Today’s decision of the Florida Supreme Court rejecting last minute ballot challenges to Florida’s redistricting reform initiatives (Amendments 5 and 6) clears the way for Florida voters to decide for themselves this November whether they want to stop politicians from gerrymandering themselves into safe seats.   The suit filed by Representatives Corrine Brown (D-FL) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) tried to stop voters from having their say on the amendments, which would bring about needed reform of the redistricting process.

Under Amendments 5 and 6, politicians would not be allowed to favor one political party or incumbent when drawing district lines.  The decision is a real blow to those who hold public office and use the redistricting process to keep their seats safe from potential challengers.  And the decision is a real boost to the integrity of the citizen initiative process.  For African American and Latino voters in the State of Florida, the initiative will expand the protections of minority voting rights and should bring about a fair process and less gerrymandered map in the post-2010 election cycle.

The Court also rejected a final attempt by the state legislature to reinstate it own “poison pill” Amendment 7 which a lower court ruled was nothing more than an attempt by incumbent officeholders to confuse voters and undermine the redistricting reform amendments on the ballot.  Today’s rulings were a victory for citizens over politicians seeking to retain what they see as their right to handpick constituents more likely to reelect them.  Amendments 5 and 6 now present Floridians the opportunity to send a clear message to Tallahassee and to Washington that voters should be choosing politicians, not the other way around.

To read the decision, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center, together with Democracy 21, filed comments today with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) urging the FEC to reject a request by the National Defense PAC (NDPAC) that would permit the federal PAC to raise unlimited contributions.

“NDPAC is asking the FEC to ignore a federal law that’s been on the books for nearly 40 years, as well as a Supreme Court decision from 1981 upholding that law,” said Legal Center attorney Paul S. Ryan.  “The FEC has no authority to overturn federal laws or to overrule the Supreme Court.”

 Unlike other PACs that have recently sought and received advisory opinions from the FEC allowing them to raise unlimited contributions to fund independent expenditures (e.g., Club for Growth, Commonsense Ten), NDPAC has been around for years and makes campaign contributions directly to candidates.  In fact, NDPAC is registered with the FEC as a “multicandidate political committee,” which must, by definition, make contributions to 5 or more federal candidates.

 NDPAC asks the FEC to extend the recent court decisions in Citizens United andSpeechNow—decisions that dealt with groups that exclusively made independent expenditures not contributions directly to candidates—as justification for the campaign finance deregulation of PACs that do make contributions directly to candidates.

 But federal law has for more than 35 years limited contributions to groups like NDPAC that make contributions directly to federal candidates.  In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the limit in its CalMed decision, because PACs that make direct contributions to candidate can corrupt those candidates and could be used by donors to circumvent the limits on what donors can give directly to candidates.

 Recent court decisions in Citizens United and SpeechNow, dealing with independent expenditures, have no relevance to the constitutionality of limiting contributions to PACs that contribute to candidates—and the FEC has no authority to declare that they do.  The FEC is bound by the 1981 Supreme Court decision inCalMed upholding the contribution limit that applies to NDPAC.

The Statement of Alleged Violations issued by the subcommittee of the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee presents a disturbing pattern of behavior.  Rep. Rangel deserves the opportunity to present his case in these proceedings, but he has already acknowledged conduct that supports many of the violations outlined today.

It is a relief to see the Ethics Committee taking these matters seriously and not simply sweeping this matter under the rug as it has with other seemingly clear cut violations of House ethics rules.  After an “ethics truce” lasting more than a decade, the Committee has a long way to go to rebuild its own public credibility. 

It is important to note that this action by the ethics committee does not by any means eliminate the need for the Office of Congressional Ethics which is under siege from inside Congress.  The OCE has played an important role in ensuring a more transparent and accountable process.  It was not involved in the Rangel investigation as it did not have jurisdiction over issues which occurred prior to its formation and operation.  

Rep. Rangel has a long and distinguished career as a public servant but the activities described in the subcommittee’s statement of violations, if proven, are exactly the kind of behaviors that create the shamefully low public esteem for Congress and foster cynicism about our elected leaders and politicians in general.  We hope the proceedings going forward will begin to help to restore the public trust in the legislative branch by showing that no official is above the law.

