Today, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation filed complaints at the Federal Communications Commission against two television stations that incorrectly identified front groups as the “true sponsors” of political advertisements, when they were in fact paid for by one individual. The complainants are represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown University Law Center.

In the complaint against WJLA, the Allbritton-owned ABC affiliate in Washington D.C., the groups cited two ads that aired in September and October 2013 that failed to properly identify environmentalist and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer as the true sponsor. Instead, the ads were attributed to “NextGen Climate Action Committee.” At the time, NextGen was a super PAC founded and funded solely by Steyer. 

The groups also filed a complaint against KGW in Portland, OR. In May 2014, KGW ran multiple ads attacking Senate candidate Monica Wehby and supporting Jason Conger. In FCC filings, the sponsor behind the ads is identified as the “American Principles Fund,” but, as the complaint details, hedge fund manager Sean Fieler is the true sponsor. Fieler is the founder of the American Principles Fund and the super PAC received nearly all of its funding from him. 

The Communications Act and the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules require broadcasters to go beyond simply naming the entity that paid for an ad. In this case, both super PACs act essentially as personal advertising arms for the individuals behind them, and the stations failed to fully and fairly inform the public about who was attempting to influence them.  Under the Communications Act, broadcasters are required to “exercise reasonable diligence” to obtain the information needed for proper sponsorship identification. 

“The public has a right to know who is trying to buy their influence through political ads,” said Sean Vitka, Sunlight Foundation federal policy manager. “When political agendas are hidden behind seemingly innocuous super PACs, it’s the legal responsibility of the broadcasters to make sure that the public is properly informed. The FCC’s disclosure rules are one of the only ways to track this kind of activity, and the only way to track political ad spending in real time. We hope the FCC enforces its policies.”

“The stations are only too happy to cash the checks for these ads but cannot be bothered to actually comply with the law requiring them to make public the funders behind those ads,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center policy director. “Viewers deserve to know who is bankrolling the endless ads seeking to influence the outcome of elections and the law requires it.   In case after case the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld disclosure laws and recognized the compelling public interest in voters knowing the source of the money behind the ads seeking to influence their votes.” 

"Dark Money groups have polluted the airwaves the law for far too long. Transparency is essential,” said Todd O'Boyle, program director for media and democracy at Common Cause. "It's high time for the Commission to do its job and make political ad disclosure a reality."

WJLA is currently owned by Allbritton Communications Company.  The FCC is considering an application for sale of the station to Sinclair Broadcast Group, but the complaint is directed to Allbritton.

KGW is licensed to Sander Media, LLC.

To view the complaint against WJLA, click here.

To view the complaint against KGW, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation filed complaints at the Federal Communications Commission against two television stations that incorrectly identified front groups as the “true sponsors” of political advertisements, when they were in fact paid for by one individual. The complainants are represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown University Law Center.

In the complaint against WJLA, the Allbritton-owned ABC affiliate in Washington D.C., the groups cited two ads that aired in September and October 2013 that failed to properly identify environmentalist and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer as the true sponsor. Instead, the ads were attributed to “NextGen Climate Action Committee.” At the time, NextGen was a super PAC founded and funded solely by Steyer. 

The groups also filed a complaint against KGW in Portland, OR. In May 2014, KGW ran multiple ads attacking Senate candidate Monica Wehby and supporting Jason Conger. In FCC filings, the sponsor behind the ads is identified as the “American Principles Fund,” but, as the complaint details, hedge fund manager Sean Fieler is the true sponsor. Fieler is the founder of the American Principles Fund and the super PAC received nearly all of its funding from him. 

The Communications Act and the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules require broadcasters to go beyond simply naming the entity that paid for an ad. In this case, both super PACs act essentially as personal advertising arms for the individuals behind them, and the stations failed to fully and fairly inform the public about who was attempting to influence them.  Under the Communications Act, broadcasters are required to “exercise reasonable diligence” to obtain the information needed for proper sponsorship identification. 

