Today, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, along with six other public interest groups, filed an amici brief with the U.S. Supreme Court inMcComish v. Bennett to defend Arizona’s public financing program for state electoral campaigns. McComish marks the first time that the Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of a public financing measure for over three decades.

The case concerns the triggered matching funds provisions of Arizona’s program that provide candidates who choose to participate with supplemental public funds in the event they face high spending by a non-participating opponent or by hostile independent groups.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that these provisions were constitutional, finding that they created no more than a “potential chilling effect” on the campaign activity of non-participating candidates and outside groups.  

In the amici brief, the Legal Center urges the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and to avoid consideration of broader constitutional questions that are not before the court.  The amici emphasize that the Supreme Court strongly endorsed the constitutionality of the presidential public financing system in its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, and argue that the legal principles set forth in Buckley compel the conclusion that the trigger provisions of Arizona’s program are also constitutional.

First, like the presidential program reviewed in Buckley, the challenged trigger provisions provide a public subsidy to participating candidates, but do not directly restrict either the contributions to or expenditures by privately-financed candidates.  Further, Arizona’s public financing program serves the governmental interests in eliminating the corruptive influence of large private contributions and relieving candidates from the pressures of private fundraising.   In short, as Buckley found of the presidential system, Arizona’s program is an “effort, not to abridge, restrict, or censor speech, but rather to use public money to facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process.”

The amici brief was filed by the Legal Center on behalf of itself and the following public interest groups: Democracy 21, the League of Woman Voters of the United States, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, Public Citizen, CREW, the Sierra Club and New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Center.

To read the full brief, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, as part of legal team led by attorneys from Public Citizen and WilmerHale, filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of defendant-intervenors Common Cause of Connecticut et al., urging the Court not to grant a petition for certiorari in Green Party of Connecticut v. Lenge.  The Green Party challenged Connecticut’s public campaign financing law on the ground that the law imposes an unfair or unnecessary burden on the electoral opportunities of minor parties.

Under the law, a “major party” candidate—i.e., a candidate from a party that either had a candidate for governor who received at least 20% of the vote in the last election or whose registered voters make up at least 20% of Connecticut’s electorate—is eligible for a full public financing grant if she raises the requisite number of $100 “qualifying contributions” and agrees to a spending limit.  Candidates from non-major parties are eligible for a 2/3 funding grant for 15% of the gubernatorial vote or registered electorate and a 1/3 grant for 10% of the gubernatorial vote or registered electorate.

 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, following the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, upheld the Connecticut law, concluding that it serves important state interests in avoiding corruption or the appearance of corruption and that the law’s eligibility criteria served important interests in not squandering public funds on hopeless candidacies.  The court emphasized that Buckley had held that public funding could be conditioned on the showing of a threshold level of support for a party, so long as the statute does not have the effect of reducing the strength of minor parties below that attained without any public financing.  The Second Circuit concluded that under Connecticut’s law “minor-party candidates as a whole are … just as strong—if not stronger—than they were before the [public financing law] went into effect.”

We argue to the Supreme Court in our brief opposing certiorari that the Second Circuit correctly applied Buckley to the Connecticut law and facts of this case, giving the Supreme Court no grounds for reviewing the decision.  We further argue that no conflict exists among lower courts on this point of law, and that the issue itself is not one of national importance worthy of the Supreme Court’s limited resources.

Joining the Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen on the legal team defending Connecticut’s public financing law are attorneys from Democracy 21, WilmerHale, Hogan Lovells, and the Brennan Center for Justice.

To read the brief, click here.

Yesterday, nine reform groups sent letters to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform calling on the Committees "to investigate and hold hearings on the systemic problems with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)."

Today, the reform groups sent a similar letter, enclosed below, to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of two additional Committees, the Senate Rules Committee and the House Administration Committee, urging these Committees also to investigate and hold hearings on the FEC. These two committees have congressional jurisdiction over the nation's campaign finance laws and the FEC.

According to the letters to the Committees, the FEC is "one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the federal government” and a “broken agency that refuses to fulfill its basic statutory functions."  

