Today, attorneys at the Campaign Legal Center, who serve as co-counsel for plaintiffs Congressman Marc Veasey and LULAC, filed a motion to expedite a pending appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Veasey v. Perry—the challenge to Texas’ overly restrictive photo ID law (SB 14). 

“This motion to expedite the appeal seeks to minimize the damage that SB 14 continues to cause,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of The Campaign Legal Center.  “Despite successfully overturning the law, eligible Texas voters already lost one election to disenfranchisement and they should not lose another.  Unless the Fifth Circuit acts quickly, hundreds of thousands of validly registered Texas voters will be forced again to pay a poll tax and abide by an intentionally discriminatory law if they want to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming 2015 elections.”

The Veasey-LULAC plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the appeal noted that the next Texas elections are scheduled for May 2015.  The motion asked the court of appeals to resolve this appeal as promptly as possible in order to ensure that a constitutional system of voter identification is implemented for upcoming elections.  The motion further urged the court of appeals to hold oral argument at the earliest possible date following completion of briefing, and offered to abbreviate the briefing schedule if doing so would help the court of appeals expedite the appeal. 

The first challenge to the Texas photo ID law was filed by the Campaign Legal Center in the summer of 2013 claiming that SB 14 violates the 1st, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  Several challenges (including one brought by the United States) were then brought against the Texas law, which is one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.  All of the cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi. Following a two-week trial earlier this fall, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos enjoined SB 14 as an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, finding that it had “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.”  Further, Judge Ramos held that the law constituted an “unconstitutional poll tax.”  The defendants, including the state of Texas, immediately appealed Judge Ramos’ decision. In mid-October, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that decision and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently refused to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay, thus permitting Texas to impose the unconstitutional voter photo ID law in the recent November 2014 general election. 

The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team representing the Veasey-LULAC plaintiffs that includes Chad Dunn and K. Scott Brazil (Brazil & Dunn), Neil G. Baron, David Richards (Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith), Armand Derfner (Derfner, Altman & Wilborn), Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. (LULAC) and Craig M. Wilkins and Teresa G. Snelson (Dallas County District Attorney’s Office).

To read the motion to expedite, click here. 

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Gessler,urging theU.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to reject a challenge to the Colorado Constitution’s “electioneering communications” disclosure provisions and deny a preliminary injunction.  The state law is materially identical to the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure statute, which has been repeatedly upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, most recently in the 2010 Citizens United decision. 

Last month, in Independence Institute v. Gessler, the same Colorado district court dismissed a challenge to the same provisions of Colorado law as they applied to broadcast advertisements.  The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, also filed an amici brief in that case in defense of the law.

“As this court recognized in Independence Institute, the U.S. Supreme Court has been unwavering in its support for this type of disclosure, and has consistently recognized that voters have a vital informational interest in knowing who is speaking about candidates shortly before an election,” said Megan P. McAllen, Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “Disclosure laws are under siege in lawsuits from coast to coast, but the courts have stood firm in upholding these laws against challenges from ‘dark money’ groups seeking to influence the electorate while remaining anonymous to the voting public.”

In June 2014, plaintiffs Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Colorado Campaign for Life sent mailers to Colorado voters without making required disclosures.  The mailers referred to candidates for office in Colorado and were sent within 30 days of the primary election at a cost of more than $1,000.  They were thus “electioneering communications” subject to the modest disclosure requirements under Colorado law that plaintiffs now challenge as unconstitutionally overbroad.

The Colorado provisions closely track the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure law, which Congress enacted in 2002 to curb widespread evasion of earlier disclosure requirements that applied only to “express advocacy” ads.  The U.S. Supreme Court has twice upheld this law: first in a facial challenge in McConnell v. FEC (2003), and more recently in an as-applied challenge in Citizens United v. FEC (2010).

The Legal Center was assisted in the filing of the amici brief by Steven K. Imig of Lewis, Bess, Williams & Weese P.C.

To read the brief filed today, click here. 

