Today, in three consolidated cases arising from the ongoing Wisconsin John Doe investigation, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent—and Wisconsin state precedent— to significantly narrow Wisconsin’s restrictions on the coordination of expenditures between candidates and outside groups.  The controversial decision was handed down by a narrow court majority that includes two judges whose own elections were bankrolled by millions spent by the same dark money groups under investigation in the John Doe probe.  Prosecutors had called for their recusal.

The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, Common Cause in Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, filed an amici brief in the case urging the court to uphold the coordination restrictions.

The court agreed with the petitioners’ argument that if coordinated expenditures do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates, then they cannot be subject to regulation or limitation.  The U.S. Supreme Court specifically rejected that argument in McConnell v. FEC, holding that “there is no reason why Congress may not treat coordinated disbursements for electioneering communications,” i.e., a form of non-express advocacy, “in the same way it treats all other coordinated expenditures.”

“This ruling is an outrageous act of judicial activism that outright ignores clear Supreme Court precedent recognizing that expenditures coordinated by outside groups with candidates are little more than ‘disguised contributions’ made to the candidates themselves, regardless of whether or not the audience is expressly instructed to vote for or against a candidate,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “In fact, the majority does not cite a single Supreme Court precedent pertaining to ‘coordinated expenditures,’ an extraordinary omission in a case that purports to review the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s laws in this area.”

Ms. Malloy continued: “At least two of the justices in the majority should have recused themselves from the case because the groups under investigation played major roles in electing those justices to the court.  The U.S. Supreme Court has not looked kindly on such blatant conflicts of interest, holding as recently as 2009 that the due process concerns required that a judge recuse himself from a case involving an individual who had spent millions of dollars to aid his election.  Today, two of the Wisconsin justices named in the Special Prosecutor’s recusal motion declined to recuse themselves without offering any rationale to justify the plain conflict of interest.”

The consolidated case centered around a challenge to a so-called John Doe investigation of alleged illegal coordination between the campaign of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and outside groups.  That investigation was blocked until various challenges were resolved.

To read the opinion, click here.

To read the amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause in Wisconsin, Democracy 21 and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, click here.

On Monday, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation, urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to strengthen the way the agency collects and discloses information to the public and to enforce its existing rules.  In a filing made in response to the agency’s request for comment on local public inspection files and political files, the groups, represented by the Institute for Public Representation of the Georgetown University Law Center, proposed changes to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information the FCC collects. 

“These public files can be a great resource to the public.  But if broadcasters do not comply with the requirement and the FCC does not enforce the rules -- despite receiving complaints detailing clear violations -- then the public is kept in the dark,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director.  “These are not arduous requirements.  It is past time to get these public files into the standardized, searchable, sortable format that is the agency’s professed goal and for the FCC to ensure broadcasters comply with them.”

The FCC and the public use the information from the public files to help evaluate broadcast stations’ performance, to ensure the stations address issues of concern to the communities they serve, and to ensure that stations comply the Commission’s policies.      

In the comments filed at the FCC, CLC and the groups outlined two ways to improve the political file information collection.  First, the groups urged the FCC to improve enforcement.  The Commission has never acted on complaints filed against TV stations that have failed to abide by the online file requirements, even though the agency has received proof of violations from CLC et al. 

Second, the groups urged the Commission to require that data be reported according to a standard database format.  Currently, TV stations submit PDFs of paper documents, even though the stations themselves keep the information in digital format.  As a result of using PDFs, the current FCC database is difficult to navigate and impossible to accurately understand the information in the political file.  The FCC itself noted that a “structured and database-friendly format that can be aggregated, manipulated and more easily analyzed” is the Commission’s goal.  Using such a format is also less burdensome to TV stations that currently take data from a computer, print it out and then upload it to the FCC database.

Also, the Campaign Legal Center and the groups urged the Commission to extend the online public filing to other media and to require stations to file shared services agreements (“SSAs”), which give a station substantial influence over the operations of one or more stations in the same television market.  SSAs have been used to circumvent current limitations on the number of media outlets that can be owned in a media market.

The request for comments was part of the Commission’s on-going compliance with information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Over the past several years, the groups pushed successfully to get the FCC to enact rules requiring broadcast stations to put their political files online in an FCC database, which took effect for all television stations July 1, 2014.  In a separate proceeding, the groups are also currently urging the Commission to extend the requirements to cable, satellite and radio.

