The airwaves across the country are flooded with political advertisements and it’s only going to increase as Election Day approaches.  Candidate ads, independent expenditure ads, electioneering communications and issue ads are everywhere.  What are they? Who can fund them?  What are they required to disclose about their funding to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? A new easy-to-read chart from the Campaign Legal Center has the answers all in one place.

The chart breaks down the types of ads, their permitted funding sources, FEC and FCC disclosure requirements and other rules that apply to each type of broadcast advertisement.  

To view the “Federal Rules for Political Advertising on Television and Radio” chart, click here.

To view a related chart defining the types of outside groups (527s and the various 501(c) organizations) and outlining their tax status, permitted activities, and disclosure requirements under federal tax and election laws, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief in Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss a challenge to the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure provisions upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as the 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision.

Plaintiffs are seeking to run broadcast ads referring to Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) shortly before Election Day without disclosing its donors.  The challenged law requires such disclosure when groups spend more than $10,000 on “electioneering communications”—defined as any television or radio ad that mentions the name of a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election.  Congress enacted the “electioneering communications” disclosure law as part of the McCain-Feingold Act to curb widespread evasion of earlier disclosure requirements that applied only to “express advocacy” ads.  Since then, the Supreme Court has twice upheld the “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements: first in McConnell v. FEC (2003) in a facial challenge, and again in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in an as-applied challenge nearly identical to the current lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs are openly asking the district court to ignore Supreme Court precedent—precedent set a mere four years ago by the Court in its 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The Supreme Court has repeatedly and unequivocally recognized the vital public interest in disclosing the identities of those seeking to influence elections.  In light of those rulings, plaintiff’s entire 26-page brief is an attempt to convince the district court that the eight Members of the Supreme Court who upheld the disclosure provisions in Citizens United did not mean what they said.”

To read the brief, click here.

Today, a diverse coalition of congressional scholars and watchdog groups urged House Leaders from both Parties to publicly commit to the continuation of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) for the 114th Congress and to do so well in advance of the coming elections.  The letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) notes OCE’s outstanding record and urges the House leaders to resist persistent calls from some in their respective caucuses to do away with the independent ethics investigator.

Created in 2008 in the wake of multiple scandals involving Members that resulted in a number of them doing jail time, the OCE has been attacked by a small number of Members who have proposed defunding or defanging the Office.    Prior to the creation of OCE, ethics investigations in the House were shrouded in secrecy, undermining public confidence in the committee.  The Committee operated behind closed doors, rarely took enforcement actions and developed a reputation for protecting its own.  The OCE has not only provided a credible means of investigating allegations against House Members, but has also created new levels of transparency as its investigations are eventually made public.  The resulting increase in disclosure and enforcement however, has made the OCE unpopular with some Members.     

“Each Congress since its inception, the House has come close to eliminating the OCE.  We are urging the bipartisan House Leadership to step up now and declare publicly that it stands behind the ethics watchdog,” said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The House Ethics Committee has proven time and again that it is not up to the task of enforcing the rules of conduct for Members, and the OCE provides an invaluable backstop to hold that body accountable and increase public confidence in the ethics process.  The House Ethics Committee’s ‘see no evil’ approach to ethics enforcement has alienated citizens and undermined their faith in their elected officials.  With congressional approval ratings wallowing at all-time lows, it is vitally important for the U.S. House of Representatives to show the public it does not feel it is above the law by guaranteeing the continued existence of the OCE.”    

Groups signing the letter are the Campaign Legal Center, Judicial Watch, Taxpayers for Common Sense, The Sunlight Foundation, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and Project on Government Oversight (POGO) along with Congressional Scholars Thomas Mann, Norm Ornstein and James Thurber.

To read the letter, click here. 

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici brief in New York Republican State Committee v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to deny a preliminary injunction and dismiss the latest challenge to pay-to-play laws. 

The state Republican parties of New York and Tennessee are challenging an SEC rule barring investment firms from managing state assets for two years after a firm or its associates make more than de minimis contributions to officeholders or candidates who have or would have power to award investment contracts.  

The rule was implemented after SEC and state investigations uncovered extensive evidence of fraud in the award of state investment contracts.  One such scheme involved former New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who was ultimately convicted of steering $250 million in pension funds to an investment firm in exchange for gifts and more than $500,000 in contributions.

“SEC and state investigators have prosecuted a long and sad laundry list of quid pro quo corruption in the awarding of state investment contracts to major donors,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Despite the claims of the state parties that the SEC cannot provide extensive evidence of quid pro quo arrangements between government officials and investment advisers, the record cites prosecutions in Connecticut, New Mexico, Illinois, Ohio, and Florida, as well as New York.  Pay-to-play laws are a vital bulwark helping to maintain the public’s faith in its government and its elected officials.  The courts have long recognized the vital public interest served by such laws.”

To read the brief, click here. 

In a letter sent today to the IRS, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center summarized comments they had submitted regarding the ongoing IRS rulemaking proceeding to consider new regulations to govern eligibility for section 501(c)(4) tax status.

The letter stated:

On May 7, 2014, the American Bar Association Section on Taxation submitted comments to you and other officials of the IRS and Treasury Department regarding a proposed regulation set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued last November, “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities” 78 Fed. Reg. 71535 (Nov. 29, 2013).

Given this submission, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center are writing to summarize the two sets of comments our organizations previously submitted to the IRS in the same rulemaking.  In one set of comments submitted on February 27, 2014, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, on behalf of ourselves and Representative Chris Van Hollen, addressed issues relating to the amount of campaign activity that social welfare groups are legally permitted to conduct under the Internal Revenue Code and under court interpretations of the Code.  In a second set of comments submitted on the same day, we addressed the definition of “candidate-related political activity.”

The IRS is expected to issue a new notice of proposed rulemaking in early 2015 that will set forth a revised proposed rule.  It is essential for the IRS to adopt a final rule in a timely manner in order to prevent further abuse of the tax laws in the 2016 election cycle by groups that claim to be social welfare organizations in order to hide the donors financing their campaign activities.

To view the full letter, click here.

Judge’s Error-Riddled Ruling Also Ordered Prosecutors to Destroy Evidence
 
Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reverse a district court order that halted an investigation into allegations of illegal coordination between the campaign of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and ostensibly “independent outside groups.” The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Randa in O’Keefe v. Chisholm additionally ordered prosecutors to destroy evidence gathered in the case tying the Governor and his campaign to outside groups, including Wisconsin Club for Growth. The brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 focuses entirely on the flawed First Amendment argument utilized by the Judge to enjoin the investigation.
 
“Judge Randa’s ruling completely disregarded longstanding Supreme Court precedent and instead invented a new theory that the First Amendment forbids regulation of any coordinated spending beyond express advocacy. We hope the Seventh Circuit will see fit to rectify this misguided order expeditiously,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “By narrowing the definition of coordination so drastically, Judge Randa’s ruling, if left standing, would allow and in fact encourage circumvention of the contribution limits on a massive scale, giving rise to exactly the type of quid pro quo corruption that the limits are intended to prevent.”
 
The Legal Center’s brief highlights that the Supreme Court formulated the express advocacy test only to modify the regulation of independent spending, not the regulation of contributions or coordinated spending. The brief also points out that Judge Randa’s holding is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld a federal statute authorizing the regulation of coordinated spending that is not express advocacy—namely, “electioneering communications.”
 
The Legal Center and Democracy 21 were aided in the filing of the amici brief by Paul Smith of Jenner and Block. To read the brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, click here.