Ethics Nominee Represents Stability in a Sea of Chaos

Date
Body

Some challenges will be insurmountable, but at least Rounds is committed to government ethics program

“I was very excited to learn the White House is nominating Emory Rounds to be OGE’s next Director,” said Walter Shaub, senior director, ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “I have known him since 2006 when he was the deputy to the Bush administration’s ethics official, Richard Painter. Emory is a good and decent man who has devoted his life to public service. He believes in the government ethics program, and he will ably lead OGE. I’m sure the staff is relieved to learn the nominee is someone steeped in knowledge of – and concern for – the ethics program, rather than a political appointee with a partisan agenda. I hope the Senate confirms Emory quickly, because we need a new permanent head of OGE. He’s a great pick for this position.”

“Some challenges will be insurmountable, such as persuading the President to divest his conflicting financial interests or getting the White House to be more transparent about the ethics problems of its immediate staff. However, Emory is the right person to hold OGE together and preserve as much of the ethics program as possible. As a nominee to be Director, I think he represents a degree of stability in a sea of chaos.”

Issues

Resignation Leaves Nation’s Only Election Watchdog on Life Support

Date
Body

A Federal Election Commission that functions and enforces the law is critical to a healthy democracy

WASHINGTON – Lee Goodman announced Wednesday that he is stepping down from his post as Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This strips the FEC down to four commissioners, which is the bare minimum number of votes for a quorum. Unanimous votes will now be required to take any action, such as passing rules or punishing lawbreakers. If one more commissioner steps down, the FEC would lose the authority to take official action.

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and a former Republican chairman of the FEC, released the following statement:

“The FEC is the only government agency dedicated to overseeing the integrity of our political campaigns. We are facing the real possibility of a de facto FEC shutdown ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, and this couldn’t come at a worse time. Left unaddressed, the vulnerabilities in U.S. elections exposed in 2016 will only be exploited to greater effect by foreign actors in 2018 and beyond. We must not allow the nation’s election watchdog to bleed out.”

“The American people witnessed unprecedented campaign finance violations in 2016, including illegal foreign spending, a lack of transparency around the sources of millions in election spending, candidates and super PACs illegally working hand in hand and government contracts being awarded to corporations that gave six-figure donations during the presidential campaign.”

“A functioning and effective FEC that enforces the law is necessary for a healthy democracy. It is critically important that President Trump prioritize appointing FEC commissioners who will faithfully execute their duty to enforce the law.”

DC Council Passes Bill to Empower Small Donors in District Elections

Date
Body

Mayor Bowser should support this public financing program, which incentivizes District candidates to seek support from a wider group of young, diverse voters

WASHINGTON - Today, the Council of the District of Columbia voted decisively to approve the Fair Elections Act of 2017. The District will join nearly 30 other jurisdictions across the country with a public financing system. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is part of the DC Fair Elections Coalition and testified in support of the bill at a committee hearing.

“The Council has taken an important step to reduce the dependence candidates have on big donors and developers. The Fair Elections Act will empower small donors by amplifying their voices in District elections,” said Catie Kelley, director, policy and state programs at CLC. “From nearby Montgomery County, Maryland to Seattle, jurisdictions across the country are moving toward citizen-funded elections. This is an important step but we urge the Council to continue its efforts to reform the District’s campaign finance system by passing pay-to-play reform.”

“By design, public financing programs encourage candidates to draw more voters into the political process,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation at CLC, who testified before the Council on June 29, 2017. "Mayor Bowser should support this program, which will incentivize District candidates to seek support from a diverse set of voters, instead of from developers and others who try to buy influence with campaign contributions. Funding this bill will benefit the District for decades to come."

The voluntary system allows qualified candidates an initial grant followed by a five-to-one match on small donations with a maximum amount of public funds depending on the office they are seeking. The Office of Campaign Finance is charged with administering and enforcing the new Fair Elections Program, and it is required to submit a report to the Mayor and Council after each election. New York City’s successful system has a similar review provision.