Today in Van Hollen v. FEC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that a Federal Election Commission (FEC) rule improperly narrowed the scope of the McCain-Feingold law’s disclosure requirements and allowed nonprofit 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, 501(c)(6) business associations, and others to spend millions on “electioneering communications” without disclosing their donors.

The suit was brought by Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in an effort to ensure that the “dark money” outside groups that have become increasingly active in federal elections are required to disclose their donors to the public.  The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team representing Rep. Van Hollen in this case, which is led by Roger Witten of WilmerHale and also includes lawyers from WilmerHale, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen. 

“The loophole opened by the FEC gutted the law passed by Congress and encouraged widespread abuse in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars of undisclosed ‘dark money’ ads,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Neither Supreme Court precedent nor the underlying statute provided any justification for the FEC to adopt a rule narrowing disclosure.”

In a 46-page opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson deemed the rule promulgated by the FEC “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law” and an “unreasonable interpretation” of the McCain-Feingold law.  

On March 30, 2012, the district court ruled in favor of Rep. Van Hollen, holding that the FEC regulation was contrary to the clear language of the federal campaign finance statue it purported to implement.  On September 18, 2012, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision, disagreeing that the federal statute was clear and holding that the district court should have instead analyzed whether the rule was a reasonable interpretation of the statute under a more deferential mode of judicial review.  The case was remanded back to the district court.

To read the opinion issued today, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center is pleased to announce that Charles Fried is joining the organization’s board of directors. Prof. Fried served as Solicitor General of the United States under President Ronald Reagan, and as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. He currently is the Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he first taught in 1961.

Professor Fried has a longstanding interest in the area of campaign finance and has served as counsel to amici in several recent U.S. Supreme Court cases in the field. He co-chaired with Legal Center President Trevor Potter the American Bar Association Task Force on Lobbying and Ethics Reform, which examined the political fundraising activities of lobbyists.

“The Campaign a Legal Center is honored and fortunate to have Charles Fried join our Board,” said Trevor Potter, President of the Campaign Legal Center. “He is a nationally known and respected Republican lawyer and scholar. His views on the importance of improving the current state of our campaign finance practices, and the fact that this can be done in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment, will be of enormous assistance to us as we litigate these issues in the courts."

During his career at Harvard Professor Fried has continued to argue a number of major cases in state and federal courts. He has taught Criminal Law, Commercial Law, Roman Law, Torts, Contracts, Labor Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Courts, Appellate and Supreme Court Advocacy. Professor Fried is the author of more than 30 journal articles and nine books. He holds degrees from Princeton, Oxford and Columbia and has authored Saying What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court (2004), Modern Liberty (2006) and numerous other books and legal articles.

To read Mr. Fried's website biography, click here.

Today, in Justice v. Hosemann, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a trial court ruling that had struck down several Mississippi disclosure requirements as applied to certain individuals and groups engaged in ballot measure advocacy.  The Campaign Legal Center had filed an amicus brief and later a supplemental letter brief in the case urging this result. 

“We are pleased to see the Circuit Court adhere to established Supreme Court precedent that recognizes the vital public interest in disclosing the identities of those funding efforts to influence elections—including ballot initiatives,” said Tara Malloy, Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Ignoring precedent, the district court had improperly discounted the state’s interests, disproportionately emphasized the plaintiffs’ burdens, and failed to pay any deference to the legislators elected by the people of Mississippi.” 

The District Court had invalidated Mississippi’s requirement that groups register as political committees upon receiving or spending in excess of $200 to support or oppose a constitutional ballot measure as applied to plaintiffs.  It also invalidated a parallel provision that required individuals spending over $200 to influence ballot measures to file disclosure reports.   

In today’s decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs’ attempt to bring an as-applied challenge failed because they failed to present any concrete facts supporting such a challenge.  Because the Court rejected the as-applied challenge, it treated the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge as a facial one.  It then rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that Mississippi’s disclosure requirement should be subject to strict scrutiny, and instead followed the approach of other sister circuits in applying the lesser but still meaningful standard of “exacting scrutiny.”  This legal point was precisely the one advocated by the Campaign Legal Center in its amicus brief.  Applying this lesser level of exacting scrutiny, the Court of Appeals found that Mississippi’s disclosure requirements were substantially related to the state’s informational interest in informing Mississippi voters of “who is lobbying for their vote.”

