Today, the Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to defend Hawaii’s contractor contribution ban and disclosure regulations in Yamada v. Weaver.  Plaintiff-Appellant A-1 A-Lectrician, Inc. (A-1), a government contractor, seeks to overturn Hawaii’s pay-to-play law, as well as to invalidate a range of disclosure requirements applicable to independent spending in state elections. 

The Yamada case is part of a nationwide litigation offensive challenging a broad range of campaign finance laws at the federal, state and local levels.  But disclosure and pay-to-play laws similar to Hawaii’s have been upheld across the country as the courts have consistently recognized the important government interest in preventing political corruption or the appearance of such corruption. 

“A-1 is essentially asking the court to strike down Hawaii’s anti-corruption laws so it can contribute to officeholders while holding government contracts and can make independent expenditures while keeping the public in the dark about its activities,” said Tara Malloy, Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The undisclosed political activities proposed by A-1 would undermine public trust in government and pose precisely the potential for corruption that led to the challenged laws’ enactment.”

To read the Campaign Legal Center’s brief, click here.

Today’s decision by the DC Court of Appeals is disappointing in that it will allow the continuing wholesale evasion of disclosure laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. At issue in this case is an FEC regulation that resulted in an almost complete failure by groups making “electioneering communications” to publicly disclose their contributors. 

The district court had found that the FEC had created a gaping loophole in the disclosure requirement when it issued a regulation in 2007 that required disclosure only of donors who had given “for the purpose of” funding “electioneering communications.”  Today’s decision sends the case back to the trial court, which had overturned the FEC regulation. The Court of Appeals has directed the lower court to provide the FEC an opportunity to revise the regulation in a rulemaking proceeding.  If the FEC fails to issue a new rule, then district court will decide whether the existing rule is arbitrary and capricious, as Representative Van Hollen has argued.

This order effectively means that there will be no disclosure of the donors funding the tens of millions of dollars being spent on political advertising by 501(c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA in the 2012 election cycle.  In the wake of this decision we are once again left with all of the unlimited spending unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, but with virtually none of the disclosure promised by the narrow five Justice majority in the case. 

The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team representing Rep. Van Hollen in this case, which is led by Roger Witten of WilmerHale.  The legal team also includes lawyers from WilmerHale, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen. 

To read the order issued today, click here.

Today, a federal court in Illinois accepted an amici brief by the Campaign Legal Center, Chicago Appleseed and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform defending state contribution limits over the objections of Illinois Liberty PAC, the plaintiff in the case.  The Legal Center had originally submitted the brief last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, with the assistance of local counsel David R. Melton and Thomas Rosenwein, in a challenge to Illinois’ contribution limits. 

“Illinois Liberty PAC is asking the court to ignore Supreme Court precedent and strike down contribution limits far higher than those previously upheld by the Supreme Court,” said Paul S. Ryan, Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Contribution limits have repeatedly been upheld in the interest of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption and it is ironic that this challenge is being brought against the laws of a state where the last two Governors have gone to jail for corruption.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that limits on contributions are constitutional as long as they are not so low as to prevent candidates and PACs from raising sufficient funds for effective advocacy.  There is no doubt that candidates and PACs can raise sufficient funds for effective advocacy under Illinois’ generous limits.”

Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan challenged the state’s $50,000 limit on PAC contributions to candidates, its $5,000 limit on contributions from individuals to candidates and its $10,000 limit on contributions from individuals to a PAC.  Plaintiffs claim these limits violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free and freedom of association.  Federal PAC may accept only $5,000 from individuals a mere tenth of the Illinois cap and the Supreme Court has upheld Missouri state contribution caps ranging from $275 to $1,075.

To read the Campaign Legal Center’s brief accepted by the court today, click here.

Today, the en banc Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that a challenge to the State of Minnesota’s corporate contribution restriction was unlikely to succeed, but split on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the state’s disclosure law for corporate independent expenditures in Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) v. Swanson. 

The Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail in their challenge to the state restriction on corporate contributions, noting that the Supreme Court in Beaumont v. FEC upheld the federal law banning direct corporate campaign contributions.  The Court also allowed much of the challenged state disclosure law to stand, but found unduly burdensome the state requirement that independent spenders file regular reports even when they have not engaged in political activity in a covered period.

“We applaud the Eighth Circuit decision to uphold Minnesota’s corporate contribution ban and much of the state disclosure law,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “But in questioning the ongoing reporting requirement and other minor organizational requirements of the state disclosure law, the Court of Appeals has disregarded the Supreme Court’s directive that disclosure laws be subject to only ‘exacting’ judicial scrutiny.  Minnesota’s law prevents no one from speaking and requires only disclosure from groups making campaign expenditures.  The Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly supportive of measures to ensure political transparency.” 

Minnesota law requires any association that wishes to make more than $100 in independent expenditures to register a “political fund,” subject to registration, regular reporting and recordkeeping requirements.  The Court of Appeals held that this law was impermissible “to the extent it requires ongoing reporting requirements from associations.”  But the Court indicated that the Minnesota law is distinct from “event-driven” disclosure, such as the federal electioneering communications disclosure law, making clear that the decision has limited relevance to ad-specific reporting requirements.

“It is important to note that this decision would do nothing to undermine the constitutionality of disclosure legislation, like the DISCLOSE Act, where reporting requirements are triggered by spending on specific political advertisements,” said Malloy.  “Nonetheless, this decision puts the Eighth Circuit out of step with the majority of lower courts to have considered comprehensive independent expenditure disclosure requirements in the wake of Citizens United.  The First, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have all upheld laws requiring regular reporting from groups engaged in political spending.”

To read the brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 in the Eighth Circuit, click here.

To read the opinion issued today, click here.