligible voters to cast their ballots, even voters who — gasp — need food stamps.

Apropos of nothing, #pardon accountability is a critical rule of law reform law that needs to be a priority. Here is the proposal crafted by our bipartisan task force co-chaired by @PreetBharara and @GovCTW. #pardons #pardonpalooza brennancenter.org/our-work/polic… Important to acknowledge that pardon abuse isn’t a new problem, but as usual this president has taken it to a new level. That’s been true for a while. brennancenter.org/our-work/analy…

This is called “giving in the name of another” and if knowing and willful, it’s a federal crime to do or ask others to do. washingtonpost.com/investigations… Of course there is no way to be sure just from a news article if that’s what happened here. But even if lawbreaking wasn’t intentional, it is still deeply troubling (I’d certainly like to know which “former FEC general counsel” told them it was ok).

With @FEC Commissioner Hunter resigning, we are heading into November with one of the frontline agencies charged with protecting the integrity of our elections once again immobilized, during a pandemic that has turned the whole campaign on its head. It’s like a perfect storm. The FEC has been without a quorum for most of the last 10 months. No enforcement of campaign finance laws. No rulemakings. No guidance for candidates who are having to cope with a campaign that has shifted to being largely online.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. During the unprecedented #COVID__19 pandemic, Congress (and its state counterparts) must be able to continue to play their essential role. It’s sad that we can’t seem to come together even around this basic principle.

https://twitter.com/gopleader/status/1265422040795951110

The rules Leader McCarthy is suing to overturn do not allow one member to “control” another’s vote, as he argues. They allow the member who is present to cast the vote of the absent member pursuant to the absent member’s specific instructions. Big difference

Great piece from the AP’s @BrianSlodysko on Sen. Ernst’s apparent ties to a so-called dark $$ group. Very timely as well, given that we are approaching the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. apnews.com/eeb44fc06b0cb2… CU’s core holding was that so-called “independent” spending does not pose a sufficient risk of corruption to justify any sort of limit. To the extent there are any legitimate concerns for our political system, they could be solved through transparency.