S. 3628, the revised DISCLOSE Act introduced by Sen. Schumer last week, deserved to move forward today.  The bill, while not perfect, is fair, appropriate and urgently needed. But, not surprisingly, partisan politics trumped the public interest when the Senate broke along party lines and failed to achieve cloture.

Public polling has consistently shown that by an overwhelming margin Americans disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United and expect a legislative response from the elected representatives in Washington.  Those of us who live in states and districts with competitive races will soon have daily reminders – in the form of ads on our television screens -- about just how much money the Supreme Court’s decision unleashed on our elections.  We won’t know much about where the money is coming from or how much as been laundered through third party groups.  And what we see on TV will likely just be the tip of the iceberg of independent spending to influence the outcome of November’s elections.  That’s why the DISCLOSE Act is needed.

While it is too late now to stop the flood of anonymous ads for this year’s elections, this vote will hopefully jumpstart negotiations to put the DISCLOSE Act on the path to enactment.  The bill has been the subject of an effective yet misleading disinformation campaign.  We remain hopeful that negotiations will continue to between both parties to pass this legislation before we find ourselves in the midst of a presidential race when the stakes will be even higher and the anonymous checks even bigger.   In particular we hold out hope that Senators who voted for passage of the McCain-Feingold Act will reconsider their opposition and return to the negotiating table in good faith to return some semblance of accountability to our elections.

Reform groups today urged Senators to vote for cloture on the bill and against an anticipated filibuster when a revised version of the DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) is brought to the floor for consideration next Tuesday.  The legislation was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Citizens United v. FEC unleashing corporate and union treasury funds in federal elections. 

The DISCLOSE Act would require timely and effective disclosure of these campaign-related expenditures, among other provisions.  National polling since the time of the decision has consistently shown that Americans by overwhelming margins opposed the Supreme Court’s decision and support a legislative response. A companion bill (H.R. 5175) has already passed in the House.

The groups signing the letter included the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG.

The full text of the letter follows below.

July 23, 2010

Dear Senator,

Our organizations strongly urge you to support S.3628, the DISCLOSE Act, and to vote for cloture next Tuesday in order to allow the Senate to consider the legislation.

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

The DISCLOSE Act  became necessary as a result of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year which now allows corporations and labor unions for the first time in more than 60 years to make unlimited campaign expenditures to influence federal elections and government decisions.

The Court decision left voters facing the prospect of corporations, labor unions, advocacy groups and trade associations spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence their votes in the 2010 congressional races, without meaningful disclosure of these campaign expenditures or the donors funding the expenditures.

The principal goal of the DISCLOSE Act is to fill this disclosure gap and ensure that voters know what is going on in their congressional races and who is financing the expected flood of campaign ads to influence their votes.

 S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act, scheduled for a cloture vote next week, establishes new, effective disclosure requirements for corporations, labor unions, advocacy groups and trade associations. The bill does not favor either party.

The public’s right to know who is spending money to influence elections and the identity of the funders behind these campaign expenditures was clearly and unequivocally recognized by the Supreme Court in the Citizens Unitedcase. 

By an 8 to 1 vote, the Court in Citizens United found that disclosure laws “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” and serve governmental interests in “providing the electorate with information” about the sources of money spent to influence elections so that voters can “make informed choices in the political marketplace.”  

The Court specifically noted the problems that result when groups run ads “while hiding behind dubious and misleading names,” thus concealing the true source of the funds being used to make campaign expenditures.

The Court in Citizens United stated:

“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.” 540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); see MCFL, supra, at 261.  The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

As The Washington Post stated in an editorial (June 17, 2010) endorsing the DISCLOSE Act when it was pending in the House:

“Under existing rules, those who want to spend money to influence campaigns without revealing their identities can operate through nonprofit organizations or trade associations. The House measure would require these groups to reveal their donors, just as so-called 527 organizations were called on to report contributors after they emerged as important, but shadowy, political players. For those who believe that disclosure is the best defense against corrupting the political process, this new reporting is crucial.”

We strongly urge you to vote for cloture next Tuesday in order to allow the Senate to consider S.3628, the DISCLOSE Act, and to vote for passage of the legislation.  