Read the testimony CLC submitted to the D.C. Council in support of the Fair Elections Act, which analyzes the bill’s details, provides recommendations, and uses studies of multiple jurisdictions to show how matching funds programs give candidates a financial incentive to reach out to a greater number of voters.

 

Supreme Court Denies Request to Expedite Briefing on North Carolina Gerrymandering Case in Maps Challenged by Campaign Legal Center

Date
Body

Today, the Supreme Court has decided to decline to expedite briefing in the North Carolina partisan gerrymandering cases. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) represent the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, one of the groups challenging the state’s 2016 congressional map. CLC, the SCSJ, and litigators representing Common Cause filed a request for expedited briefing on January 24.

“We will continue fighting for the citizens of North Carolina to be able to vote under fair maps in 2018, since the facts of the case remain strong,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “The Supreme Court has the opportunity to adopt the standard for measuring partisan gerrymandering presented to the justices in the Wisconsin case – and by striking down those maps this term – have a clear path forward to doing the same in North Carolina. In both cases, bipartisan panels of judges have found that the gerrymanders are so extreme that they violate the constitution.”

This term, the Supreme Court will decide CLC’s case challenging Wisconsin’s state assembly maps as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. CLC and co-counsel represent 11 marginalized voters in the state in the landmark case, Gill v. WhitfordThe federal district court in North Carolina applied the same tests for measuring partisan symmetry as applied in the Wisconsin case, indicating that there is a manageable way to consistently measure what constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Read more about the case League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho.

Issues

Zimmerman v. City of Austin

At a Glance

Zimmerman v. City of Austin is a First Amendment challenge to Austin’s municipal campaign finance law, including its contribution limits for city council candidates. CLC is arguing that Austin’s contribution limits should be upheld.

Status
Closed
Updated
About This Case/Action

Summary

Zimmerman v. City of Austin is a First Amendment challenge to Austin’s municipal campaign finance law, including its contribution limits for city council candidates. For decades, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the contribution limits serve the important goal of preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption, while at the same time only minimally burdening First Amendment rights.

UPDATE: On February 1, the Fifth Circuit panel issued a unanimous opinion, upholding the city's contribution limits. But the fight to protect contribution limits is not over, as we expect the decision to be appealed.

What’s at Stake?

Thirty-nine states and countless local governments limit the amount of money donors can contribute to candidates. Courts have long recognized that these laws are effective tools at preventing corruption and its appearance. If the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals adopts Zimmerman’s proposed rigorous standard of review, contribution limits across the country will be opened up to new scrutiny and decades of settled law will be called into question. This would hamstring the ability of state and local governments to fight corruption in government.

Background

In 1997, voters in Austin, Texas enacted a campaign finance reform law that, among other things, capped the amount donors could give to candidates for city council, created a black-out period during which candidates could not receive campaign donations, and required that unused campaign funds be spent or donated to charity shortly after the election. In 2006, the Austin City Council revised the contribution limits and pegged them to inflation; in 2016, the contribution limit was $350.

An incumbent city council member, Donald Zimmerman, filed a federal lawsuit against the city in 2015 arguing that these campaign finance regulations violated the First Amendment. The district court upheld the contribution limits, but invalidated the black-out period and dissolution requirements.

Zimmerman appealed the district court’s decision upholding the contribution limits to the Fifth Circuit, and the city cross-appealed the invalidation of the black-out period provision and the dissolution requirement. Throughout the litigation, Zimmerman has advocated that longstanding precedent upholding contribution limits be set aside and replaced with a far more demanding standard that would jeopardize similar contribution limits across the country.

On July 20, 2016, the district court upheld the contribution limits, but invalidated other provisions of the law. On appeal, Zimmerman, the former city council member who brought the suit, is asking the Fifth Circuit to reject the longstanding precedent upholding contribution limits as constitutional, and instead adopt a rigorous standard of review that would eliminate decades of deference courts have granted to legislatures in determining whether to adopt contribution limits and which dollar level to choose.