The letters to the Committees further state that "The FEC Commissioners are carrying out what can only be described as 'agency nullification,' failing to provide for any effective enforcement of the statutes within their purview."

The reform groups which sent the letters included Americans for Campaign Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The full letter follows below:

The Hon. Charles Schumer                                         
The Hon. Lamar Alexander                                        
Committee on Rules & Administration                     
U.S. Senate                                                                 
Washington, DC  20510                                 

The Hon. Dan Lungren
The Hon. Robert Brady
Committee on House Administration 
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC  20515

February 17, 2011

Dear Senators Schumer and Alexander and Representatives Lungren and Brady:

The under-signed organizations, dedicated to ensuring that federal candidates for public office abide by their legal obligations, respectfully urge your Committees to investigate and hold hearings on the systemic problems with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The FEC is, without question, one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the federal government.  As the Committees with jurisdiction over the FEC, you have a responsibility to examine the reasons why the FEC has ceased to comply with its statutory mandates.

The FEC is a broken agency that refuses to fulfill its basic statutory functions.  Examples of the FEC’s ineffectiveness are legion.  Time and again, the FEC has either dismissed complaints because the Republican and Democratic Commissioners have rejected efforts by the professional staff to enforce the law, deadlocked in a three-to-three vote, or promulgated rules contrary to the law, resulting in orders from the court to rewrite those rules.    

The FEC Commissioners are carrying out what can only be described as “agency nullification,” failing to provide for any effective enforcement of the statutes within their purview.  There are myriad explanations as to why the FEC is unable to operate effectively, including defects in its structure, composition, and appointment process. Americans expect their elections to be conducted in a fair, honest and lawful manner, but the agency charged with ensuring the integrity of campaign financing is embarrassingly incapacitated.  Put simply, the Commission is excessively political and ideological, and the enforcement process is therefore broken.

Our nation's laws should not be undermined by the agency charged with enforcement.  It is up to Congress to write the laws and for the courts to determine the constitutionality of the laws.  FEC Commissioners may not simply refuse to enforce laws based on their disagreement with the laws, or their predictions of how a court might rule if a law were challenged.  Until Congress addresses these problems, candidates, donors, parties and outside spenders will continue to flout the laws with little fear of repercussion.  

The status quo is unacceptable and the American public reasonably expects agencies charged with enforcing the laws to actually do so.  Our organizations respectfully request that your Committees hold hearings to examine the root causes of the Commission’s dysfunction.  It is unacceptable that the only agency charged with enforcing campaign financing rules on our nation’s highest elected officials is largely AWOL.

Americans for Campaign Reform
Campaign Legal Center
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Common Cause
Democracy 21
League of Women Voters
Public Campaign
Public Citizen
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)

Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined with a coalition of reform groups in calling for Congressional hearings into the systemic failings of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and its failure to fulfill many of its basic statutory responsibilities to enforce existing campaign finance laws.  

 In a letter to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate oversight committees, the reform groups urged the committees to hold hearings on the agency and its frequent refusal to enforce the campaign finance laws passed by Congress.

The organizations signing the letter include Americans for Campaign Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG).

 The full letter follows below.

 February 16, 2011

 The Hon. Joseph Lieberman                                         The Hon. Darrell Issa

The Hon. Susan Collins                                     The Hon. Elijah Cummings

Committee on Homeland Security and               Committee on Oversight and Governmental Affairs                                                        Government Reform

U.S. Senate                                                                  U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC  20510                                               Washington, DC  20515

 Dear Senators Lieberman and Collins and Representatives Issa and Cummings:

 The under-signed organizations, dedicated to ensuring that federal candidates for public office abide by their legal obligations, respectfully urge your Committee to investigate and hold hearings on the systemic problems with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The FEC is, without question, one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the federal government.  The broad powers of each of the oversight committees make them well-suited to identify and bring real attention to the reasons why the FEC has ceased to comply with its statutory mandates.

The FEC is a broken agency that refuses to fulfill its basic statutory functions.  Examples of the FEC’s ineffectiveness are legion.  Time and again, the FEC has either dismissed complaints because the Republican and Democratic Commissioners have rejected efforts by the professional staff to enforce the law, deadlocked in a three-to-three vote, or promulgated rules contrary to the law, resulting in orders from the court to rewrite those rules.   