Campaign Legal Center     
Common Cause
Democracy 21
League of Women Voters
People For the American Way
Public Citizen
U.S. PIRG

Today, reform groups responded to Senator Scott Brown’s letter (R-MA) to them announcing his opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (S. 3295).  The groups urged Sen. Brown to bring up his concerns with the bill’s sponsors rather than dismissing the legislation outright.  The Senate is still expected to bring the bill to a vote prior to the August recess.  The legislation currently has 49 cosponsors in the Senate but will require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. 

The groups signing the letter to Senator Brown included the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG.

The full text of the letter follows below.

July 16, 2010

Dear Senator Brown,

We are writing to respond to your letter of July 14, 2010 regarding the DISCLOSE Act.

Our organizations include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, People For the American Way, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The 2010 congressional elections are expected to involve hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by corporations, labor unions, advocacy groups and trade associations to influence the voters’ decisions. Voters have a basic right to know who is behind the money being spent in their elections, as the Supreme Court made clear in the Citizens United decision.

You have stressed the importance of government transparency and accountability in the past, so we are understandably puzzled by your response indicating you would not vote for the DISCLOSE bill, without which voters will not be able to know who is financing the flood of campaign ads expected during the 2010 congressional elections.

You indicated in your letter that you think we should wait until after the 2010 elections to address new campaign finance laws. However, the effort to get the DISCLOSE Act enacted in time for the 2010 congressional races, which we strongly support, is driven by the need for immediate remedial legislation in light of the Citizens United decision earlier this year.  Our concern with the delay you suggest is that it would deprive the voters of critical campaign finance information they need to know regarding the 2010 congressional races.  

It was the Supreme Court that changed the rules in the middle of the game and opened the door for corporations, labor unions, advocacy groups and trade associations to make campaign expenditures in the 2010 congressional elections without meaningful disclosure.  The Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case created the need to pass the legislation this year.

We also strongly believe the DISCLOSE Act is not partisan legislation in its substance, timing, application or need.  It is fair legislation that establishes new, comprehensive campaign finance disclosure rules for corporations, labor unions, advocacy groups and trade associations. It is legislation that serves the interests of the American people.

We are well aware that the legislation as passed by the House is not perfect. We renew our request that you work with Senate supporters of the DISCLOSE Act to resolve the differences you have with the legislation and that you support the passage of the Act.  This is an approach which you have appropriately taken as a Senator with a number of other bills, consistent with your stated position of wanting to bring an independent voice to Washington.        

Our organizations strongly urge you to continue your commitment to “accountability and transparency” in government by working to obtain a DISCLOSE Act that you can support, and by opposing any efforts to kill the disclosure legislation by a filibuster.

 We do not believe the American people should be denied the wealth of important new campaign finance information that the DISCLOSE Act will provide and that citizens are entitled to receive.  Swift passage of the DISCLOSE Act will ensure that citizens have essential campaign finance information about who is spending money to influence the 2010 congressional races.

Campaign Legal Center   

Common Cause 

Democracy 21    

People for the American Way

Public Citizen      

League of Women Voters            

U.S. PIRG.

Today, reform groups urged Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) to support the DISCLOSE Act (S. 3295) and to oppose the expected effort to filibuster the proposed legislation.  In 2002, both Senators cast key votes to help pass the landmark Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold). 

The letters praised the leadership of the Senators in enacting previous reforms and stressed the vital need to pass the DISCLOSE Act in the wake of the highly controversial Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC which opened the door to a flood of corporate and union treasury funds in federal election.  The legislation currently has 49 cosponsors in the Senate but will require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.  The Senate is expected to bring the bill to a vote before the August recess. 

The groups signing the letter to Senator Snowe and Senator Collins included the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.

The full text of the letter to Senator Snowe follows below.

July 13, 2010

Dear Senator Snowe,

Our organizations strongly urge you to support the DISCLOSE Act, expected to be considered by the Senate later this month and to oppose any efforts to filibuster this legislation.

The organizations include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, People For the American Way and Public Citizen.

Your vote on the DISCLOSE Act will be a vote on the most important government integrity reform measure to be considered thus far by the Senate in this Congress. This critical “transparency” legislation deserves your support. Any effort to filibuster the DISCLOSE Act deserves your opposition.

The disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act are modeled on legislation you sponsored to establish new rules, including new disclosure requirements, for “electioneering communications.” Your legislation became a key part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act enacted in 2002 (BCRA).

