Today, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) voluntarily withdrew its appeal of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) requirement to upload its public inspection files online to an FCC database.  The NAB had appealed the 2008 Order imposing the online file requirement, which required television stations to put these files in digital format and make them more readily available online.  The Campaign Legal Center, along with Common Cause and the Benton Foundation, represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown Law, intervened in support of the FCC.  The case had been held in abeyance as the FCC dealt with petitions for reconsideration and as the broadcasters gauged the impact of the new requirement.

The FCC phased in the requirement.  First, top-four affiliate stations in the top 50 markets had to upload their files beginning in 2012.  Then, the FCC gradually expanded the requirement to all broadcasters in all TV markets last year.  Implementation of the online file has been smooth.

“Requiring broadcasters to put their public file online was a no-brainer,” said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Both its name and its purpose reflect the intention that the file be publicly accessible, but the public virtually never saw them unless they were willing to travel to the station and request the opportunity to review them.  Broadcasters maintain their programming information in digital format, so in fact it was more burdensome for the stations to produce the statutorily required information on paper.”

“Now the FCC should take the next logical steps to require the information to be filed in a standardized, searchable, and sortable database.  Currently, most stations upload ’pdfs’ with no standard format. And further the agency should follow through on its proposed rulemaking to expand the requirements to cable, satellite and radio.”

In December, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would expand the online requirements to cable, satellite and radio.  The rulemaking process was initiated in response to a petition filed last year by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation, represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown Law.  The groups encouraged the agency to act expeditiously on the request.

To read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, click here.

To read the petition for rulemaking, 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 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject the latest challenge to pay-to-play laws brought by the state Republican parties of New York and Tennessee. 

On September 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge brought by the state Republican parties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the SEC that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was vested with jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the play-to-play rule.  The parties have now filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The SEC rule being challenged bars investment firms from managing state assets, like pension funds, 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.

“The courts have long recognized the danger of quid pro quo corruption inherent in the awarding of government contracts and has upheld pay-to-play laws against a variety of challenges over the decades,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Pay-to-play laws serve the vital public interest in protecting the integrity of government and the public’s faith in its elected officials.  The extensive list of pay-to-play corruption in the awarding of exactly these types of state investment contracts is jaw-dropping in both its scale and geographic distribution, 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.  In addition to the egregious example out of New York State, the record further cites similar prosecutions in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico and Ohio.”

 To read the brief filed today, click here.

To read the District Court’s memorandum opinion and order dismissing the case, click here and here.

Today in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, groups advocating representative democracy filed an amici brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of an Arizona state constitutional amendment passed by voters giving an independent commission responsibility over congressional redistricting. The law is being challenged by the Arizona State Legislature, which engaged in a series of extreme political gerrymanders that led voters to approve the creation of an independent redistricting commission.

"The fact that this law is being challenged by legislators who desire to rig the process once again speaks volumes about why Arizonans voted to put that responsibility into the hands of an independent commission," said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Associate Executive Director. "The Constitution guarantees that Members of Congress will be chosen 'by the People of the several States' -- not that Members of Congress or legislators will handpick their constituents in the several States. As we note in our brief, the U.S. Supreme Court 'has made clear that it believes extreme partisan gerrymandering is a significant problem that amounts to disruption of our constitutional order.' But a practicable standard for adjudication has remained elusive, so voters like those in Arizona have had no recourse but to take matters into their own hands."

The challenge is being brought under the elections-clause of the U.S. Constitution which states in part 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 federal court in 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.

While the case could be decided narrowly, a broader ruling could impact a number of similar state redistricting commissions across the country. The redistricting commissions in most of the states were created by the legislatures, but in California voters passed a similar state constitutional amendment in the face of stiff opposition from legislators.

The groups joining in the brief in support of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission include 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 attorneys at Jenner & Block LLP who serve as lead counsel for our amici group.

To read the brief, click here.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 2, 2015.

The course will review campaign finance and voting rights cases, and will provide students opportunities to prepare legal memoranda and briefs in pending cases.  Students may also review proposed legislative materials, at a time when voting rights and campaign finance reforms are facing new challenges across the country.

