Yesterday in Baca v. Berry, Campaign Legal Center attorneys, along with attorneys at Jenner & Block, filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit responding to the City of Albuquerque’s efforts to obtain financial sanctions against four of its own citizens and their former counsel for filing a voting rights lawsuit.  Legal Center attorneys represent the individual voters, while Jenner & Block attorneys represent the voters’ former counsel. 

The case started when four Albuquerque voters brought claims challenging the city council’s post-2010 redistricting plan.  After the lawsuit was filed, electoral changes were adopted in the City that prompted the plaintiffs to move to dismiss their case without prejudice.  The City moved to dismiss the case with prejudice.   The district judge held both motions in abeyance for several months and then granted the City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.  The City then successfully obtained an order from the district judge sanctioning the voters’ counsel in the amount of $48,217.95 for pursuing a frivolous case.  The trial court, however, refused to grant the City’s motion to financially sanction the four individual citizens.  The individual plaintiffs’ counsel appealed the sanctions order and the City has appealed the order declining to sanction the individual voters who filed the suit.   The brief filed yesterday responds to the city’s frivolous attempt to extort its own citizens for invoking their right to bring a lawsuit to protect their constitutional and civil rights, and also replies to the city’s defense of the district court’s sanctions order against the plaintiffs’ former counsel. 

“Unless the Tenth Circuit condemns Albuquerque’s transparent attempt to intimidate its own citizens, many future civil rights violations will likely go unchallenged,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director. “The city’s conduct in this case bears all the hallmarks of a strategic lawsuit to crush civic involvement and full public participation—an attempt by those in power to scare people away from vindicating their civil rights.  If any party should be sanctioned in this case, it’s the city for filing a frivolous and abusive cross-appeal.”

Hebert added: “Jenner & Block attorneys have once again stepped up to protect voting rights and prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.  We are pleased to have had the opportunity to work with them on this case.”  The law firm of Jenner & Block was recruited to work on this case by the Voting Rights Institute, a joint program launched earlier this year by the Campaign Legal Center and the American Constitution Society.

To read the brief, click here.

Today, CLC Senior Counsel Paul S. Ryan testified before the Federal Election Commission regarding a number of issues for possible rulemaking by the agency. Ryan was part of a day-long hearing session held by the FEC to get public comment on issues ranging from earmarking, affiliation, joint fundraising and disclosure.

To view his testimony, click here.

For the written testimony submitted by CLC and Democracy 21 on January 15, 2015, click here.

Today, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) voluntarily withdrew its appeal of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) requirement to upload its public inspection files online to an FCC database.  The NAB had appealed the 2008 Order imposing the online file requirement, which required television stations to put these files in digital format and make them more readily available online.  The Campaign Legal Center, along with Common Cause and the Benton Foundation, represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown Law, intervened in support of the FCC.  The case had been held in abeyance as the FCC dealt with petitions for reconsideration and as the broadcasters gauged the impact of the new requirement.

The FCC phased in the requirement.  First, top-four affiliate stations in the top 50 markets had to upload their files beginning in 2012.  Then, the FCC gradually expanded the requirement to all broadcasters in all TV markets last year.  Implementation of the online file has been smooth.

“Requiring broadcasters to put their public file online was a no-brainer,” said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Both its name and its purpose reflect the intention that the file be publicly accessible, but the public virtually never saw them unless they were willing to travel to the station and request the opportunity to review them.  Broadcasters maintain their programming information in digital format, so in fact it was more burdensome for the stations to produce the statutorily required information on paper.”

“Now the FCC should take the next logical steps to require the information to be filed in a standardized, searchable, and sortable database.  Currently, most stations upload ’pdfs’ with no standard format. And further the agency should follow through on its proposed rulemaking to expand the requirements to cable, satellite and radio.”

In December, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would expand the online requirements to cable, satellite and radio.  The rulemaking process was initiated in response to a petition filed last year by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation, represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown Law.  The groups encouraged the agency to act expeditiously on the request.

To read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, click here.

To read the petition for rulemaking, 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 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject the latest challenge to pay-to-play laws brought by the state Republican parties of New York and Tennessee. 

On September 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge brought by the state Republican parties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the SEC that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was vested with jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the play-to-play rule.  The parties have now filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The SEC rule being challenged bars investment firms from managing state assets, like pension funds, 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.

“The courts have long recognized the danger of quid pro quo corruption inherent in the awarding of government contracts and has upheld pay-to-play laws against a variety of challenges over the decades,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Pay-to-play laws serve the vital public interest in protecting the integrity of government and the public’s faith in its elected officials.  The extensive list of pay-to-play corruption in the awarding of exactly these types of state investment contracts is jaw-dropping in both its scale and geographic distribution, 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.  In addition to the egregious example out of New York State, the record further cites similar prosecutions in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico and Ohio.”

 To read the brief filed today, click here.

To read the District Court’s memorandum opinion and order dismissing the case, click here and here.