Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the effort by the organization True the Vote (“TTV”) to intervene in the Texas voter photo ID case.  True the Vote sought to intervene to defend the discriminatory law.  The trial court had denied intervention last year and True the Vote appealed the denial to the Fifth Circuit. The Campaign Legal Center serves as counsel to the lead plaintiffs challenging the law in the district court and had filed an opposition in the Fifth Circuit to stay the voter ID lawsuit.

“We are relieved the court denied True the Vote’s belated attempt to join the State of Texas in defending a law serving no purpose other than to suppress the ability of black and Latino registered voters to cast their ballots,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of The Campaign Legal Center.  “True the Vote fell far short of establishing the right to intervene in the case and we are pleased the court of appeals correctly denied the organization’s effort to participate.”

On December 11, 2013, TTV was denied intervention as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuits (Veasey v. Perry, No. 2:13-cv-193) challenging Texas’s new voter identification law.  The district court found that TTV did not have a particularized interest that the litigation threatens to impair or impede, and that TTV’s generalized interests in the issues will be adequately represented by the State of Texas. That decision was affirmed today by the court of appeals.

The complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center in the case claims that the voter photo ID law (SB 14) violates the 1st, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Section 2 of Voting Rights Act.  Trial is scheduled to begin September 2 in Corpus Christi.  Several challenges (including one brought by the United States) have been brought against the Texas law, which is the one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.  The cases have been consolidated in the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi. 

The Campaign Legal Center attorneys are part of the legal team 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).

To read today's Fifth Circuit opinion, click here.

To read the Campaign Legal Center’s opposition to TTV’s motion, click here.

Late yesterday, reform groups asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to declare unlawful the dismissal of a complaint against the secretive political spending group Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategies (GPS) by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The motion for summary judgment stems from the FEC’s failure to investigate Crossroads GPS for not registering as a political committee. The FEC Office of General Counsel had strongly recommended that the agency investigate in the face of evidence against the group but the Commission deadlocked along party lines leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

 
The lawsuit, Public Citizen v. FEC, was brought by the parties to the 2010 complaint: Public Citizen; Craig Holman, campaign finance expert for Public Citizen; ProtectOurElections.org; and Kevin Zeese, an attorney for ProtectOurElections.org. The Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen are handling the legal work on the case as co-counsel for the parties.

The groups contend that Crossroads GPS – an organization created by Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie to influence the 2010 midterm elections – fits the legal definition of a political committee: any group that receives or spends more than $1,000 during a calendar year to influence elections and whose major purpose is federal campaign activity. Political committees must disclose information about their donors and expenditures. The FEC’s refusal to investigate Crossroads GPS for failing to register as a political committee has allowed the organization to continue to keep its donors secret for the last three election cycles.

“Courts are the only recourse when three Commissioners ignore the laws passed by Congress, ignore the FEC’s own longstanding policies and ignore the call for an investigation by their own General Counsel,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “As a result of that FEC deadlock the seemingly clear cut violations of the law by Crossroads GPS have continued unabated and other ‘dark money’ groups have been emboldened to follow suit resulting in a massive spike in undisclosed political spending in our elections. We hope that the court sees fit to grant this motion and ensure that every member of the Commission fulfils the duties of their office and enforces the laws passed by Congress.”

“We hope the court will be able to see what the three Commissioners who blocked the FEC from proceeding claimed they could not: Crossroads GPS was formed to pour money into our elections, and that is exactly what it did in the 2010 elections,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “The Commissioners’ failure to perceive that reality is a classic case of failing to see that the emperor has no clothes.”

In 2007, the FEC published a detailed policy laying out how the agency determines an organization’s major purpose. The policy provides that the FEC will consider public and non-public statements by the organization and the proportion of spending on “federal election activity,” which includes spending on express advocacy (messages calling for a vote for or against a candidate) as well as electioneering communications and other materials that discuss the merits of a candidate immediately before an election.

Evidence indicates that Crossroads GPS operates as a political committee. Between June and December 2010, Crossroads GPS spent $20.8 million on federal campaign activity – more than half of what Crossroads GPS reported spending the entire year, the FEC’s general counsel determined.

And Crossroads GPS’ co-founder, the Republican strategist Karl Rove, boasted on FOX News that Crossroads GPS was an avenue for donors who had maxed out to GOP political committees. In October 2010, the group announced a $4.2 million ad buy targeting eight heavily contested U.S. Senate races. Three-quarters of the ad buy was paid for with money from undisclosed donors.

“Disclosure of who is paying for political ads is an important part of campaign finance law and an essential consideration for voters,” said Zeese of ProtectOurElections.org. “Disclosure of who is paying for political ads is an important part of campaign finance law and an essential consideration for voters. The FEC however - because of obstruction by three partisan commissioners - has allowed such expenditures to be done in secret thereby undermining the law and our democracy. Our case gives the court the opportunity to correct that injustice.”