To read the comments filed Monday by the Legal Center and other groups, click here.

Today in Wagner v. FEC, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected an effort to overturn the 70-year-old ban on political contributions from federal contractors to federal candidates, parties and other political committees.  The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief in the case in support of the contractor contribution ban. 

“This is a major victory for democracy and we are pleased to see no dissent on the court in upholding this critical bulwark against corruption and the appearance of corruption in the awarding of government contracts,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “Longstanding legal precedent and the long and dismal history of contracting scandals clearly support the law.  Pay-to-play scandals are as old as the Republic, and this Court has again recognized the vital public interest in preventing such abuses.”   

This restriction on campaign contributions from persons and entities contracting with the federal government was enacted in 1940 to address corruption in federal contracting in the wake of persistent scandals, most notably the “Democratic campaign book” scandal.

In November 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the FEC, finding that the federal ban was enacted to “prevent corruption and the appearance thereof and, in so doing, to protect the integrity of the electoral system by ensuring that federal contracts were awarded based on merit.”  But on May 31, 2013, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court decision on procedural grounds, holding that the plaintiffs should have instead proceeded under 2 U.S.C. § 437h (now 52 U.S.C. § 30110) to the en banc Court of Appeals.  The case was remanded to the district court, which then certified constitutional questions back to the Court of Appeals.  Oral argument was heard by the full D.C. Circuit Court on September 30, 2014.  

The Legal Center, along with Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed amici briefs in this case in the district court and twice in the Court of Appeals in defense of the contractor contribution ban.

To read the opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court issued today, click here.

To read the amici brief filed with the en banc D.C. Circuit Court by the Legal Center, along with Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, click here.

Today in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Arizona state constitutional amendment passed by voters giving an independent commission responsibility for the state’s redistricting.  The law was challenged by the Arizona State Legislature, which the amendment stripped of its redistricting responsibilities after a series of blatantly extreme political gerrymanders.  The Legal Center, along with other groups advocating representative democracy, filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court in support of the constitutionality of Arizona’s independent redistricting commission.

“Today’s decision is a victory for representative democracy and a sharp rebuke to the Arizona legislators who sued to overturn the popular will of the state’s citizens in order to regain their ability to handpick their constituents and safeguard their seats through blatant political gerrymanders,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director.  “Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that Members of Congress will be chosen ‘by the People of the several States,’ not that Members of Congress will handpick the constituents most likely to reelect them.  It is outrageous that the Arizona State Legislature had the audacity to challenge the clear will of the citizens of its own state in order to regain the power to gerrymander.  We are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of voters over their elected officials, but disappointed to see four Justices willing to deny voters a fair chance to choose their own representatives.”

The challenge was brought under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”  In February 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that when voters acted to amend the state's constitution and create the commission, they were acting in the capacity of the Legislature.

A court victory by the Arizona Legislature would inevitably have prompted lawsuits challenging a number of similar state redistricting commissions, most notably California’s.  Redistricting commissions in a number of states were created by the legislatures, but in California voters passed a similar state constitutional amendment in the face of stiff opposition from political party officials and state legislative leaders. 

The groups joining in the brief in support of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission included the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters of the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundations, Common Cause and Democracy 21.  The Campaign Legal Center gratefully acknowledges the work of Paul M. Smith, Jessica Ring Amunson and other attorneys of Jenner & Block LLP.

To read the opinion, click here.

To read the brief filed by the Legal Center and other groups, click here.

Today, Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) and Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH) introduced a bipartisan bill to overhaul the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and break the gridlock that has left the federal campaign finance watchdog incapable of performing many of its most important duties.  The Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Act would reform an agency where enforcement actions and rulemakings have ground to a halt in recent years despite a spike in apparent violations and a pressing need to promulgate new rules in responses to Supreme Court decisions striking down a number of longstanding campaign finance laws.  Representatives Lou Barletta (R-PA) and John Carney (D-DE) are also original cosponsors of the bill.