“Voting rights and campaign finance litigation is highly specialized but vitally important work for the health of our democracy, and this course allows students to get under the hood and get their hands dirty in pending cases,” said J. Gerald Hebert of the Legal Center.  “Our goal is to help prepare students to make an impact in these fields at a watershed moment.  The U.S. Supreme Court has drastically altered voting rights and campaign finance law under Chief Justice John Roberts, making the coming years a critical period in the courts for both fields.  I know from experience that Georgetown University law students are exceptional and motivated students who will produce excellent work product to aid our effort to uphold existing campaign finance laws and safeguard the right to vote.”   

The semester-long course consists of a weekly two-hour seminar and ten-hours of supervised work per week.

“The Supreme Court was very clear in stating that base contribution limits serve a vital government interest by preventing corruption of public officials and went on to cite FEC rules that ensure those limits are not circumvented,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Unfortunately, the Court didn’t realize that the FEC hasn’t been enforcing some of the rules, and other rules cited by the Court are riddled with loopholes.  The FEC must fix and enforce the corruption-preventing rules cited by the Court.  Additionally, the Commission should strengthen the coordination rules and issue rules for the new party accounts slipped into the omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the last Congress.”

In December, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill that included a completely unrelated amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act to raise the contribution limit to party committees exponentially for specific activities, but its language is broad and ripe for abuse.  The outstanding coordination issues relate to extensive cooperation between candidates and outside groups that is allowed by the current ineffective coordination regulations—at odds with recent Supreme Court decisions promising that outside group spending would be totally independent of candidates.

The comments filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 offer very specific recommendations to the FEC on effective implementation of new and existing regulations in order to prevent widespread circumvention of the base contribution limits and to properly regulate outside groups and party committee spending in keeping with the laws passed by Congress. 

Both the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 requested an opportunity to testify at the FEC’s February 11 hearing on the matter.

To read the comments filed today by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, click here.

Last night, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, urged the State Ethics Commission of New Jersey to investigate possible violations of the state’s ethics and conflict of interest laws by Governor Chris Christie.  The Governor accepted chartered flights and free tickets to games from Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, who is a significant stakeholder in a company awarded lucrative contracts with the Port Authority.  According to press reports, Governor Christie personally pushed for the Port Authority to award the contract to Legends Hospitality LLC to operate the observation deck on the top floor of One World Trade Center.  Further, the Governor has extensive dealings with the National Football League, including the granting of more than seventeen million dollars in state funds in the form of sales tax breaks and security costs surrounding the State’s hosting of the 2014 Super Bowl.

“There's no doubt that once he became governor, a lot of people looking to do business with New Jersey wanted to be Chris Christie's friend,” said Larry Noble, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “But that's not the type of friendship that justifies lavishing gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars on the governor.  The ‘personal friendship’ exemption is understood to mean longstanding friendships, not ones cultivated after one is elected to high public office and with those who have a business relationship with the government.  We urge the State Ethics Commission to quickly launch an investigation to determine whether these actions were appropriate and legal, and we urge the commission to make public its findings and reasoning.”

New Jersey ethics laws prohibit public officials and their families from accepting any gifts offered in an attempt to influence them in the performance of the public duties and responsibilities.  

The letter urges the commission to address the claimed “personal friendship” exemption and determine whether Gov. Christie and Mr. Jones’ friendship stemming from the performance of the former’s official duties is sufficient grounds for accepting the gifts under the exemption.

To read the letter to the State Ethics Commission of New Jersey, click here.

Today, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert began teaching a semester-long voting rights class at New York Law School (NYLS).  Through the study of constitutional amendments, Supreme Court jurisprudence and legislative action, including the Voting Rights Act, the course will trace the history of voting rights in the United States.  The course will also examine federal, state and local efforts to restrict voting rights, including new laws passed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.  Under Mr. Hebert’s guidance, students in the class will evaluate pending court cases involving voting rights and determine whether participation in the litigation is appropriate.

"I am honored to be a part of New York Law School with its long and rich tradition of bold and innovative academic excellence,” said Hebert.  “I look forward to providing students with practical experience in actual pending cases to advance the cause of justice in the field of voting rights." 

Founded in 1891, NYLS has been a "vibrant, diverse and forward-thinking center of legal studies" for well over a century.  Early lecturers at the law school included Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes. Notable alumni are vast in number and include U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, poet Wallace Stevens, and Justice Emilio Nunez, the first Latino to be named to the bench in New York State.