Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Common Cause, Justice at Stake and the League of Women Voters, filed an amici brief in Lair v. Motl urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a District Court ruling striking down Montana’s political campaign contribution limits.  The brief emphasizes that the District Court disregarded both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to overturn Montana’s limits on contributions to state candidates, including judges, from individuals and political parties.

“The Ninth Circuit has already found that Montana’s contribution limits are justified by vital and constitutionally permissible state interests, and the validity of that decision was in no way altered by subsequent Supreme Court case law,” said Megan McAllen, Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “The Supreme Court has been steadfast in its recognition that limits on direct contributions to candidates are a justifiable means of preventing corruption and its appearance.  Without legal precedent for doing so, the lower court effectively cleared the way for candidates to receive contributions of a million dollars or more from a single individual.  The risk of quid pro quo corruption could not be plainer.”

The District Court overturned the “base” candidate contribution limits applicable to individuals and PACs—which have already been upheld by the Ninth Circuit—as unconstitutionally low based on the Supreme Court’s intervening decision inRandall v. Sorrell, which struck down Vermont limits that were markedly lower and more restrictive than Montana’s.  Moreover, Randall did not fundamentally alter the Supreme Court’s longstanding approach to the review of contribution limits and thus did nothing to undermine the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision.

In addition to the limits on candidate contributions from individuals and PACs, the lower court struck down Montana’s limits as they apply to contributions from political party committees. Montana does not limit the amount that any individual or PAC may give to political parties, but instead restricts the “aggregate” amount a candidate can receive from his or her political party.  Montana’s party limits therefore represent an appropriately-tailored means of preventing circumvention of the individual contribution limits.  By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this summer in McCutcheon v. FEC struck down limits on the aggregate amount individuals could give to multiple candidates and party committees within the existing base limits, on grounds that those aggregate limits served no “plausible” anti-circumvention objective given the existence of base limits. 

To read the full brief, click here.

Discriminatory voting changes recently implemented in two Texas communities were highlighted in a statement submitted by Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert into the Senate Judiciary Committee record for today’s hearing on The Voting Rights Amendment Act (S.1945).  The discriminatory changes, which had previously been blocked as a result of the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, were implemented in two Texas jurisdictions after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the preclearance coverage formula in Shelby County v. Holder.  The Court’s decision in Shelby County left communities with a history of discrimination free to implement voting change without clearing them in advance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The voting changes made in both Beaumont and Galveston County, Texas had each been previously rejected by DOJ the year before the Shelby County decision from the Supreme Court.  In 2012, DOJ had forbidden the changes in both jurisdictions after determining that the changes significantly disadvantaged minority voters.  But once the preclearance coverage formula was struck down by the Supreme Court, both the Beaumont Independent School District and Galveston County the same discriminatory voting laws previously rejected by DOJ were promptly implemented in both communities.   

“The Voting Rights Amendment Act is a critically important piece of legislation that will help to safeguard the right of every American to vote,” said Hebert.  “The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County was woefully misguided and the discriminatory voting laws being implemented are a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County.  The actions in Beaumont and Galveston County are just two examples of discriminatory changes being implemented in the wake of the Shelby decision, but they are indicative of actions being undertaken across the country to undermine minority voting rights. These examples are part of a wave that will only continue to swell until the Voting Rights Amendment Act is enacted to stem the tide and protect the franchise.”

The statement submitted to the Judiciary Committee expresses strong support for Congress to enact a strong Voting Rights Amendment Act. 

To read the full statement and the attachments, click here.

The Democratic Governors Association (DGA) has withdrawn its challenge to Connecticut’s campaign finance laws enacted in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  The Campaign Legal Center, joined by three Connecticut watchdog groups, had filed amici briefs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut urging the court to reject the DGA’s attempt to have much of the organization’s election related activity to be declared outside of  Connecticut’s campaign finance laws. The DGA dropped its challenge after the court rejected its attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction against enforcement of key provisions of the law, finding DGA was unlikely to prevail on its claims.

“The voluntary dismissal of this suit is a victory for sensible campaign finance reforms and the citizens of Connecticut as the DGA was attempting to open the door for groups seeking to support candidates in Connecticut elections yet avoid registering as political committees and abiding by the state’s limits, prohibitions and reporting rules,” said Larry Noble, Of Counsel to the Campaign Legal Center.  “It is unfortunate that the State Elections Enforcement Commission had to fight this lawsuit in the first place and expend resources that could have been put to far better use actually enforcing the state’s campaign finance laws.”

DGA initially sought to bar the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) from considering Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy’s fundraising activities for the DGA if questions arise as to whether the DGA’s expenditures for Governor Malloy’s reelection were truly independent of his campaign.  The DGA later sought to reinvent its case as a broad attack on all of the rules applicable to organizations whose major purpose is election or defeat of candidates in Connecticut.

Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut joined in the brief.  Patrick Tomasiewicz, of Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, is serving as Counsel of Record in the filings.

To read the notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the DGA, click here.

To read the supplemental amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut (June 6, 2014), click here.

To read the groups’ first amici brief (May 13, 2014), click here.

Yesterday, the Campaign Legal Center joined with other nonprofit groups concerned with the integrity of the courts in filing an amici curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review en banc Wolfson v. Concannon, in which a three-judge circuit panel struck down Arizona rules for judicial conduct as applied to non-judge candidates, but left those rules standing for incumbent judicial candidates.

