Yesterday, the Campaign Legal Center joined with other nonprofit groups concerned with the integrity of the courts in filing an amici curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review en banc Wolfson v. Concannon, in which a three-judge circuit panel struck down Arizona rules for judicial conduct as applied to non-judge candidates, but left those rules standing for incumbent judicial candidates.

The three-judge panel struck down Arizona’s ban on judicial candidates personally soliciting political contributions, as well as its ban on judicial candidates endorsing, speaking in favor of or campaigning for non-judicial candidates—but only as these bans apply to non-judge candidates.

“Public trust in the judicial process is vital to the public’s faith in the courts, and the decision of the three-judge panel not only flies in the face of precedent, but also seriously threatens to undermine public trust in the judicial branch,” said Paul S. Ryan, Senior Counsel for The Campaign Legal Center.  “The ruling creates patently unfair electoral system where candidates running head-to-head for the same judicial office are subject to completely different sets of rules and begs a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit.”

The brief filed by the legal and judicial organizations in support of the State of Arizona raise other issues with the decision including the standard of scrutiny applied by the three-judge panel and warning that if let stand the opinion will spur a run of challenges on laws in other states within the Ninth Circuit.  

The other groups signing the brief included the Brennan Center for Justice, the Arizona Judges’ Association, the American Judicature Society and Justice at Stake.  Randolph Sherman and Robert Grass of Kate Scholer LLP are serving as attorneys for amici curiae.

To read the brief, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen urged the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to make its process of ethics investigations more transparent and more accountable.  In a letter to Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ranking Member Johnny Isakson (R-GA), the groups urged the creation of an independent ethics investigative office similar to the Office of Congressional Ethics Office (OCE) in the House.  In the short term, the watchdogs urged the Committee to undertake a variety of other reforms to improve the ethics process, increase transparency and help to restore public trust in the process.

The recommendations urged revising procedures to create timetables for public reports on the status of investigations; updating current requirements for ethics training for Senators and staff; reviewing and updating of current travel rules to curb abuses of the exception for privately financed travel; making public recommendations for effective implementation of the STOCK Act; and initiating extensive Senate outreach regarding permissible campaign activities.

“The Senate ethics process remains too insular and too opaque, and is often perceived as more interested in protecting the Senators’ ‘club’ than enhancing the institution's public credibility,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director.  “When ethics investigations go to the Committee and simply vanish for months or even years on end, the public loses confidence not only in the process but in their Senators.  It is time for the Senate to bring its ethics process into the 21st Century.”

“The Senate ethics process should be as transparent as possible,” said Lisa Gilbert, Director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.  “Too little information on ethics affairs undermines public trust in Congress and its ability to police itself.  We urge the Senate to move forward and create a similar body to the effective office of Congressional Ethics.”

“The Office of Congressional Ethics has been a hallmark in restoring the integrity of the ethics process in the House,” said Craig Holman Government Affairs Lobbyist for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.  “It is now firmly embraced by congressional leadership.  It works.  It is time for the Senate to open its ethics process to similar public oversight.”

To read the letter, detailing the recommendations to the Committee, click here.

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the Democratic Governors Association’s (DGA) request for a preliminary injunction and partially dismissed the DGA’s challenge to a number of the State of Connecticut’s post-Citizens United campaign finance reforms.  The DGA was seeking to make unlimited “independent” expenditures in support of Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s candidacy while at the same time having Governor Malloy fundraise for the DGA outside of Connecticut’s contribution limits and source prohibitions, and in many cases without disclosure.

The DGA sued after Connecticut’s State Election Enforcement Commission (SEEC) said that fundraising by a candidate for an organization could be evidence of coordination in some circumstances.  The DGA’s lawsuit claimed that the SEEC’s ruling and parts of the 2013 reform statute the Governor signed into law are interfering with its plans to have Governor Malloy raise money for the DGA not subject to the state’s campaign finance laws, while DGA makes unlimited expenditures for ads supporting Governor Malloy’s reelection. 

Judge Janet C. Hall granted Connecticut’s motion to dismiss the “coordination” challenge on the ground that DGA lacked standing, finding the perceived threat that the state will prosecute DGA for violation of the coordination restrictions purely speculative.  And though the court did conclude that DGA has standing to challenge the state law definition of “expenditure,” the court denied DGA’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the group is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the law.

“We are very pleased that Judge Hall rejected the DGA’s efforts to undermine the campaign finance reforms Governor Malloy signed into law last year,” said Larry Noble, Of Counsel to the Campaign Legal Center.  “The decision stops the DGA from moving much of its spending for Governor Malloy’s reelection into the shadows and allows the SEEC to ensure that the DGA’s support for the governor’s candidacy is truly independent of the governor’s campaign, as the law requires.  This is a victory for the people of Connecticut.”

