Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion for preliminary injunction in a constitutional challenge to Illinois contribution limits inIllinois Liberty PAC (ILP) v. Madigan.  Specifically, ILP challenged the contribution limits of $50,000 per election from PACs to a candidate for state office, $5,000 per election cycle from individuals to a candidate for state office, and $10,000 per election cycle from an individual to a PAC.  The Campaign Legal Center, with the assistance of local counsel David R. Melton and Thomas Rosenwein, filed a briefamici curiae in support of the state law limits on behalf of itself, together with Chicago Appleseed and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

In analyzing whether to grant plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, a determination based largely on plaintiffs’ likelihood of eventual success on the merits of their arguments, the district court noted the long line of Supreme Court and lower court cases upholding contribution limits and concluded that ILP’s arguments “cannot be reconciled with prevailing campaign finance precedents.”  The district court concluded “it is highly likely” that the state law limits will “survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

“The district court recognized that Illinois’ contribution limits are a constitutionally permissible means of preventing corruption and correctly rejected Illinois Liberty PAC’s call to suspend the limits in the weeks leading up to the 2012 elections,”said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “In a state where the last two governors have gone to jail for corruption, including one governor whose unlimited pursuit of campaign contributions was at the heart of the scandal, the court explicitly recognized that suspending the state’s contribution limits would reopen the door to corruption and do irreparable harm to Illinois and its citizens. This is an example of where the Legal Center can play a vital role in litigation, making clear that there is a long line of court precedent supporting the constitutionality of contribution limits.”

To read the court’s memorandum opinion and order, click here. 

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

Today, a federal court in Wyoming dealt another setback to groups challenging disclosure laws nationwide.  Citing a “wall of precedent” upholding disclosure laws, U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl refused to preliminarily enjoin a number of FEC regulations and policies that implement the federal disclosure laws in Free Speech v. FEC.   Specifically, Free Speech is challenging the “subpart (b)” definition of “expressly advocating” (11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) and the FEC’s methodology for determining when a group has campaign activity as its “major purpose” – both crucial regulations in implementing the disclosure requirements applicable to about independent spending in federal elections. 

The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici brief in the case defending the disclosure regulations.

“In upholding these federal regulations, the Wyoming district court has joined the near consensus of the courts that political disclosure is a vital measure that ensures a well-informed electorate and combats political corruption.” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Across the country disclosure laws are being challenged by groups seeking to keep secret their deep-pocketed but publicity-shy funders.  While the surge in legal challenges is troubling, we are heartened to see that almost all courts to review disclosure laws in the post-Citizens United era have upheld those laws.”

Free Speech is just one case in a nationwide litigation campaign challenging state, local and federal disclosure laws applicable to both candidate elections and ballot referenda.  It closely resembles another challenge to the FEC’s “subpart (b)” definition of “expressly advocating,” Real Truth About Abortion v. FEC, which was recently rejected by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March of this year, Free Speech submitted an advisory opinion request to the FEC proposing to run a series of attack ads and seeking to avoid registering as a political committee in order to hide the identities of its contributors.  The Campaign Legal Center, joined with Democracy 21, filed comments with the FEC at the time urging the Commission to advise the organization “Free Speech” that many of its ads were “express advocacy,” and as a result, it would likely be required to register and report as a political committee.

The Legal Center and Democracy 21 were aided in this litigation by Larry B. Jones of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, the Cody, Wyoming Division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.

To read the minute order of the district court, click here.   

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

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed comments criticizing the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for scheduling consideration of Advisory Opinion Request (AOR) 2012-32 at a meeting tomorrow, before the statutorily-required 10-day public comment period ends Friday. Furthermore, regarding the substance of the AOR, the Legal Center argues that the Commission has no authority to grant the Tea Party Leadership Fund (TPLF) request that the Commission declare a statute unconstitutional.

The AOR, filed by TPLF and federal candidates John Raese and Shawn Bielat, asks that the FEC cease enforcement of the statutory requirement that a committee be in existence at least six months in order to attain multicandidate political committee status and become eligible to make larger contributions to candidates. TPLF has already given each candidate $2,500, the maximum contribution allowed from standard political committees to candidates, but asks the FEC to waive the “six months in existence” requirement for multicandidate committee status, which would enable TPLF to contribute an additional $2,500 to each candidate.