CLC, along with Dēmos, filed an amicus brief on May 8, 2017, arguing that Austin’s contribution limits should be upheld. CLC’s brief emphasizes the Supreme Court resolved this issue long ago—that Austin has the right to employ contribution limits as a means of preventing corruption and its appearance and that the court should defer to its judgment in setting the right amount for those limits.

Plaintiffs

Donald Zimmerman

Defendant

City of Austin

CLC Report: U.S. Elections Remain Vulnerable to Foreign Influence

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released a report detailing the vulnerabilities of American elections to foreign interference that were exposed in the 2016 presidential election. The report outlines solutions for addressing this most urgent issue, which would protect the integrity of our democracy for the upcoming 2018 elections and beyond. Listen to the recording of a call hosted by the report's authors.

Foreign interference is a democracy issue, and the importance of addressing it goes far beyond the 2016 election. It is about protecting the foundations of our representative form of government, particularly in a world where political advertising is increasingly moving online. From the targeted theft of emails from political parties, to purported offers of opposition research, from a secret social media advertising campaign, to attempted hacking of state election systems, the 2016 elections showed that foreign interference could come in many forms. Our system was not equipped to handle it. In 2018, these threats could come from Russia again, or any number of other foreign countries or actors with an interest in influencing or disrupting U.S. democracy. The report is written by six authors and is a byproduct of a full-day event hosted by CLC in October 2017 convening legal experts, academics, journalists, and practitioners from across disciplines to address the pressing matter of foreign interference in U.S. elections.

“Left unaddressed, the vulnerabilities in U.S. elections exposed in 2016 will only be exploited to greater effect by foreign actors in 2018 and beyond,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). “Addressing gaps in our campaign finance law requires a dual strategy that strengthens our ability to deter foreign actors and strengthens our defenses. The President, Congress, and the FEC must treat foreign efforts to influence our elections as a top-tier national security threat and act urgently to reestablish America’s ability to prevent future meddling.”

“Both Congress and the FEC have largely failed to update laws and regulations as political campaigning has increasingly moved online,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. “This created a system with many gaps in the law, which Russia secretly exploited. The FEC is the only government agency dedicated to overseeing the integrity of our elections. It must take action to improve transparency for digital ads. The desire of foreign governments and other foreign interests to influence U.S. elections and policy is unlikely to abate, so the time for action is now.”

Campaign finance loopholes allowed Russia to secretly purchase thousands of digital political ads that reached millions of Americans. This included at least 3,000 political ads on Facebook. The Honest Ads Act is a bipartisan step forward that would help prevent foreign actors from influencing our elections by ensuring that political ads sold online are subject to the same disclosure requirements as ads sold on TV and radio. CLC advised the offices of the Senators who sponsored this legislation. It has yet to receive a hearing.

CLC makes the following recommendations within the report:

  • The FEC and internet platforms should require political advertisers to identify themselves to voters.
  • Congress should strengthen disclosure laws, including by passing the bipartisan HONEST Ads Act.
  • Further research and analysis are needed to develop an effective approach to social media bot activity.
  • The public and private sectors should strengthen voters’ media literacy.
  • Congress must bolster our election infrastructure security and modernize voting equipment.
  • Addressing foreign interference must be treated as a national priority.

This report was made possible with support from the Democracy Fund.
 

Lamone v. Benisek

At a Glance

Residents from the state of Maryland have brought a partisan gerrymandering challenge claiming their First Amendment rights were violated and they were discriminated against because of their political party affiliations when the state drastically redrew the sixth congressional district to unseat the incumbent Republican member of congress and ensure the election of a Democrat.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
About This Case/Action

Petitioners from the state of Maryland have brought a partisan gerrymandering case claiming their First Amendment rights were violated and they were discriminated against because of their political party affiliations when the state drastically redrew the sixth congressional district to unseat the incumbent Republican member of congress and ensure the election of a Democrat. Maryland's redistricting process happened in 2011, and the result was a severe partisan bias.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for this case on March 26, 2019.

Plaintiffs

John Benisek

Defendant

Linda H. Lamone, Administrator, Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.