We appreciate the important leadership you provided in proposing the “electioneering communications” provisions of BCRA and for BCRA’s passage. We ask that you again play an important leadership role in helping to pass the DISCLOSE Act. Like your BCRA disclosure provisions, the provisions in the DISCLOSE Act are based on the fundamental right of citizens to know about the money being spent to influence federal elections and government decisions.

The legislation responds to the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year which allowed corporations and labor unions for the first time in more than 60 years to make unlimited campaign expenditures to influence federal elections and government decisions.

The DISCLOSE Act is about the basic right of American voters to know the identity of the groups spending money to influence their elections and the donors funding these expenditures. The public’s right to know this information was clearly and unequivocally recognized by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.

The DISCLOSE Act establishes new disclosure requirements for corporations, labor unions, advocacy groups and trade associations. It is fair and equitable legislation that does not favor either political party. It must be effective for the 2010 congressional elections in order to provide voters with campaign finance information they have a fundamental right to know.

The Supreme Court in the Citizens United case upheld the constitutionality of the BCRA disclosure provisions and, in so doing, recognized the basic right of citizens to know the sources of money behind campaign expenditures being made to influence their votes.

By an 8 to 1 vote, the Court in Citizens United found that disclosure laws “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” and serve governmental interests in “providing the electorate with information” about the sources of money spent to influence elections so that voters can “make informed choices in the political marketplace.”

The Court specifically noted the problems that result when groups run ads “while hiding behind dubious and misleading names,” thus concealing the true source of the funds being used to make campaign expenditures.

The Court in Citizens United stated:

“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.” 540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); see MCFL, supra, at 261. The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of

corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

Passage of the DISCLOSE Act is essential to providing voters with critical information about which groups are spending money to influence federal elections and the identity of the donors funding these expenditures.

If you have concerns about any specific provisions in the DISCLOSE Act, we strongly urge you to resolve those issues through discussions with the sponsors of the legislation and not by voting to kill the legislation and thereby sacrificing the right of voters to know about the campaign money being spent to influence their votes.

As The Washington Post stated in an editorial (June 17, 2010) endorsing the House version of the DISCLOSE Act:

“Under existing rules, those who want to spend money to influence campaigns without revealing their identities can operate through nonprofit organizations or

trade associations. The House measure would require these groups to reveal their donors, just as so-called 527 organizations were called on to report contributors

after they emerged as important, but shadowy, political players. For those who believe that disclosure is the best defense against corrupting the political process, this new reporting is crucial.”

As an important leader in the past for effective campaign finance laws, including disclosure laws, we ask you to again play an important leadership role by supporting the DISCLOSE Act, which has been made essential by the Citizens United decision.

We strongly urge you to oppose any efforts to filibuster the DISCLOSE Act, to oppose any amendments to undermine or kill the bill and to vote for passage of the legislation.

Campaign Legal Center   

Common Cause 

Democracy 21    

Public Citizen      

League of Women Voters            

While we are disappointed with the overall outcome of the appeals in Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, we are pleased by certain aspects of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinions, which serve to correct errors in the district court’s decision. 

Nonetheless, the ruling undermines Connecticut’s comprehensive campaign finance reforms enacted in 2005 in response to a string of high-profile corruption scandals involving state elected officials, including former Connecticut Governor John Rowland.  The Court’s decision thus underscores the need for comprehensive disclosure laws on the state and federal level to expose the pay-to-play systems which prevail in Congress and in so many legislatures across the nation.

On the positive side, the Court of Appeals upheld certain provisions banning state contractors and associated individuals from making campaign contributions to candidates for state office.  Also, reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals found that under “exacting” scrutiny, Connecticut’s Citizen Election Program does not unconstitutionally discriminate against minor-party candidates.  That strikes us as a good sign for upholding public financing systems in the future, particularly those programs without so-called "trigger provisions" (where participating candidates receive additional public funding when certain conditions are triggered, such as when their nonparticipating opponent spends above a certain threshold).

We are disappointed that the Court of Appeals struck down the ban on lobbyists making campaign contributions, and the ban on contractors and lobbyists soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates for state office.  But the Court of Appeals suggested that more targeted restrictions of such activities could be enacted that may pass constitutional muster, and we hope the Legislature will do so.  Decisions like these, permitting lobbyists to make campaign contributions and allowing lobbyists and government contractors to solicit contributions, demonstrate why it is so important to enact the DISCLOSE Act at the federal level and similar disclosure laws at the state level.  Deep pocketed special interests are hard at work in our nation’s capital and in state capitals across the country, and it is vital to our democracy that we know who is attempting to buy access to our elected officials. 