“The public has a right to know who is trying to buy their influence through political ads,” said Sean Vitka, Sunlight Foundation federal policy manager. “When political agendas are hidden behind seemingly innocuous super PACs, it’s the legal responsibility of the broadcasters to make sure that the public is properly informed. The FCC’s disclosure rules are one of the only ways to track this kind of activity, and the only way to track political ad spending in real time. We hope the FCC enforces its policies.”

“The stations are only too happy to cash the checks for these ads but cannot be bothered to actually comply with the law requiring them to make public the funders behind those ads,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center policy director. “Viewers deserve to know who is bankrolling the endless ads seeking to influence the outcome of elections and the law requires it.   In case after case the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld disclosure laws and recognized the compelling public interest in voters knowing the source of the money behind the ads seeking to influence their votes.” 

"Dark Money groups have polluted the airwaves the law for far too long. Transparency is essential,” said Todd O'Boyle, program director for media and democracy at Common Cause. "It's high time for the Commission to do its job and make political ad disclosure a reality."

WJLA is currently owned by Allbritton Communications Company.  The FCC is considering an application for sale of the station to Sinclair Broadcast Group, but the complaint is directed to Allbritton.

Earlier today, Judge Terry P. Lewis of the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Florida found that the Florida Legislature violated the state constitution when it redrew its congressional boundaries. Voters in Florida overwhelmingly supported amending the Florida Constitution in 2012 to bar the Legislature from intentionally favoring or disfavoring a political party or an incumbent.  Today, Judge Lewis found a “group of Republican political consultants or operatives did in fact conspire to manipulate and influence the redistricting process” and that they did so “all with the intention of obtaining enacted maps for the State House and Senate and Congress that would favor the Republican Party.”  He further found that “[t]hey made a mockery of the Legislature’s proclaimed transparent and open process of redistricting”.   Judge Lewis found that the Republican political consultants “obtain[ed] the necessary cooperation and collaboration” from the Legislative leaders, enabling them to “infiltrate and influence the Legislature[.]” As a result, Judge Lewis found, they managed “to taint the redistricting process and the resulting map with improper partisan intent.”  

The Court found that Congressional Districts 5 (Rep. Corrine Brown) and 10 (Rep. Daniel Webster) were each drawn with the intent of favoring the Republican Party.  In the case of District 5, Judge Lewis found that it was “bizarrely shaped and does not follow traditional political boundaries as it winds from Jacksonville to Orlando.  At one point, District 5 narrows to the width of highway 17.”  The district was drawn to create a majority black voting age population even though it was unnecessary to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act, Judge Lewis found.  By removing black voters from another district and placing them in District 5, the Florida Legislature did so intentionally to make the adjoining district (District 7) more Republican.  As for District 10, Judge Lewis found it contained an odd appendage which was added to benefit the incumbent Webster.  District 10 was thus struck down because it was drawn intentionally to benefit the Republican Party and to favor the incumbent.

“In adopting the amendments to the Florida Constitution in 2010, Florida voters decided that voters should choose their elected representatives and that politicians shouldn’t choose their voters,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The Florida Legislature ignored the law and the will of Florida voters and let itself be hijacked by Republican political consultants and operatives.  The decision today is a devastating indictment of those who manipulated the redistricting process secretly behind closed doors and tried to shield it from the public.  Political consultants and legislators even destroyed evidence about the redistricting process, apparently in an effort to keep their conspiracy secret.  Today’s victory was a direct result of the hard work and dedication of Fair Districts Now, and particularly its leader, Ellen Freidin, who made certain that Florida’s voters got a decision that safeguards their voting rights.”

Hebert along with the Orlando law firm of King Blackwell Zehnder and Wermuth, and attorneys at Jenner and Block served as co-counsel to the League of Women Voters of Florida, the National Council of La Raza, and Common Cause Florida and Florida voters who brought the lawsuit.  The King Blackwell Zehnder and Wermuth law firm took the lead for the LWV Plaintiffs in the case.  The case was consolidated with another challenge to the redistricting brought by the Romo plaintiffs, who also prevailed today in their challenge.   

