This evening, the Campaign Legal Center officially dedicated the Ham Rove Memorial Conference Room, with an assist from comedian Stephen Colbert, in order to meet the sole condition for accepting a generous check from the Ham Rove Memorial Fund. The popular host of Comedy Central’s Colbert Report provided videotaped remarks (link below) for the occasion and personally donated a life-sized portrait of himself, which now hangs at the Legal Center.  

The Ham Rove Memorial Fund was created by Mr. Colbert with money he raised though his Colbert Super PAC. Legal Center President Trevor Potter, through his private law practice, was a frequent guest on the show serving as Mr. Colbert’s attorney and explaining the intricacies of campaign finance and tax law. Mr. Potter helped to create the Colbert Super PAC, the related 501(c)(4) Colbert Super PAC SHH and ultimately the Ham Rove Memorial Fund where the hundreds of thousands of dollars from Colbert Super PAC had vanished in November 2012 without a trace, courtesy of loopholes in the IRS regulations.

“You have to admire a man who gives you his untraceable 501(c)(4) money, knowing you’ll use it in an attempt to shut down untraceable 501(c)(4) money,” Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert, remarked at the event beneath Colbert’s portrait. “We hope to use Mr. Colbert’s generous donation to bring about much needed reforms in the campaign finance arena.” 

"Stephen Colbert did an amazing job of distilling the complexities of Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s into something that the general public could instantly grasp," Legal Center President Trevor Potter said before unveiling Colbert's portrait at the event. "That coverage did more to educate the American public on the fallout from the Citizens United decision, secret money in campaigns, and the problems with the FEC's and IRS's non-enforcement of the laws, than anything else in the last election cycle," said Potter.

Potter noted that the contribution was an unexpected bonus above and beyond the valuable public service Mr. Colbert provided in airing the segments on his show. The Colbert Report was awarded with a prestigious Peabody Award for the segments of the show related to the Super PAC and the nation’s completely dysfunctional campaign finance system in the wake of the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision and a series of failures by regulatory agencies, including the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The contribution of $136, 852.41 was officially made by The Ham Rove Memorial Fund of Coastal Community Foundation on the recommendation of Stephen Colbert.

To watch the dedication speech taped for the occasion by Stephen Colbert, click here.

Today, a proposed consent judgment and decree was presented to a three-judge court in Washington, DC, granting a Voting Rights Act bailout to the City of Wheatland, California. If approved, Wheatland will add to the growing list of state or local governments to bailout from the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Those provisions known as Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are being challenged in a case currently being weighed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder.  Numerous critics of Section 5 argued in briefs to the court that the bailout process was far too arduous and cost-prohibitive, neither of which is true. Earlier this year, Brown’s Valley Irrigation District (CA) bailed out, as did the State of New Hampshire. Two other local governments (the City of Falls Church, VA, and California’s Yuba County Water Agency) have bailout lawsuits pending in the DC Court.

 “The continuing string of successful bailouts make a mockery of the arguments that the bailout process is illusory, too arduous and too expensive. Further, these bailouts prove that the coverage formula self-tailors, and therefore Section 5 coverage adjusts to current needs required to protect the franchise,” said Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert, who serves as legal counsel for the California jurisdictions, the State of New Hampshire, and the City of Falls Church in his capacity as a solo practitioner.  “The Voting Rights Act remains a vital bulwark of our democracy but these jurisdictions, like many others, have proven that they maintain nondiscriminatory voting practices and no longer require Section 5 coverage. Still more bailouts are in the works proving beyond a doubt that the bailout process is working effectively.”

 To read the joint motion to enter consent judgment and decree, click here. To read the proposed consent judgment and decree, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center filed a friend of the Court brief discussing bailout in Shelby County v. Holder.  To read the brief, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined Democracy 21 in asking President Obama whether his involvement with Organizing for Action (OFA) is consistent with the statutory ban on the solicitation of gifts by the President and executive branch officials. In a letter, citing numerous media accounts of OFA and its ties to the President and his 2012 campaign, the watchdog groups questioned whether the President’s involvement with the organization contravenes the Ethics in Government Act and its explicit ban on the soliciting of gifts by executive branch officials. The President is exempted from the law’s executive branch prohibition on accepting gifts, but remains subject to the ban on soliciting gifts, directly or indirectly, from sources with interests that may be substantially impacted by the decisions and policies of the Administration.

“The President’s involvement with OFA not only raises policy concerns relating to the purchase of influence over the Administration, but also may cross the line in terms of the federal law banning the soliciting of gifts by any member of the executive branch, including the President,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director. “This unprecedented use of a tax-exempt organization to accept unlimited contributions and to serve as what appears to be an arm of the executive branch is not the hope and change touted by then-Senator Obama in 2008. Instead it represents yet another example of the race to the bottom in political fundraising that we have seen following Citizens United. We sincerely hope that the President will reconsider his involvement with OFA and step back from the precipice by shutting down OFA. He should recommit his efforts and the power of his office toward fixing a broken political money system rather than simply riding it further into the ground.”