Political committees are required by law to disclose the identities of their donors.  In an attempt to avoid disclosing its donors, Crossroads GPS has applied for status as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit social welfare group.

To read the motion for summary judgment filed yesterday with the court, click here.
 
To read the original FEC complaint, click here.
 
To read the statement by the Democratic Commissioners of the FEC, click here.
 
To read the FEC General Counsel’s recommendation, click here.
 

Today the Campaign Legal Center strongly warned against the growing threat of Dark Money to our democracy and provided testimony to the Senate Rules Committee that the DISCLOSE ACT would provide the disclosure called for by the U.S. Supreme Court in a number of recent campaign finance rulings.  In a statement submitted into the record of today’s hearing “The DISCLOSE Act (S.2516) and the Need for Expanded Disclosure of Funds Raised and Spent to Influence Federal Elections” Legal Center President Trevor Potter and Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert condemned the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) “blatant override of Congressional intent” in the rules issued by the Commission to implement the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

Potter and Hebert explained that the FEC precipitated the current crises, undermining Congressional efforts to increase disclosure of the funders of outside spending:

The DISCLOSE Act is of particular urgency due to the mushrooming of outside spending in elections combined with the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) ongoing efforts to narrow the coverage of the disclosure rules. The FEC’s disclosure regulations—which are clearly contrary to the legislative intent of Congress—and the Commission’s failure to enforce the law as intended have largely created this problem. The good news is that this is a problem that can be fixed legislatively, and in fact was addressed by Congress when it passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002. The “electioneering communications” disclosure provision of BCRA, which the Supreme Court upheld and is still on the books, says that any “person,” including corporations and labor unions, that spends more than $10,000 on TV and radio ads mentioning candidates in close proximity to elections must file a report with the FEC disclosing the names and addresses of all contributors who contributed $1,000 or more to the person making the ad buy.     

The statement urges the Rules Committee to expeditiously send the DISCLOSE Act to the full Senate and to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken the legislation in order to bring disclosure regulations in line with current law and in keeping with U.S. Supreme Court rulings calling for complete disclosure of political spending in order to safeguard the integrity of the nation’s elections. 

To read the full statement, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation filed complaints at the Federal Communications Commission against two television stations that incorrectly identified front groups as the “true sponsors” of political advertisements, when they were in fact paid for by one individual. The complainants are represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown University Law Center.

In the complaint against WJLA, the Allbritton-owned ABC affiliate in Washington D.C., the groups cited two ads that aired in September and October 2013 that failed to properly identify environmentalist and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer as the true sponsor. Instead, the ads were attributed to “NextGen Climate Action Committee.” At the time, NextGen was a super PAC founded and funded solely by Steyer. 

The groups also filed a complaint against KGW in Portland, OR. In May 2014, KGW ran multiple ads attacking Senate candidate Monica Wehby and supporting Jason Conger. In FCC filings, the sponsor behind the ads is identified as the “American Principles Fund,” but, as the complaint details, hedge fund manager Sean Fieler is the true sponsor. Fieler is the founder of the American Principles Fund and the super PAC received nearly all of its funding from him. 

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, both super PACs act essentially as personal advertising arms for the individuals behind them, and the stations 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 public has a right to know who is trying to buy their influence through political ads,” said Sean Vitka, Sunlight Foundation federal policy manager. “When political agendas are hidden behind seemingly innocuous super PACs, it’s the legal responsibility of the broadcasters to make sure that the public is properly informed. The FCC’s disclosure rules are one of the only ways to track this kind of activity, and the only way to track political ad spending in real time. We hope the FCC enforces its policies.”

“The stations are only too happy to cash the checks for these ads but cannot be bothered to actually comply with the law requiring them to make public the funders behind those ads,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center policy director. “Viewers deserve to know who is bankrolling the endless ads seeking to influence the outcome of elections and the law requires it.   In case after case the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld disclosure laws and recognized the compelling public interest in voters knowing the source of the money behind the ads seeking to influence their votes.” 

"Dark Money groups have polluted the airwaves the law for far too long. Transparency is essential,” said Todd O'Boyle, program director for media and democracy at Common Cause. "It's high time for the Commission to do its job and make political ad disclosure a reality."

WJLA is currently owned by Allbritton Communications Company.  The FCC is considering an application for sale of the station to Sinclair Broadcast Group, but the complaint is directed to Allbritton.

KGW is licensed to Sander Media, LLC.

To view the complaint against WJLA, click here.

To view the complaint against KGW, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation filed complaints at the Federal Communications Commission against two television stations that incorrectly identified front groups as the “true sponsors” of political advertisements, when they were in fact paid for by one individual. The complainants are represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown University Law Center.