Today, reform groups urged Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) to support the DISCLOSE Act (S. 3295) and to oppose efforts to filibuster the proposed legislation.  The Senate is expected to bring the bill to a vote before the August recess.  The legislation currently has 49 cosponsors in the Senate but will require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.  A House version of the bill was passed on June 24, by a vote of 219-206.

The groups signing the letter to Senator Brown included the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.

The full text of the letter follows below.

July 12, 2010

Dear Senator Brown,

 Our organizations strongly urge you to support the DISCLOSE Act, expected to be considered by the Senate later this month, and to oppose any efforts to filibuster this legislation.

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

The day after you were elected to the Senate, you were quoted as saying that your win sends "a very powerful message that business-as-usual is just not going to be the way we do it." (Christian Science Monitor, January 20, 2010)

The following month you were quoted as saying, “For those who are interested in restoring the real checks and balances in Washington, and bringing accountability and transparency back to our government, here I am.” (CNSNews.com, February 18, 2010)

The DISCLOSE Act is precisely about ensuring that “business-as-usual” is “just not going to be the way we do it” and about “bringing accountability and transparency back to our government.”

Your vote on the DISCLOSE Act will be a vote on the most important government integrity reform measure to be considered thus far by the Senate in this Congress. This critical “accountability and transparency” legislation deserves your support. Any effort to filibuster the DISCLOSE Act deserves your opposition.

The legislation responds to the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year which allowed corporations and labor unions for the first time in more than 60 years to make unlimited campaign expenditures to influence federal elections and government decisions.

The DISCLOSE Act is about the basic right of American voters to know the identity of the groups spending money to influence their elections and the donors funding these expenditures. The public’s right to know this information was clearly and unequivocally recognized by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.

The DISCLOSE Act establishes new disclosure requirements for corporations, labor unions, advocacy groups and trade associations. It is fair and equitable legislation that does not favor either political party. It must be effective for the 2010 congressional elections in order to provide voters with campaign finance information they have a fundamental right to know.

The disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act are modeled on the disclosure provisions established for “electioneering communications” in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

The Supreme Court in the Citizens United case upheld the constitutionality of these BCRA disclosure provisions and, in so doing, recognized the basic right of citizens to know the sources of money behind campaign expenditures being made to influence their votes.

By an 8 to 1 vote, the Court in Citizens United found that disclosure laws “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” and serve governmental interests in “providing the electorate with information” about the sources of money spent to influence elections so that voters can “make informed choices in the political marketplace

The Supreme Court specifically noted the problems that result when groups run ads “while hiding behind dubious and misleading names,” thus concealing the true source of the funds being used to make campaign expenditures.

The Court in Citizens United stated:

“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.” 540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); see MCFL, supra, at 261. The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

Passage of the DISCLOSE Act is essential to providing voters with critical information about the groups spending money to influence federal elections and the identity of the donors funding these expenditures.

If you have concerns about any specific provisions in the DISCLOSE Act, we strongly urge you to resolve those issues through discussions with the sponsors of the legislation and not by voting to kill the legislation and thereby sacrificing the right of voters to know about the campaign money being spent to influence their votes.

As The Washington Post stated in an editorial (June 17, 2010) endorsing the House version of the DISCLOSE Act:

Under existing rules, those who want to spend money to influence campaigns without revealing their identities can operate through nonprofit organizations or trade associations. The House measure would require these groups to reveal their donors, just as so-called 527 organizations were called on to report contributors after they emerged as important, but shadowy, political players. For those who believe that disclosure is the best defense against corrupting the political process, this new reporting is crucial.

You can play a pivotal role in enacting strong and effective new campaign finance disclosure laws, which have been made essential by the Citizens United decision.

We strongly urge you to oppose any efforts to filibuster the DISCLOSE Act, to oppose any amendments to undermine or kill the bill and to vote for passage of the legislation.

Campaign Legal Center   

Common Cause 

Democracy 21    

Public Citizen      

League of Women Voters