“In the vacuum created by the FEC’s breakdown, candidates, committees and outside groups of both parties and at all levels have engaged with impunity in what appear to be violations of law, using soft money for federal campaigns, creating and coordinating with allegedly ‘independent’ groups, and ignoring disclosure requirements,” said Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center President and former FEC Chair.  “Congress gave the FEC power to enforce the campaign finance laws, and did not expect it to become gridlocked and unable to act.  This bill will enable the FEC to do its job.  I commend this bipartisan group of Members of Congress for addressing this urgent issue.  This is a subject on which bipartisan solutions are badly needed, and they have provided that.”

Rep. Kilmer recently invited Potter to join him for a telephone town hall with his constituents to share his insights on reforming the FEC and campaign finance laws in general.  

The Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Act would:

• Reduce the number of Commissioners from six to five to eliminate stalemates.

• End the practice of Commissioners serving indefinitely until a replacement is confirmed by the Senate.

• Create a blue ribbon advisory panel to recommend nominees to the President for vacancies on the Commission.

• Delegate some administrative and investigatory tasks to the Chair to ensure timely investigations of alleged violations and to ensure the smooth operation of the agency.

• Maintain the requirement for a majority of the Commission to vote to initiate or take civil action against someone who violates federal election law, issue advisory opinions, engage in rulemaking, and conduct investigations and hearings.  

To see the text of the bill, click here.

Today, as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) introduce the Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) on the eve of the second anniversary of Shelby County v. Holder, the Campaign Legal Center is releasing a short film focusing on a lifelong voter disenfranchised by Texas’ voter photo ID law (SB 14).  The most restrictive and burdensome voter ID law in the nation, the Texas law was rejected by the Department of Justice prior to the Shelby County ruling and is a perfect example of why Congress needs to pass new legislation to protect the rights of all citizens to vote. 

The new three and a half minute film produced by Firelight Media traces the efforts of the Campaign Legal Center’s Voter ID Project to assist Tony, a longtime registered Texas voter, to overcome the many hurdles erected by the new law in order to obtain the photo ID required by SB 14 in order to vote.  

“Tony’s deeply troubling story puts a very human face on the impact of a heartless law that disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Texans, and intentionally and disproportionately stripped the right to vote from minority voters,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Rep. Lewis’ and Sen. Leahy’s Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 will restore the voting rights protections undermined by the Supreme Court two years ago in its wrong-headed Shelby County decision.  The two-year anniversary of that terrible decision is two years too many without sufficient protections for voting rights.  States and municipalities around the country – but particularly in formerly ‘covered’ jurisdictions that were subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act before Shelby County - have taken advantage of the vacuum in voting rights protections created by that decision to adopt a wide range of voting laws designed to make voting more difficult and in many cases impossible for huge numbers of minorities and the poor.  It is long past time for Congress to right the wrong done to our democracy by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder.”

To watch the film, click here.

To watch a previously released longer film, click here.

Today, in Han-Noggle v. City of Albuquerque, the Campaign Legal Center filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae and an accompanying amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to partially reverse a district court decision awarding fees to the City of Albuquerque in a civil rights lawsuit.  The brief clarifies the legal standards for awarding fees to prevailing civil rights defendants.  The brief further emphasizes that the City of Albuquerque has pursued an abusive policy of liberally seeking fees against civil rights plaintiffs in order to discourage such suits, including, most notably, in Baca v. Berry, where the CLC represents individual citizens who the city has attempted to fine for seeking to vindicate their voting rights.     

“The district court applied the wrong standard in awarding fees to the City of Albuquerque and the City now urges the Tenth Circuit to compound the district court’s error,” said Joshua Bone, the Legal Center attorney who argued before the Tenth Circuit in Baca.  “This is not the first time that the City has sought to intimidate its own citizens in court by seeking to recover attorneys’ fees against civil rights plaintiffs.  We hope that the Tenth Circuit will help bring this abuse of powers to an end by reversing the district court’s partial attorneys’ fees award and refusing the City’s invitation to further punish its own citizens.”   

Currently the Legal Center represents four Albuquerque voters against the City of Albuquerque in Baca v. Berry, a voting rights case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  Earlier this month the Legal Center filed a motion for sanctions against the city and its attorneys for pursuing a frivolous cross-appeal in bad faith.  This cross-appeal had sought to force the voters to pay the city’s attorneys’ fees after they challenged a controversial city redistricting plan. 

To read the Legal Center’s amicus brief, click here.

To read the Legal Center’s motion for sanctions in Baca, click here.