Legal Center Files in Defense of Washington State Disclosure Law Already Upheld by Supreme Court
The Campaign Legal Center yesterday filed an amicus brief in Doe v. Reed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in support of a Washington State disclosure law in an as-applied challenge after the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled the law constitutional in a facial challenge in 2010.
“The Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, made very clear that it believes disclosure is vital to the health of our democracy,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Associate Legal Counsel. “As Justice Scalia wrote, ‘requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.’ The legal bar for exemption from disclosure is appropriately very high and should not be lowered in this case. To imply that these petition signers face a threat akin to members of the Socialist Workers Party or the NAACP in the Deep South during the civil rights era is an affront to real civic courage.”
The case was brought on behalf of “John Doe” and Protect Marriage Washington, a group opposed to same-sex marriage and domestic partnership rights, in an effort to halt Washington State from releasing, under the state Public Records Act, petitions filed in a 2009 referendum campaign to repeal a domestic partnership law enacted by the state legislature.
Doe v. Reed is just one of many cases challenging state, local and federal disclosure laws as part of a nationwide litigation campaign seeking to undermine transparency in politics.
To read the Legal Center brief, click here.
Another Attack on State Campaign Finance Laws Turned Back in Texas
In a sweeping decision issued late yesterday, a Texas Court upheld numerous Texas campaign finance laws that had been challenged on constitutional grounds in Texas Democratic Party, et al. v. King Street Patriots, et al. Judge John K. Dietz of the District Court of Travis County Texas issued the final summary judgment in the challenge to provisions of Texas campaign finance law, including the state restriction on corporate contributions to candidates, officeholders and political committees, and the disclosure and organizational requirements applicable to political committees.
“The decision represents the latest in a string of victories against an aggressive nationwide litigation blitz aimed at overturning a host of state campaign finance laws in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director. “Judge Dietz saw right through the unsubstantiated attempt by attorneys for the King Street Patriots to imply that Citizens United extended to corporate contribution restrictions and disclosure requirements despite the fact that the case did not address the former and upheld the latter by an 8-1 majority.”
The Texas Democratic Party originally alleged that the King Street Patriots, a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation, made in-kind contributions to the state Republican Party in violation of Texas’s restriction on corporate political contributions, and failed to register as a “political committee” and comply with state disclosure law. The King Street Patriots, in response, filed a broad counterclaim challenging numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance law.
The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief in the case to defend the constitutionality of Texas’s campaign finance laws. The Legal Center was supported in the case by the law firm of Gray and Becker in Austin, Texas.
The summary judgment allows the original Texas Democratic Party action to move forward seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in connection to several violations of state campaign finance laws allegedly committed by the King Street Patriots.
To read the summary judgment, click here.
To read the Legal Center’s amicus brief opposing the King Street Patriots’s counterclaim, click here.
U.S. Senate: Trevor Potter Statement to Senate Rules Committee on DISCLOSE Act of 2012
U.S. House: Members Urged to Support Amendment to FCC Bill Requiring Disclosure of Donors to Groups Buying TV Ads
Today the Campaign Legal Center and other reform groups urged Members to support an amendment to require disclosure of those funding television advertisements as the House considers H.R. 3309, a bill to curb Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory powers.
The amendment to improve transparency in federal elections was introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA). The underlying bill has drawn criticism that it will impede the FCC’s ability to protect consumers but this amendment would require groups running political ads on TV to disclose their all contributors of more than $10,000 and place a list of these funders in the political files of the broadcast stations running the ads.
“Representative Eshoo’s amendment would simply let Americans know which special interests or individuals are shelling out money to help elect which candidates,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director. “Polls have shown this type of disclosure has the overwhelming support of Americans already sick and tired of campaign ads funded by groups revealing little about their backers. This is information that voters deserve, and it is information voters will increasingly demand as the November elections approach and the barrage of campaign ads spreads to cities and towns in every corner of our nation.”
The groups joining the Legal Center on the letter included, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and the Sunlight Foundation.
The full text of the letter follows below.
Vote for Eshoo Amendment to H.R. 3309
March 27, 2012
Dear Representative:
Today the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3309, legislation designed to limit the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt regulations affecting the communications industry.
While there are serious concerns that the underlying bill would hamper the FCC’s ability to protect consumers, Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) will offer an amendment that would significantly improve transparency in our elections.
The following organizations urge you to support the Eshoo amendment: the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Democracy 21, Public Citizen and the Sunlight Foundation.