The three-judge panel struck down Arizona’s ban on judicial candidates personally soliciting political contributions, as well as its ban on judicial candidates endorsing, speaking in favor of or campaigning for non-judicial candidates—but only as these bans apply to non-judge candidates.

“Public trust in the judicial process is vital to the public’s faith in the courts, and the decision of the three-judge panel not only flies in the face of precedent, but also seriously threatens to undermine public trust in the judicial branch,” said Paul S. Ryan, Senior Counsel for The Campaign Legal Center.  “The ruling creates patently unfair electoral system where candidates running head-to-head for the same judicial office are subject to completely different sets of rules and begs a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit.”

The brief filed by the legal and judicial organizations in support of the State of Arizona raise other issues with the decision including the standard of scrutiny applied by the three-judge panel and warning that if let stand the opinion will spur a run of challenges on laws in other states within the Ninth Circuit.  

The other groups signing the brief included the Brennan Center for Justice, the Arizona Judges’ Association, the American Judicature Society and Justice at Stake.  Randolph Sherman and Robert Grass of Kate Scholer LLP are serving as attorneys for amici curiae.

To read the brief, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen urged the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to make its process of ethics investigations more transparent and more accountable.  In a letter to Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ranking Member Johnny Isakson (R-GA), the groups urged the creation of an independent ethics investigative office similar to the Office of Congressional Ethics Office (OCE) in the House.  In the short term, the watchdogs urged the Committee to undertake a variety of other reforms to improve the ethics process, increase transparency and help to restore public trust in the process.

The recommendations urged revising procedures to create timetables for public reports on the status of investigations; updating current requirements for ethics training for Senators and staff; reviewing and updating of current travel rules to curb abuses of the exception for privately financed travel; making public recommendations for effective implementation of the STOCK Act; and initiating extensive Senate outreach regarding permissible campaign activities.

“The Senate ethics process remains too insular and too opaque, and is often perceived as more interested in protecting the Senators’ ‘club’ than enhancing the institution's public credibility,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director.  “When ethics investigations go to the Committee and simply vanish for months or even years on end, the public loses confidence not only in the process but in their Senators.  It is time for the Senate to bring its ethics process into the 21st Century.”

“The Senate ethics process should be as transparent as possible,” said Lisa Gilbert, Director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.  “Too little information on ethics affairs undermines public trust in Congress and its ability to police itself.  We urge the Senate to move forward and create a similar body to the effective office of Congressional Ethics.”

“The Office of Congressional Ethics has been a hallmark in restoring the integrity of the ethics process in the House,” said Craig Holman Government Affairs Lobbyist for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.  “It is now firmly embraced by congressional leadership.  It works.  It is time for the Senate to open its ethics process to similar public oversight.”

To read the letter, detailing the recommendations to the Committee, click here.

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the Democratic Governors Association’s (DGA) request for a preliminary injunction and partially dismissed the DGA’s challenge to a number of the State of Connecticut’s post-Citizens United campaign finance reforms.  The DGA was seeking to make unlimited “independent” expenditures in support of Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s candidacy while at the same time having Governor Malloy fundraise for the DGA outside of Connecticut’s contribution limits and source prohibitions, and in many cases without disclosure.

The DGA sued after Connecticut’s State Election Enforcement Commission (SEEC) said that fundraising by a candidate for an organization could be evidence of coordination in some circumstances.  The DGA’s lawsuit claimed that the SEEC’s ruling and parts of the 2013 reform statute the Governor signed into law are interfering with its plans to have Governor Malloy raise money for the DGA not subject to the state’s campaign finance laws, while DGA makes unlimited expenditures for ads supporting Governor Malloy’s reelection. 

Judge Janet C. Hall granted Connecticut’s motion to dismiss the “coordination” challenge on the ground that DGA lacked standing, finding the perceived threat that the state will prosecute DGA for violation of the coordination restrictions purely speculative.  And though the court did conclude that DGA has standing to challenge the state law definition of “expenditure,” the court denied DGA’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the group is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the law.

“We are very pleased that Judge Hall rejected the DGA’s efforts to undermine the campaign finance reforms Governor Malloy signed into law last year,” said Larry Noble, Of Counsel to the Campaign Legal Center.  “The decision stops the DGA from moving much of its spending for Governor Malloy’s reelection into the shadows and allows the SEEC to ensure that the DGA’s support for the governor’s candidacy is truly independent of the governor’s campaign, as the law requires.  This is a victory for the people of Connecticut.”

The Legal Center, joined by three Connecticut watchdog groups, filed amici briefs in the case urging the court to deny the preliminary injunction requested and to instead dismiss the suit.

“We are pleased that the DGA did not succeed in undermining Connecticut’s strong disclosure and coordination laws,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, senior vice president for program and strategy of Common Cause.  “We are grateful to the attorneys at the Campaign Legal Center for their expertise on disclosure laws and their work on the amici brief that they submitted on behalf of Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut.”

Patrick Tomasiewicz, of Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, is serving as Counsel of Record in the filings.

To read today’s ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granting in part the state's motion to dismiss the suit, click here.

To read the supplemental amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut (June 6, 2014), click here. 

To read the groups’ first amici brief (May 13, 2014), click here.