Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined a number of organizations in urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold broadcasters accountable for using publicly-owned spectrum effectively and to gauge any adverse public impacts from broadcast service losses resulting from spectrum repurposing.   

The groups filed reply comments in the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking in Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and Improvements to VHF.  The comments emphasize the need for the Commission to collect data to assess the impact of broadcast service loss and not relax the ownership rules to support its channel sharing proposal.

The groups signing the reply comments included the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., Media Alliance, National Organization for Women, the Benton Foundation, and The Campaign Legal Center and the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown University Law Center

To read the full letter, click here.

Senator John Ensign is right to resign.  His conduct was reprehensible. The problem, of course, is that these shenanigans were not simply Senator Ensign’s private affairs, but were entangled in his official position and the operations of his Senate office and included apparent violations of revolving door rules.  Certainly, the standards of behavior he set did not reflect creditably on the institution, and his resignation is welcome and overdue.

With the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission having punted, it is critically important that the Ethics Committee follow through on their statement to complete this investigation so that the accurate, complete story can be made public.  Otherwise, the mud will have been swept under the rug.

This case should be used as a reminder that, when the Office of Congressional Ethics was established by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate refused to follow suit.  That is much to the “upper” body’s discredit.  The OCE has provided a means to investigate matters expeditiously and, at least so far, with credibility.  The Senate should reconsider its rejection of such an investigative body.

For too long, the Senate ethics process has operated under the guidance of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  The process remains opaque and an outside investigative office is needed to bring credibility and integrity to the process.

Today, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission in federal district court in Washington, DC, challenging an FEC regulation that has improperly narrowed the scope of McCain-Feingold law disclosure requirements and allowed nonprofit 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, 501(c)(6) business associations, and others to spend millions on “electioneering communication” while keeping secret the donors whose funds are used to pay for the ads.

Representative Van Hollen also filed a petition at the FEC today requesting that the Commission conduct an expedited rulemaking to revise and amend an existing FEC “independent expenditure” disclosure regulation that has similarly allowed groups to millions of dollars in “independent expenditures” while keeping secret the donors whose funds are used to pay for the ads.

The Campaign Legal Center is part of Representative Van Hollen’s pro bonolegal team, led by Roger Witten of the law firm WilmerHale and Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21.

“In 2007, the FEC gutted McCain-Feingold disclosure requirements in a little-noticed rulemaking,” according to J. Gerry Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The flood of corporate political spending unleashed by the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United made clear the impact of 2007 FEC regulation changes as untold millions of corporate dollars were funneled through the Chamber of Commerce and other groups to avoid disclosure of the source of the funds,” Hebert stated.

“Without effective action to close the disclosure loophole opened by the FEC, the American people will continue to remain in the dark about tens of millions of dollars being provided by corporations and others to buy influence over government decisions,” Hebert said.

To read the complaint, click here.  To read the rulemaking petition, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined with a coalition of reform groups to urge the House ethics committee to resume its work on the pending investigation of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and provide the public with an accounting of the status of the case.

The case has been pending for more than two years and a scheduled hearing in November was abruptly cancelled without explanation.

The organizations signing the letter include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.

The full letter follows below.

March 23, 2011

The Hon. Jo Bonner, Chairman

The Hon. Linda T. Sanchez, Ranking Member

House Committee on Ethics

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

                RE:  Status of the Matter Regarding Rep. Maxine Waters

Dear House Committee on Ethics:

Our organizations – Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters and Public Citizen – are concerned about the length of time it has taken the House Committee on Ethics to investigate and conclude the Matter Re: Representative Maxine Waters. We are writing to ask the Committee to inform us and the public when it plans to resume its work and adjudicate the case.

The investigation of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) has been pending for approximately two years. The case involves allegations that the Waters and/or her staff in 2008 engaged in improper behavior that resulted in substantial financial gain for the Representative.

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) began its investigation into the allegations on April 2, 2009, and recommended on August 6, 2009, that the Committee on Ethics further investigate the matter. The Committee on Ethics accepted the recommendations of OCE and set up an investigatory subcommittee on October 7, 2010, which on June 15 recommended an adjudicatory hearing. The Committee on Ethics agreed and scheduled a hearing to take place on November 29, 2010, which was suddenly cancelled without explanation by the Committee ten days prior to the hearing.

Recent news reports indicate that the Committee has no plans yet for resuming the investigation or adjudicatory hearing and concluding the matter.

These delays, followed by uncertainty whether any action is forthcoming, are unfair to all parties involved in the case and reflect poorly on the ability of the House Committee on Ethics to fulfill its mission.

We request that the committee inform us and the public about when the Committee is planning to resume its work on this case and when the Committee is anticipating completing its adjudication of this case.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Campaign Legal Center

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Common Cause

Democracy 21

League of Women Voters

Public Citizen