To read the Fifth Circuit Court’s opinion, click here.

To read the supplemental letter brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center on August 22, click here.

To read the original brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center on March 4, click here.

Yesterday, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation filed a complaint at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) alleging violations of long-standing rules and law by WLS, an ABC broadcast television station in Chicago, IL.  WLS is owned by ABC, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.  The complaint notes that WLS refused to disclose the "true identity" of the sponsor of political ads being run by Independence USA PAC, even after the watchdog groups alerted the station to its violations and identified the PAC’s sole sponsor as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

“WLS undertook no effort to identify the ad’s true sponsor, despite being warned of its violations and being informed that Michael Bloomberg was the sole backer of Independence PAC,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director.  “This is a knowing and willful violation of the law, but more importantly failure to identify the true sponsor of the ad does a grave disservice to WLS viewers. They were left completely in the dark as to the fact that Michael Bloomberg, hiding behind a deceptively named organization, was spending large sums of money to influence their votes and the outcome of the election.  If WLS is not willing to reveal the man behind the curtain, then we certainly hope the FCC will enforce long standing statutes and compel the station to do so in future.”  

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, Independence USA is essentially a personal advertising arm for Mr. Bloomberg, and the station 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 complaint requests the FCC to declare that, for its failure to include the true identity of the sponsor of the ad, WLS is not in compliance with Section 317 of the Communications Act and 47 CFR Section 73.1212.  If a violation is found, the FCC can assess a forfeiture for WLS's willful noncompliance with the law and grant other relief at its discretion.

To read the complaint, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) welcomes Joshua Bone as its 2014-15 Campaign Legal Center Legal Fellow.  Mr. Bone is the third Fellow to hold the one-year position designed for recent law school graduates interested in issues relating to campaign finance, voting rights and other election law issues.  The Campaign Legal Center gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Bernard & Audre Rapoport Foundation for providing the funding support for CLC to launch its Legal Fellow program in  2012.

“We are very pleased to welcome Josh to the Campaign Legal Center where he hit the ground running in terms of his contributions to ongoing litigation,” said Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert.  “Our Legal Fellows have proven an incredibly valuable asset to CLC’s litigation team and Josh has shown he is continuing that tradition from his first day where he has provided invaluable assistance in our case challenging the unconstitutional Texas photo ID law.”

Prior to joining the Campaign Legal Center, Mr. Bone clerked for Judge David S. Tatel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. Bone is a 2013 graduate of Yale Law School. He holds a B.A. in History and Political Science from Yale University.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to be filed upon leave of the court, in Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates (CRG) v. Barland.  The brief urges the court to reject CRG’s motion to enjoin Wisconsin’s restrictions on the coordination of expenditures between candidates and outside groups.The court has already entered a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the law.

CRG wishes to make communications in coordination with three candidates for office in the state, including materials lauding “their backgrounds, their efforts to become politically involved, and their work to further fiscal responsibility in government.”  CRG argues that if it does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of these candidates in its communications, it should be free to coordinate such communications with the candidates without limitation.  But the U.S. Supreme Court specifically rejected this argument in McConnell v. FEC, holding that “there is no reason why Congress may not treat coordinated disbursements for electioneering communications,” i.e., a form of non-express advocacy, “in the same way it treats all other coordinated expenditures.”

“The Supreme Court has long recognized that expenditures coordinated by outside groups with candidates are tantamount to ‘disguised contributions’ made to the candidates themselves,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The value of a coordinated expenditure as a contribution to a candidate is not eliminated simply by the omission of words of express advocacy.  CRG asks the court to ignore Supreme Court precedent, as well as common sense, to strike down Wisconsin’s restrictions on coordinated spending and allow candidates to direct without limit any communications by outside groups that do not constitute express advocacy.  Candidate contribution limits would become meaningless if this type of coordination were to be sanctioned.”

The Legal Center was assisted in the filing of the amicus brief by Lester A. Pines and Susan Crawford of Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP.

To read the brief, click here.