In the complaint against WJLA, the Allbritton-owned ABC affiliate in Washington D.C., the groups cited two ads that aired in September and October 2013 that failed to properly identify environmentalist and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer as the true sponsor. Instead, the ads were attributed to “NextGen Climate Action Committee.” At the time, NextGen was a super PAC founded and funded solely by Steyer. 

The groups also filed a complaint against KGW in Portland, OR. In May 2014, KGW ran multiple ads attacking Senate candidate Monica Wehby and supporting Jason Conger. In FCC filings, the sponsor behind the ads is identified as the “American Principles Fund,” but, as the complaint details, hedge fund manager Sean Fieler is the true sponsor. Fieler is the founder of the American Principles Fund and the super PAC received nearly all of its funding from him. 

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, both super PACs act essentially as personal advertising arms for the individuals behind them, and the stations 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 public has a right to know who is trying to buy their influence through political ads,” said Sean Vitka, Sunlight Foundation federal policy manager. “When political agendas are hidden behind seemingly innocuous super PACs, it’s the legal responsibility of the broadcasters to make sure that the public is properly informed. The FCC’s disclosure rules are one of the only ways to track this kind of activity, and the only way to track political ad spending in real time. We hope the FCC enforces its policies.”

“The stations are only too happy to cash the checks for these ads but cannot be bothered to actually comply with the law requiring them to make public the funders behind those ads,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center policy director. “Viewers deserve to know who is bankrolling the endless ads seeking to influence the outcome of elections and the law requires it.   In case after case the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld disclosure laws and recognized the compelling public interest in voters knowing the source of the money behind the ads seeking to influence their votes.” 

"Dark Money groups have polluted the airwaves the law for far too long. Transparency is essential,” said Todd O'Boyle, program director for media and democracy at Common Cause. "It's high time for the Commission to do its job and make political ad disclosure a reality."

WJLA is currently owned by Allbritton Communications Company.  The FCC is considering an application for sale of the station to Sinclair Broadcast Group, but the complaint is directed to Allbritton.

Earlier today, Judge Terry P. Lewis of the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Florida found that the Florida Legislature violated the state constitution when it redrew its congressional boundaries. Voters in Florida overwhelmingly supported amending the Florida Constitution in 2012 to bar the Legislature from intentionally favoring or disfavoring a political party or an incumbent.  Today, Judge Lewis found a “group of Republican political consultants or operatives did in fact conspire to manipulate and influence the redistricting process” and that they did so “all with the intention of obtaining enacted maps for the State House and Senate and Congress that would favor the Republican Party.”  He further found that “[t]hey made a mockery of the Legislature’s proclaimed transparent and open process of redistricting”.   Judge Lewis found that the Republican political consultants “obtain[ed] the necessary cooperation and collaboration” from the Legislative leaders, enabling them to “infiltrate and influence the Legislature[.]” As a result, Judge Lewis found, they managed “to taint the redistricting process and the resulting map with improper partisan intent.”  

The Court found that Congressional Districts 5 (Rep. Corrine Brown) and 10 (Rep. Daniel Webster) were each drawn with the intent of favoring the Republican Party.  In the case of District 5, Judge Lewis found that it was “bizarrely shaped and does not follow traditional political boundaries as it winds from Jacksonville to Orlando.  At one point, District 5 narrows to the width of highway 17.”  The district was drawn to create a majority black voting age population even though it was unnecessary to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act, Judge Lewis found.  By removing black voters from another district and placing them in District 5, the Florida Legislature did so intentionally to make the adjoining district (District 7) more Republican.  As for District 10, Judge Lewis found it contained an odd appendage which was added to benefit the incumbent Webster.  District 10 was thus struck down because it was drawn intentionally to benefit the Republican Party and to favor the incumbent.

“In adopting the amendments to the Florida Constitution in 2010, Florida voters decided that voters should choose their elected representatives and that politicians shouldn’t choose their voters,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The Florida Legislature ignored the law and the will of Florida voters and let itself be hijacked by Republican political consultants and operatives.  The decision today is a devastating indictment of those who manipulated the redistricting process secretly behind closed doors and tried to shield it from the public.  Political consultants and legislators even destroyed evidence about the redistricting process, apparently in an effort to keep their conspiracy secret.  Today’s victory was a direct result of the hard work and dedication of Fair Districts Now, and particularly its leader, Ellen Freidin, who made certain that Florida’s voters got a decision that safeguards their voting rights.”

Hebert along with the Orlando law firm of King Blackwell Zehnder and Wermuth, and attorneys at Jenner and Block served as co-counsel to the League of Women Voters of Florida, the National Council of La Raza, and Common Cause Florida and Florida voters who brought the lawsuit.  The King Blackwell Zehnder and Wermuth law firm took the lead for the LWV Plaintiffs in the case.  The case was consolidated with another challenge to the redistricting brought by the Romo plaintiffs, who also prevailed today in their challenge.   

To read the full opinion of the Circuit Court, click here.