The Legal Center, joined by three Connecticut watchdog groups, filed amici briefs in the case urging the court to deny the preliminary injunction requested and to instead dismiss the suit.

“We are pleased that the DGA did not succeed in undermining Connecticut’s strong disclosure and coordination laws,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, senior vice president for program and strategy of Common Cause.  “We are grateful to the attorneys at the Campaign Legal Center for their expertise on disclosure laws and their work on the amici brief that they submitted on behalf of Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut.”

Patrick Tomasiewicz, of Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, is serving as Counsel of Record in the filings.

To read today’s ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granting in part the state's motion to dismiss the suit, click here.

To read the supplemental amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut (June 6, 2014), click here. 

To read the groups’ first amici brief (May 13, 2014), click here.

On Friday, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by three Connecticut watchdog groups, filed a supplemental amici brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut urging the court to reject an attempt by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) to broaden the scope of its recently filed challenge to Connecticut’s campaign finance laws. DGA initially sought to bar the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) from considering Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy’s fundraising activities for the DGA if questions arise as to whether the DGA’s expenditures for Governor Malloy’s reelection were truly independent of his campaign. Now, the DGA seeks to reinvent its case as a broad attack on all of the rules applicable to organizations whose major purpose is election or defeat of candidates in Connecticut.

“It is clear that the Democratic Governors Association’s ultimate goal is to take down a whole range of Connecticut’s post-Citizens United reforms,” said Larry Noble, Of Counsel to the Campaign Legal Center.  “If successful, the activities of organizations, like the DGA, that are actively trying to elect or defeat candidates in Connecticut will move into the shadows. This audacious effort is an affront to the ideals of transparency and good government that Governor Malloy purports to uphold.” 

The DGA’s more aggressive attack on the campaign finance reforms Governor Malloy signed into law last year came in its most recent filings with the court, where it argues that the fact that a group’s purpose is to elect candidates and it spends money in Connecticut elections does not mean it can be required to register as a political committee and abide by Connecticut’s limits, prohibitions and reporting rules. The initial brief filed by the reform groups asked the court to dismiss the DGA suit outright or to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction on grounds that the DGA is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims; the supplemental brief filed Friday repeats that request, and urges the Court to refuse DGA’s improper attempts to transform and broaden its claims in the lawsuit. 

Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut joined in the brief.  Patrick Tomasiewicz, of Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, is serving as Counsel of Record in the filings.

To read the supplemental amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut (June 6, 2014), click here.

To read the groups’ first amici brief (May 13, 2014), click here.

On June 2, the State of Delaware filed its opening brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the reversal of a lower court decision that preliminarily enjoined Delaware’s disclosure law as applied to a nonprofit group, Delaware Strong Families (DSF). The case, Delaware Strong Families v. Biden, involves a constitutional challenge to Delaware's new electioneering communications law.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the vital governmental interest in promoting transparent elections,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “Delaware’s disclosure law does just that.”

Lawyers from the law firm WilmerHale and the Campaign Legal Center represent the Defendants, Delaware Attorney General Joseph R. Biden III and Delaware Commissioner of Elections Elaine Manlove.

To read the brief, click here.

Today, in ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, the Ninth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to disclosure requirements in California’s Political Reform Act that require state ballot measure committees to identify their campaign contributors above a $100 reporting threshold.  The groups that brought the case—which raised and spent tens of millions of dollars in 2008 in support of Proposition 8, a successful statewide ballot initiative that has since been invalidated— sought to overturn these disclosure requirements as unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to them, on the basis of claimed “harassment” directed at their campaign donors.  The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s determination that the laws are facially valid but did not reach the merits of the as-applied claims, finding instead that the intervening disclosure of the groups’ contributors rendered their appeal non-justifiable.

“Today’s decision deals yet another blow to the coordinated campaign against transparency being waged in courts nationwide.  The groups bringing these challenges across the country have repeatedly tried to equate mere criticism they may have received from their political opponents with the very unique circumstances that have warranted exemption from disclosure laws in past cases,” said Megan McAllen, Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “This is not the NAACP in the Jim Crow South or even the Socialist Workers Party but simply another group seeking to influence election outcomes anonymously. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that disclosure—in all but the rarest of cases—is a constitutional means to provide voters with vital information about the sources of campaign money and enables them to evaluate the interests seeking to influence their votes.  These dogged attempts to evade constitutionally sound disclosure laws are simply untenable.”

The Campaign Legal Center previously filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals supporting California’s disclosure laws and urging the Court to uphold the decision below.  

To read the Legal Center’s brief in ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, click here.