Richard Hasen:
In February, the Campaign Legal Center, a group which works on campaign finance reform issues, released a “white paper” contending that many of the leading potential presidential candidates were likely breaking federal law by not declaring their candidacy or setting up a “testing the waters” committee for a presidential election run. Such a declaration, among other things, limits donors to giving only $2,700 to the (would-be) candidate for the presidential primary season. It was an excellent report, but many shrugged off its findings as just one more way in which the campaign finance system has begun to unravel since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
But news this week that Republican (pseudo-non)candidate Jeb Bush intends to outsource much of his campaign to an allied super PAC reveals that Bush’s decision to delay declaring his candidacy has allowed him to undermine one of the last rules in campaign finance law. Worse, his approach will be the new model of presidential funding in future elections and greatly increases the threat that large donors will have even greater influence over electoral and policy outcomes than they already have.
The idea that Jeb Bush is not “testing the waters” for a presidential run is absurd. He is appearing at presidential candidate forums, traveling to early primary and caucus states, and leading the Republican field in fundraising.
Life is for the 1%. Just more proof. And remember, this Supreme Court said that was just fine by them (a reminder of what the election is really about).
WaPo:
A record-high 6 in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage and a similar share say individual states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Vox:
It’s also not lost on the Republican leaders that their party’s poll numbers are in the tank, and Obama’s have been gradually improving. His average approval rating last week was 46 percent, up from 40 percent last November, according to Gallup.
Recent polling by CNN shows Clinton well ahead of her field of Republican rivals for the presidency, leading each candidate tested by more than 10 percentage points. Republicans on Capitol Hill need a change in dynamics both for themselves and for their party’s chances of re-taking the presidency.
Stephen Stromberg:
The Kaiser Family Foundation released a poll Tuesday showing that public opinion is divided on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Forty-three percent of respondents reported that they approve of the health-care law, and 42 percent said they disapprove. That’s a marked improvement from much of the last year. But those of us who believe that the ACA is decent policy that’s working fairly well still need to ask: Why do its polling numbers remain so low?
At least part of the answer is that the ACA’s primary purpose was to cover people who had severe trouble affording insurance, and most Americans didn’t have this problem.
Harry Enten with another reminder that Chris (Burnt Toast) Christie is not John McCain:
The basic problem with the comparison is that McCain was never as far back in the polls as Christie is now in New Hampshire. Christie is in fourth place in the state, polling at 9 percent and trending downward in the Pollster.com aggregate. His favorable rating in the most recent Franklin Pierce University poll was 43 percent, lower than his unfavorable rating of 46 percent. So not only does Christie have to hop over a bunch of other candidates to take the lead, but a plurality of Republicans dislike him. A negative net-favorable rating can be deadly for a candidate as well-known as Christie.
McCain, on the other hand, never dipped below third place or 15 percent in the New Hampshire polling aggregate. Most importantly, he remained well liked even in his darkest hour. In the summer of 2007, McCain’s favorable rating in the Franklin Pierce College poll was 65 percent, against an unfavorable rating of 28 percent. That is, McCain’s favorable rating was 22 percentage points higher than Christie’s is now. McCain always had a base of Republicans who might be willing to support his campaign, even if they weren’t doing so at the time.
The Hill:
That didn’t take long. Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) is now the first 2016 GOP presidential potential walking the anti-immigration plank, hoping — against history — that this time it will lead to the White House and not just to a watery political death.
Since Republican nominee Mitt Romney crashed in 2012 on the shoals of his "self-deportation" strategy of harassing immigrants until they left the country, many Republican leaders and operatives have concluded that Romney's immigration policies were sure losers in a national election.
Francis Wilkinson:
Because the GOP base is vehemently opposed to undocumented immigrants, Republican presidential candidates tend to stress their commitment to ramped-up security and enforcement measures as a precursor to any resolution for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. House Republicans have even put that principle in a legislative headline with their "Secure our Borders First Act."
But as Byron York points out at the Washington Examiner, this presents a chicken-and-egg problem.
NY Times:
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on same-sex marriage next Tuesday, the nation seems more ready to accept it than many imagined even a year ago. But divisions remain, and while more than half of Americans now endorse the idea, about one-third say they oppose it, according to survey data from 2014.
In Northeastern states like Vermont and New York, large majorities support same-sex marriage. And in many more states including California, where a vote in 2008 to ban it was later overturned by the courts, such marriages have become routine.
In perhaps a dozen other states, mainly in the South and the Great Plains, majorities still think that gay and lesbian couples should not be allowed to marry, studies indicate. Some conservative leaders promise to keep defending that view whatever the Supreme Court decrees — and even if they have few practical options.
“If the government wants to pretend to redefine marriage, I don’t think that will settle the issue,” said Tami Fitzgerald, the executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition.
Still, once the Supreme Court speaks, in a decision widely expected to make same-sex marriage a national right, the opponents’ anger and energies are likely to focus on a more limited issue, what they call protections for conservative religious officials or vendors who want to avoid involvement in same-sex weddings.
Justin Wolfers digs into whether there's always a first quarter slump in the economic numbers, and whether it's real or an artifact:
I reached out to the government statisticians at the Bureau of Economic Analysis to try to understand what lies behind the recurrent first-quarter slump. Their reaction seemed to suggest that they too were surprised by these findings, and they are digging into them. In a statement, Brent Moulton, the associate director for national economic accounts, said they were “currently examining residual seasonality in several series, which may lead to improvements in seasonal adjustments during the regular annual revision to G.D.P. scheduled for July.”
Dana Milbank:
Republicans again appeal to theocracy
No difference between the parties? Think again.