Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined Democracy 21 in asking President Obama whether his involvement with Organizing for Action (OFA) is consistent with the statutory ban on the solicitation of gifts by the President and executive branch officials. In a letter, citing numerous media accounts of OFA and its ties to the President and his 2012 campaign, the watchdog groups questioned whether the President’s involvement with the organization contravenes the Ethics in Government Act and its explicit ban on the soliciting of gifts by executive branch officials. The President is exempted from the law’s executive branch prohibition on accepting gifts, but remains subject to the ban on soliciting gifts, directly or indirectly, from sources with interests that may be substantially impacted by the decisions and policies of the Administration.

“The President’s involvement with OFA not only raises policy concerns relating to the purchase of influence over the Administration, but also may cross the line in terms of the federal law banning the soliciting of gifts by any member of the executive branch, including the President,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director. “This unprecedented use of a tax-exempt organization to accept unlimited contributions and to serve as what appears to be an arm of the executive branch is not the hope and change touted by then-Senator Obama in 2008. Instead it represents yet another example of the race to the bottom in political fundraising that we have seen following Citizens United. We sincerely hope that the President will reconsider his involvement with OFA and step back from the precipice by shutting down OFA. He should recommit his efforts and the power of his office toward fixing a broken political money system rather than simply riding it further into the ground.”

The letter outlines in detail for the President the “multiple factors” that suggest that OFA’s role as “a private-sector arm” of the Administration may well contravene the solicitation ban of the Ethics in Government Act. Included in the letter to the President is a summary of those activities:

• You have been personally involved in the creation and public announcement of OFA and in the promotion of OFA to your campaign supporters and the public.
• You have personally endorsed and embraced the work of OFA, which you have said is important to “finishing the job” started by your first term.
• You intend to appear at and participate in OFA events that will be attended by OFA’s large donors and bundlers, including the “founders’ summit.”
• OFA was also created, and is being operated, by former top White House officials in your Administration and by your close political associates and former campaign operatives.
• OFA is a direct outgrowth of your 2012 presidential campaign, and reportedly, by purchase or lease, will become the beneficiary of key assets of your 2012 presidential campaign, including voter database information and email distribution lists.
• OFA Chairman Jim Messina, reportedly has stated that you will help direct OFA and will be “intimately involved” in its operations.
• OFA is managing your Twitter account and Facebook page.

The letter urges the President to shut down OFA with all due haste.

To read the full letter sent by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center submitted comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rebutting a series of gross mischaracterizations of law made by two major trade associations seeking to avoid disclosure of their donors whose money is used for political activities. In their comments to the SEC concerning a rulemaking petition filed by the Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending urging the SEC to require public companies to disclose their political spending to shareholders, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute (API) offered incorrect and misleading information to the SEC, which the Legal Center debunks in its comments to the agency.

“In a desperate effort to stave off disclosing the corporations funding their increasingly sophisticated multi-million dollar political operations, the Chamber and API resorted to completely mischaracterizing pertinent laws including the Administrative Procedures Act, existing federal and state campaign finance disclosure laws, and even the constitutionality of the disclosure rule requested by the petitioners,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “When it comes to their claims concerning disclosure, these two organizations do not have a legal leg to stand on, which makes for a fascinating read if you are a fan of legal fiction. Again and again the U.S. Supreme Court has come down decisively and overwhelmingly in support of disclosure laws, recognizing the vital public interest in having an informed citizenry.”

The Legal Center urged the SEC to move forward with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning publicly traded company disclosure to shareholders of the use of corporate resources for political activities, noting that the Supreme Court inCitizens United explicitly highlighted the importance of shareholder disclosure. Eight of the Court’s nine members wrote in Citizens United: “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

To read the comments filed with the SEC by the Campaign Legal Center, click here.

Late Friday, a three-judge court in Washington, DC, granted a Voting Rights Act bailout to the State of New Hampshire, marking the first time since the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act took effect that a state has bailed out from preclearance requirements of the Act. The bailout had assumed a higher profile when it was opposed by a conservative group seeking to undermine the defense of the Voting Rights Act before the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. United States.  The court denied the attempt by the Center for Individual Rights to intervene in the case on the grounds that the voter that the Center represented lacked standing.

“New Hampshire’s successful bailout shows that the coverage formula self-tailors, and therefore Section 5 coverage adjusts to current needs,” said Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert, who serves as legal counsel to the State of New Hampshire in his capacity as a solo practitioner.  “New Hampshire's successful bailout effectively defeats the 'theory' advanced by Shelby County, Alabama in its pending challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act that the bailout provisions are illusory or unworkable."  Hebert credited state and local officials in New Hampshire for assembling the record that entitled the state and its ten covered towns to bail out.   

To read the consent judgment and decree, click here.

To read the joint motion to enter consent judgment and decree, click here.  To read the proposed consent judgment and decree, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center filed a friend of the Court brief in Shelby County v. United States.  To read the brief, click here.

Late Friday, a three-judge court in Washington, DC, granted a Voting Rights Act bailout to the State of New Hampshire, marking the first time since the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act took effect that a state has bailed out from preclearance requirements of the Act. The bailout had assumed a higher profile when it was opposed by a conservative group seeking to undermine the defense of the Voting Rights Act before the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. United States.  The court denied the attempt by the Center for Individual Rights to intervene in the case on the grounds that the voter that the Center represented lacked standing.

“New Hampshire’s successful bailout shows that the coverage formula self-tailors, and therefore Section 5 coverage adjusts to current needs,” said Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert, who serves as legal counsel to the State of New Hampshire in his capacity as a solo practitioner.  “New Hampshire's successful bailout effectively defeats the 'theory' advanced by Shelby County, Alabama in its pending challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act that the bailout provisions are illusory or unworkable."  Hebert credited state and local officials in New Hampshire for assembling the record that entitled the state and its ten covered towns to bail out.   

To read the consent judgment and decree, click here.

To read the joint motion to enter consent judgment and decree, click here.  To read the proposed consent judgment and decree, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center filed a friend of the Court brief in Shelby County v. United States.  To read the brief, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed comments with the Federal Election Commission supporting a draft rule interpreting disclosure requirements for political committee expenditures and urging the Commission to require even more detailed disclosure of payments by a committee’s vendor to subvendors on behalf of that committee.

“When a vendor such as a campaign consultant spends money on behalf of a committee through payments to subvendors, such as a payment to an ad production company and a payment to a TV station, these payments to the production company and TV station should each be disclosed, but the FEC has not been requiring such disclosure,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “Instead, in such scenarios, the FEC has only been requiring committees to report the lump-sum payment to the consultant, which leaves voters in the dark about how committees are actually spending campaign dollars. The FEC can and should fix this disclosure problem.”

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

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief in Wagner v. FEC opposing an effort to overturn the 70-year-old ban on campaign contributions by federal contractors. The case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after a federal district court upheld the ban in November of 2012.

“Government contracting is particularly susceptible to the pay-to-play system that prevails anywhere government contracts are handed out. This federal ban is a crucial check against the widespread scandals that have sent government officials to jail in cities and states across the country,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “Only the naïve or disingenuous will pretend that money does not change hands in order to buy influence and favor with those who write government checks, from Sacramento to Tallahassee and everywhere in between. The courts have long recognized the inherent susceptibility of the government contracting process and have repeatedly upheld this law and similar laws passed in states and municipalities nationwide. The plaintiffs ask the court to ignore those rulings and the reality of government contracting.”

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 law 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.” The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed a brief in the district court defending the constitutionality of the government contractor ban and in support of the FEC’s motion for summary judgment.

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

To read the District Court opinion granting summary judgment, click here.