To read the full opinion of the Circuit Court, click here. 

Today, in Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) v. Sorrell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the State of Vermont’s campaign finance disclosure law and the application of state contribution limits to a purported “independent” political committee.

“This decision is an unqualified win for the voters of Vermont who will continue to receive the information they need about independent political spending to make meaningful decisions at the polls,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “In recent years the disclosure laws of nearly two dozen states have been attacked—even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the disclosure of independent election spending is entirely consistent with the First Amendment.”

In addition to challenging Vermont’s disclosure requirements, the plaintiff VRLC asked the court to invalidate the state contribution limits as applied to its sister committee that allegedly made only independent expenditures.  The Second Circuit, however, declined to take these unsupported allegations of independence at face value.  After reviewing the district court’s extensive factual analysis, it determined that the “independent” committee was functionally indistinguishable from VRLC, which openly contributed to and communicated with candidates, given “the overlap of staff and resources, the lack of financial independence, the coordination of activities, and the flow of information between the entities.” 

“For too long in federal elections we have seen so-called ‘independent’ groups operating hand-in-glove with candidates and parties, as well as with other committees that were clearly coordinating with candidates and parties.  The notion that their activities were truly independent and non-corrupting has been a sad joke,” said Ms. Malloy.  “It is a relief to see a court take seriously its responsibility to ensure that an ‘independent’ group is in fact independent and to draw the line on the type of coordinated activity that clearly gives rise to potential quid pro quo corruption and public concerns about the integrity of our political system.”

The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici brief with the Second Circuit in defense of Vermont’s disclosure laws and contribution limits.  

To read the full opinion of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, click here.

To read the brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, click here.

The House Ethics Committee has eliminated the requirement for House Members to disclose their privately financed travel on their financial disclosure forms, according to National Journal. The Committee made this change without any public announcement whatsoever, and when it was discovered yesterday the Committee Chair, Ranking Member and Committee staff refused to comment on the controversial move.

“With public confidence in the U.S. Congress reaching a record low of 7%, according to yesterday's Gallup poll, you would think the House Ethics Committee would focus on building public confidence in the institution, rather than looking for ways to make their dirty laundry harder to find,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center. “With the Committee’s longstanding and well-deserved reputation for protecting Members and stonewalling reporters, and the well-documented appetite of Members for free travel on the dime of those seeking to influence them, one would hope that the Committee would tread lightly when eliminating disclosure requirements for these junkets.”  

For decades, Members of Congress have been required to disclose on their financial disclosure forms the privately financed travel they accept. These trips include travel that is paid for by groups that don't lobby but which are often connected with sister organizations that do. According to Legistorm, members of Congress and their aides took more free trips in 2013 than in any year since the Jack Abramoff scandal—nearly 1,900 trips at a cost of more than $6 million. With this change in policy, the public will still be able to find travel disclosures through the Clerk of the House website, but the more commonly accessed financial disclosure forms will not have the information.

It is accurate to say, as the committee did today, that since passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007, there has been duplication between the travel reports and the disclosure form. But there has also been confusion. The instructions on the financial disclosure form as to what travel has to be listed say the Member does not need to disclose "privately-sponsored travel approved by the Ethics Committee, if post-travel disclosure was filed with the Clerk." However, the "Employee Post-Travel Disclosure Form" from the Ethics Committee states: "This form does not eliminate the need to report privately-financed travel on the annual Financial Disclosure Statements of those employees required to file them."

“Rather than address this admittedly confusing situation in a straightforward, public manner, with an explanation, the House Ethics Committee apparently chose silence, encouraging suspicion about their motives,” said McGehee. “If the Committee were really interested in improving disclosure, it would put its weight behind getting the financial disclosure forms information to be filed in a searchable, sortable, downloadable database instead of illegible PDFs. Once again, the Committee fails to understand the need for the institution to take extraordinary efforts to rebuild public confidence in an ethics process that is viewed an incumbency protection racket.”