“The request itself acknowledges that the statute preventing evasion of candidate contribution limits has been upheld by the Supreme Court, but nevertheless asks the Commission to exceed its authority by declaring the statute unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “Formally considering this request before the end of the comment period shows a complete disrespect for the public comment process required by law and actually rendering an opinion within the comment period would in fact violate the law.”

The comments urged the Commission not only to reject the request but to prepare to defend the law in court against an expected challenge by the requestors.

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

Today, a three-judge panel rejected the Republican National Committee’s challenge to the federal aggregate contribution limits in McCutcheon v. FEC. In so holding, the court highlighted an argument in the amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, that the challenge, if successful, would create the potential for massive evasion of candidate contribution limits through the use of joint fundraising committees, party transfers and other means of circumvention.

“The court clearly recognized that siding with the plaintiffs would have made a mockery of candidate contribution limits by opening the door for widespread evasion,” said Tara Malloy, Legal Center Senior Counsel. “A successful challenge to these aggregate limits would have allowed individuals to contribute millions of dollars to candidates and party committees in a single election. Plaintiffs’ claim that this type of money would not buy influence and create at the very least the appearance of corruption does not pass the laugh test.”

The brief filed by Campaign Legal Center, with Democracy 21, emphasized that if the aggregate limits were invalidated, an individual could contribute $5,000 toward every single House and Senate race, $30,800 to each of a party’s three federal party committees, and $10,000 to each of a party’s fifty state committees for a total of $3.5 million in a two-year election cycle. The total would be further increased by as many $5,000 contributions to PACs as an individual chose to make. The three-judge panel recognized this very significant threat and cited it in its opinion.

The case, brought by plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, challenges both the $70,800 aggregate limit on contributions to non-candidate committees and the $46,200 aggregate limit on contributions to candidate committees in a two-year election cycle.

To read the court opinion, click here.

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

The Campaign Legal Center today joined Democracy 21 in sending a letter to the IRS further documenting that Crossroads GPS is a campaign operation and thus not entitled to tax-exempt status as a section 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization.  The letter attached transcripts of ads run by Crossroads GPS in 2012 targeting and praising presidential and congressional candidates, along with other information which refutes claims by Crossroads GPS that its ads are “issue ads,” not campaign ads.

“Crossroads GPS is operating as a shadow Republican National Committee, not a social welfare organization, and there are simply no two ways around the facts here,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Legal Center Executive Director. “A growing mountain of evidence makes laughable the claims that its work is for any sort of social good rather than purely and blatantly partisan political purposes. Even the group’s founder Karl Rove boasts publicly that Crossroads GPS ad buys of more than $50 million, attacking the President or boosting Mitt Romney, are a response to counter the advertising of the Obama campaign. Real and permanent harm is being done to our democracy each day this pathetic charade is allowed to continue. It is high time for the IRS to yank c4 status from Crossroads GPS and its political operation and force it to reveal its secret funders to voters.”

To read the full letter sent today to the IRS, click here.  

To read the transcripts, click here. 

Today, the Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to defend Hawaii’s contractor contribution ban and disclosure regulations in Yamada v. Weaver.  Plaintiff-Appellant A-1 A-Lectrician, Inc. (A-1), a government contractor, seeks to overturn Hawaii’s pay-to-play law, as well as to invalidate a range of disclosure requirements applicable to independent spending in state elections. 

The Yamada case is part of a nationwide litigation offensive challenging a broad range of campaign finance laws at the federal, state and local levels.  But disclosure and pay-to-play laws similar to Hawaii’s have been upheld across the country as the courts have consistently recognized the important government interest in preventing political corruption or the appearance of such corruption. 

“A-1 is essentially asking the court to strike down Hawaii’s anti-corruption laws so it can contribute to officeholders while holding government contracts and can make independent expenditures while keeping the public in the dark about its activities,” said Tara Malloy, Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The undisclosed political activities proposed by A-1 would undermine public trust in government and pose precisely the potential for corruption that led to the challenged laws’ enactment.”

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