The FEC Commissioners are carrying out what can only be described as “agency nullification,” failing to provide for any effective enforcement of the statutes within their purview.  There are myriad explanations as to why the FEC is unable to operate effectively, including defects in its structure, composition, and appointment process. Americans expect their elections to be conducted in a fair, honest and lawful manner, but the agency charged with ensuring the integrity of campaign financing is embarrassingly incapacitated.  Put simply, the Commission is excessively political and ideological, and the enforcement process is therefore broken.

Our nation’s laws should not be undermined by the agency charged with enforcement.  It is up to Congress to write the laws and for the courts to determine the constitutionality of the laws.  FEC Commissioners may not simply refuse to enforce laws based on their disagreement with the laws, or their predictions of how a court might rule if a law were challenged.  Until Congress addresses these problems, candidates, donors, parties and outside spenders will continue to flout the laws with little fear of repercussion. 

The status quo is unacceptable and the American public reasonably expects agencies charged with enforcing the laws to actually do so.  Our organizations respectfully request that your Committee hold hearings to examine the root causes of the Commission’s dysfunction.  It is unacceptable that the only agency charged with enforcing campaign financing rules on our nation’s highest elected officials is largely AWOL. 

Americans for Campaign Reform

Campaign Legal Center

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Common Cause

Democracy 21

League of Women Voters

Public Campaign

Public Citizen

U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)

Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined with a coalition of reform groups to urge Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against any amendments to the FY 2011 spending bill (H.R. 1) that would restrict funding to implement the presidential public financing system or the presidential tax check-off.

Amendment 208, to cut off funding for the program, is expected to be offered Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK).   Additional amendments with the same goal may be introduced as well. 

The organizations include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

 The full letter follow below. 

February 15, 2011

 Dear Representative,

Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose any amendment that may be offered to H.R. 1, the FY 2011 spending bill, to restrict funds from being used to implement the presidential tax check-off or the presidential public financing system.

The organizations include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG. 

The presidential public financing system has served the nation and presidential candidates of both major parties well for most of its 36-year existence. The system has protected against government corruption and has given average citizens and small donors a vital role to play in our presidential elections. 

The presidential system today needs to be repaired, not repealed.  Representatives David Price (NC) and Chris Van Hollen (MD) have introduced legislation, H.R. 414, to fix the presidential system.

Killing the presidential financing system would turn the presidency over to influence-seeking big givers, bundlers, corporate spenders and other special interest spenders, at the great expense of the American people.

We urge you to vote against any amendment to H.R. 1, the FY 2011 spending bill, that would restrict funds from being used to implement the tax check-off or the presidential public financing system.

Americans for Campaign Reform        Democracy 21
Brennan Center for Justice                  League of Women Voters
Campaign Legal Center                       People For the American Way
Common Cause                                   Public Campaign
CREW                                                 Public Citizen
                                                             U.S. PIRG

On February 7th, 2011, the Campaign Legal Center joined with a coalition of reform groups to urge the Senate to vote against a bill to repeal the Presidential Public Financing System.  In a letter to every Member of the U.S. Senate, the 10 groups emphasized that the highly successful 35-year-old program should strengthened and updated rather than scuttled.

The groups stress that the program was created in the wake of the shocking fundraising scandals which emerged during the Watergate investigations and was utilized in the primaries by every major party nominee for President until George W. Bush opted out in 2000 and in every general election until the most recent general election when Barack Obama did not participate. 

The bill (S. 194) is companion legislation to H.R. 359 which passed the House on a largely party line vote of 239-160 that saw about a dozen Democrats join with the Republican majority.  

The organizations signing the group letter opposing S. 194 include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The full letter follow below:

February 7, 2011

Dear Senator,

Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose S.194, legislation introduced by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to repeal the presidential public financing system.

The presidential public financing system needs to be repaired, not repealed.

The organizations include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The presidential public financing system has served the nation and presidential candidates of both major parties well for most of its 36-year existence.

