Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court order that halted an investigation into apparent illegal coordination between the campaign of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and ostensibly “independent” outside groups.  In May, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Randa issued a preliminary injunction in O’Keefe v. Chisholm halting the Wisconsin prosecutors’ investigation and ordering them to destroy evidence gathered in the case tying the Governor and his campaign to outside groups, including Wisconsin Club for Growth.  On August 8, 2014, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici brief, focusing on the flawed constitutional argument the Judge relied upon in enjoining the investigation, and urging the Seventh Circuit to reverse the district court order.

“We are relieved to see the Seventh Circuit reverse Judge Randa’s outrageous ruling, which not only halted the investigation but ordered the destruction of evidence gathered by prosecutors of potential coordination between the Walker campaign and outside groups,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “While the Circuit Court did not reach a decision on the merits, its ruling reads as a rebuke of Judge Randa’s interpretation of existing precedent.”

The Court of Appeals concluded that the injunction was an abuse of discretion, and that moreover, all of the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their involvement in the investigation. In reaching its decision, the panel recognized that “[i]f campaigns tell potential contributors to divert money to nominally independent groups that have agreed to do the campaigns’ bidding,” contribution limits become “porous” and disclosure rules are rendered “useless”—which is precisely why the Supreme Court has only protected “truly” independent expenditures from regulation.  It further criticized Judge Randa’s decision for finding a “right” to coordinate “issue ads” noting that “[n]o opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes (‘clearly’ or otherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and issue-advocacy groups—let alone that the First Amendment forbids even an inquiry into that topic.”

To read the Seventh Circuit’s order reversing the District Court’s injunction, click here.

The Legal Center and Democracy 21 were aided in the filing of the amici brief by Paul Smith of Jenner and Block. To read the brief, click here.

The airwaves across the country are flooded with political advertisements and it’s only going to increase as Election Day approaches.  Candidate ads, independent expenditure ads, electioneering communications and issue ads are everywhere.  What are they? Who can fund them?  What are they required to disclose about their funding to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? A new easy-to-read chart from the Campaign Legal Center has the answers all in one place.

The chart breaks down the types of ads, their permitted funding sources, FEC and FCC disclosure requirements and other rules that apply to each type of broadcast advertisement.  

To view the “Federal Rules for Political Advertising on Television and Radio” chart, click here.

To view a related chart defining the types of outside groups (527s and the various 501(c) organizations) and outlining their tax status, permitted activities, and disclosure requirements under federal tax and election laws, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief in Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss a challenge to the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure provisions upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as the 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision.

Plaintiffs are seeking to run broadcast ads referring to Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) shortly before Election Day without disclosing its donors.  The challenged law requires such disclosure when groups spend more than $10,000 on “electioneering communications”—defined as any television or radio ad that mentions the name of a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election.  Congress enacted the “electioneering communications” disclosure law as part of the McCain-Feingold Act to curb widespread evasion of earlier disclosure requirements that applied only to “express advocacy” ads.  Since then, the Supreme Court has twice upheld the “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements: first in McConnell v. FEC (2003) in a facial challenge, and again in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in an as-applied challenge nearly identical to the current lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs are openly asking the district court to ignore Supreme Court precedent—precedent set a mere four years ago by the Court in its 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The Supreme Court has repeatedly and unequivocally recognized the vital public interest in disclosing the identities of those seeking to influence elections.  In light of those rulings, plaintiff’s entire 26-page brief is an attempt to convince the district court that the eight Members of the Supreme Court who upheld the disclosure provisions in Citizens United did not mean what they said.”

To read the brief, click here.

Today, a diverse coalition of congressional scholars and watchdog groups urged House Leaders from both Parties to publicly commit to the continuation of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) for the 114th Congress and to do so well in advance of the coming elections.  The letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) notes OCE’s outstanding record and urges the House leaders to resist persistent calls from some in their respective caucuses to do away with the independent ethics investigator.

Created in 2008 in the wake of multiple scandals involving Members that resulted in a number of them doing jail time, the OCE has been attacked by a small number of Members who have proposed defunding or defanging the Office.    Prior to the creation of OCE, ethics investigations in the House were shrouded in secrecy, undermining public confidence in the committee.  The Committee operated behind closed doors, rarely took enforcement actions and developed a reputation for protecting its own.  The OCE has not only provided a credible means of investigating allegations against House Members, but has also created new levels of transparency as its investigations are eventually made public.  The resulting increase in disclosure and enforcement however, has made the OCE unpopular with some Members.     

“Each Congress since its inception, the House has come close to eliminating the OCE.  We are urging the bipartisan House Leadership to step up now and declare publicly that it stands behind the ethics watchdog,” said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The House Ethics Committee has proven time and again that it is not up to the task of enforcing the rules of conduct for Members, and the OCE provides an invaluable backstop to hold that body accountable and increase public confidence in the ethics process.  The House Ethics Committee’s ‘see no evil’ approach to ethics enforcement has alienated citizens and undermined their faith in their elected officials.  With congressional approval ratings wallowing at all-time lows, it is vitally important for the U.S. House of Representatives to show the public it does not feel it is above the law by guaranteeing the continued existence of the OCE.”    

Groups signing the letter are the Campaign Legal Center, Judicial Watch, Taxpayers for Common Sense, The Sunlight Foundation, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and Project on Government Oversight (POGO) along with Congressional Scholars Thomas Mann, Norm Ornstein and James Thurber.

To read the letter, 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to deny a preliminary injunction and dismiss the latest challenge to pay-to-play laws. 

The state Republican parties of New York and Tennessee are challenging an SEC rule barring investment firms from managing state assets 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.

“SEC and state investigators have prosecuted a long and sad laundry list of quid pro quo corruption in the awarding of state investment contracts to major donors,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “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, the record cites prosecutions in Connecticut, New Mexico, Illinois, Ohio, and Florida, as well as New York.  Pay-to-play laws are a vital bulwark helping to maintain the public’s faith in its government and its elected officials.  The courts have long recognized the vital public interest served by such laws.”

To read the brief, click here.