The Eshoo amendment would require an entity that runs political ads on television to disclose the sources of funding for the entity of $10,000 or more and place a list of these funders in the political files of broadcast stations that run the ads. This measure would help to ensure that viewers have access to information about the donors funding ads being run to influence their votes.
Such disclosure requirements for campaign-related expenditures were explicitly upheld in the Citizens United decision by an 8-to-1 vote. The Court stated that disclosure requirements "provide the electorate with information and insure that the voters are fully informed about the person or group who is speaking" and that "transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
Our organizations urge you to vote for the Eshoo amendment.
Sincerely,
FEC: FEC Reminded it has No Authority to Strike Down Contribution Limits in Filing by Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21
The Campaign Legal Center, together with Democracy 21, filed comments today with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), reminding the commission that it has no authority to strike down statutory aggregate contribution limits, or any other laws passed by Congress, as requested by Advisory Opinion Request (AOR) 2012-14.
The AOR filed on behalf of Shaun McCutcheon asks the FEC to declare unconstitutional the $46,200 biennial limit on aggregate contributions from individuals to candidates and their authorized committees, though the request both acknowledges and later ignores that a statutory aggregate contribution limit has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
McCutcheon cites no authority that would authorize the Commission to do what he asks. He acknowledges that the “Commission may be tempted to invoke ‘restraint’ and lean on both the letter of the statute and purported wisdom of Congress.” AOR 2012-14 at 9. (In this statement, he appears to ignore the ruling in Buckley upholding the section 441a(a) aggregate limit.)
“The Supreme Court in Buckley made very clear that aggregate limits are constitutional, yet this request asks the Commission to exceed its authority by declaring such a limit unconstitutional, thus opening the door for individuals to contribute millions of dollars to candidates and authorized committees every single election cycle,” said Paul S. Ryan, FEC Program Director for the Campaign Legal Center. “The FEC is an administrative agency, not a court of law. The agency clearly lacks the legal authority to adjudicate the constitutionality of a duly-enacted statute.”
“The issue raised in this AOR was squarely resolved by the Supreme Court in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo which held constitutional the aggregate limits on contributions in federal campaign finance law,” said Fred Wertheimer, President of Democracy 21. “There has been nothing in Supreme Court rulings since then to indicate that the Court has changed its views on this matter. Even those FEC Commissioners who are consistently unwilling to properly enforce and interpret the laws cannot believe that they are empowered to overrule Supreme Court decisions.”
The comments emphasize that the FEC has no choice but to inform McCutcheon that if he exceeds the limit he will be in violation of federal law. Further they stress that if a lawsuit is filed the FEC “must meet McCutcheon in court and defend the law once again.”
To read the comments, click here.
IRS: CLC & Democracy 21 Call on IRS to Establish Bright-Line Standard for 501(c)(4) Tax-Exempt Status
In a letter sent today to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 called on the agency to promptly initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise and clarify its regulations that spell out how much candidate campaign activity 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations can engage in under the Internal Revenue Code.
The privileged tax status has been widely embraced by special interest and political operatives to fund large scale political advertising campaigns on behalf of candidates. The IRS has taken no public action to date as the number of, and spending by, these organizations continues to multiply.
On July 27, 2010, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 submitted a “Petition for Rulemaking on Campaign Activities by Section 501(c)(4) Groups” to the IRS, challenging the existing eligibility requirements for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.
“The inaction of the IRS is only serving to inspire further abuses of the tax code as 501(c)(4)s are misused by special interests and individuals seeking to buy influence in Congress and the White House without revealing their identities to the public,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The IRS needs to establish a bright-line standard on eligibility for this privileged tax status or the already flagrant abuses will become even more widespread and the damage to our democracy will be made infinitely worse.”
“Organizations are ripping off the tax laws to hide from the American people the wealthy individuals and corporations financing their campaign activities,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “Yet as far as anyone knows, the IRS has failed to stop this. We again call on the IRS to replace its ineffectual regulations and restore the integrity of the tax laws. The IRS should adopt a new bright line standard, in accord with court decisions, to establish that groups spending more than an ‘insubstantial amount’ on campaign activities are not eligible for 501(c)(4) tax status.”
The letter cited additional egregious examples of abuses of 501(c)(4) tax status by groups running candidate ads across the country. It also brought to the attention of the IRS comments made by an association of legitimate 501(c)(4) organizations that the widespread misuse of the tax-status was undermining both the credibility and the fundraising of groups for which the tax status was intended.
To read the full letter, click here.