The system has provided presidential candidates with the funds needed to mount viable candidacies and wage competitive campaigns, has provided more meaningful choices to voters and has helped to ensure that more candidates have the opportunity to share their views with the electorate. For many candidates, public funding has been the source of sorely needed funds at crucial points in their presidential races.

The presidential system has protected against government corruption and has given average citizens and small donors a vital role to play in our presidential elections.

Senator McConnell’s legislation to kill the presidential financing system would turn the presidency over to influence-seeking big givers, bundlers and corporate and other campaign spenders, at the great expense of the American people.

The presidential system became outmoded in recent years when the costs of campaigns outstripped the public funds being provided to participating candidates and when the frontloading of primary elections got out of hand in the presidential nominating process.  Congress has made no adjustments in the presidential public financing system since it was first enacted in 1974.

The presidential financing system needs to be repaired and updated to again serve as a viable alternative system for presidential candidates to use in financing their campaigns.

Presidential candidates have long recognized the value and importance of the presidential public financing system. Since 1976, the system has been voluntarily used by most candidates from both major parties.

For example, every Republican presidential nominee from 1976 to 2008 used the presidential public financing system to finance their general election campaigns. This included President Gerald Ford, President Ronald Reagan (twice), President George H.W. Bush, Senator Bob Dole, President George W. Bush (twice) and Senator John McCain.

Similarly all Democratic presidential nominees during this same period, with the exception of

President Barack Obama, used the system to pay for their general election campaigns. This included President Jimmy Carter (twice), Vice President Walter Mondale, Governor Michael Dukakis, President Bill Clinton (twice), Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry.

President Ronald Reagan benefited from public financing as much as any candidate who has used the system, participating in the presidential public financing system for three of his presidential campaigns in 1976, 1980 and 1984.

The Republican and Democratic parties also have requested and received public funds from the system to pay for every presidential nominating convention from 1976 to 2008.

Recent editorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and USA TODAY also have recognized the importance of the presidential financing system in calling for the system to be repaired and in opposing efforts to eliminate it.

President Obama recognized the importance of continuing the presidential financing system in calling for the system to be fixed and strongly opposing the effort in Congress to repeal the system.  In a statement issued on January 25, 2011, the Obama Administration said:

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 359 because it is critical that the Nation's Presidential election public financing system be fixed rather than dismantled.

……..

After a year in which the Citizens United decision rolled back a century of law to allow corporate interests to spend vast sums in the Nation's elections and to do so without disclosing the true interests behind them, this is not the time to further empower the special interests or to obstruct the work of reform.

Most importantly, the American people have recognized the importance of the presidential financing system as shown by a national poll taken at the end of the 2008 presidential campaign about the system. According to USA TODAY(October, 29, 2008):

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Tuesday [October 28, 2008] finds wide support for public financing of presidential campaigns, including a third who say the current voluntary system should be mandatory." According to the poll, "Four in 10 Americans say the nation should maintain the voluntary system, and 32% say candidates should be required to participate. Only 1 in 5 say the system should be eliminated.

The USA TODAY/Gallup poll showed that more than 70 percent of the public supported continuing the presidential public financing system and only 20 percent said the system should be eliminated.

The Citizens United decision last year demonstrated just how essential it is to repair the presidential public financing system. An updated system would provide presidential candidates with a viable alternative way to finance competitive campaigns, without relying on influence-seeking money. It would give average citizens and small donors a pivotal role to play in presidential elections, instead of presidential candidates being dependent on big donors, bundlers and corporate and other campaign spenders.

Legislation is expected to be re-introduced in the Senate shortly to modernize the presidential system. The key goal of this legislation is to greatly increase the role and importance of average citizens and small donors in presidential campaigns and to greatly decrease the role and importance of influence-seeking money.

It is essential to the health and integrity of our democracy to defeat Senator McConnell’s legislation to kill the presidential public financing system.

Our organizations strongly urge you to vote against S.194.

Americans for Campaign Reform                               League of Women Voters

Brennan Center for Justice                                         People For the American Way

Campaign Legal Center                                              Public Campaign

Common Cause                                                           Public Citizen

Democracy 21                                                             U.S PIRG