The letter outlines in detail for the President the “multiple factors” that suggest that OFA’s role as “a private-sector arm” of the Administration may well contravene the solicitation ban of the Ethics in Government Act. Included in the letter to the President is a summary of those activities:

• You have been personally involved in the creation and public announcement of OFA and in the promotion of OFA to your campaign supporters and the public.
• You have personally endorsed and embraced the work of OFA, which you have said is important to “finishing the job” started by your first term.
• You intend to appear at and participate in OFA events that will be attended by OFA’s large donors and bundlers, including the “founders’ summit.”
• OFA was also created, and is being operated, by former top White House officials in your Administration and by your close political associates and former campaign operatives.
• OFA is a direct outgrowth of your 2012 presidential campaign, and reportedly, by purchase or lease, will become the beneficiary of key assets of your 2012 presidential campaign, including voter database information and email distribution lists.
• OFA Chairman Jim Messina, reportedly has stated that you will help direct OFA and will be “intimately involved” in its operations.
• OFA is managing your Twitter account and Facebook page.

The letter urges the President to shut down OFA with all due haste.

To read the full letter sent by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center submitted comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rebutting a series of gross mischaracterizations of law made by two major trade associations seeking to avoid disclosure of their donors whose money is used for political activities. In their comments to the SEC concerning a rulemaking petition filed by the Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending urging the SEC to require public companies to disclose their political spending to shareholders, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute (API) offered incorrect and misleading information to the SEC, which the Legal Center debunks in its comments to the agency.

“In a desperate effort to stave off disclosing the corporations funding their increasingly sophisticated multi-million dollar political operations, the Chamber and API resorted to completely mischaracterizing pertinent laws including the Administrative Procedures Act, existing federal and state campaign finance disclosure laws, and even the constitutionality of the disclosure rule requested by the petitioners,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “When it comes to their claims concerning disclosure, these two organizations do not have a legal leg to stand on, which makes for a fascinating read if you are a fan of legal fiction. Again and again the U.S. Supreme Court has come down decisively and overwhelmingly in support of disclosure laws, recognizing the vital public interest in having an informed citizenry.”

The Legal Center urged the SEC to move forward with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning publicly traded company disclosure to shareholders of the use of corporate resources for political activities, noting that the Supreme Court inCitizens United explicitly highlighted the importance of shareholder disclosure. Eight of the Court’s nine members wrote in Citizens United: “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

To read the comments filed with the SEC by the Campaign Legal Center, click here.

Late Friday, a three-judge court in Washington, DC, granted a Voting Rights Act bailout to the State of New Hampshire, marking the first time since the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act took effect that a state has bailed out from preclearance requirements of the Act. The bailout had assumed a higher profile when it was opposed by a conservative group seeking to undermine the defense of the Voting Rights Act before the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. United States.  The court denied the attempt by the Center for Individual Rights to intervene in the case on the grounds that the voter that the Center represented lacked standing.

“New Hampshire’s successful bailout shows that the coverage formula self-tailors, and therefore Section 5 coverage adjusts to current needs,” said Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert, who serves as legal counsel to the State of New Hampshire in his capacity as a solo practitioner.  “New Hampshire's successful bailout effectively defeats the 'theory' advanced by Shelby County, Alabama in its pending challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act that the bailout provisions are illusory or unworkable."  Hebert credited state and local officials in New Hampshire for assembling the record that entitled the state and its ten covered towns to bail out.   

To read the consent judgment and decree, click here.

To read the joint motion to enter consent judgment and decree, click here.  To read the proposed consent judgment and decree, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center filed a friend of the Court brief in Shelby County v. United States.  To read the brief, click here.

Late Friday, a three-judge court in Washington, DC, granted a Voting Rights Act bailout to the State of New Hampshire, marking the first time since the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act took effect that a state has bailed out from preclearance requirements of the Act. The bailout had assumed a higher profile when it was opposed by a conservative group seeking to undermine the defense of the Voting Rights Act before the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. United States.  The court denied the attempt by the Center for Individual Rights to intervene in the case on the grounds that the voter that the Center represented lacked standing.

“New Hampshire’s successful bailout shows that the coverage formula self-tailors, and therefore Section 5 coverage adjusts to current needs,” said Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert, who serves as legal counsel to the State of New Hampshire in his capacity as a solo practitioner.  “New Hampshire's successful bailout effectively defeats the 'theory' advanced by Shelby County, Alabama in its pending challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act that the bailout provisions are illusory or unworkable."  Hebert credited state and local officials in New Hampshire for assembling the record that entitled the state and its ten covered towns to bail out.   

To read the consent judgment and decree, click here.

To read the joint motion to enter consent judgment and decree, click here.  To read the proposed consent judgment and decree, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center filed a friend of the Court brief in Shelby County v. United States.  To read the brief, click here.