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.

Today’s decision by a unanimous three-judge court in Washington DC that the Texas voter ID law was violative of the Voting Rights Act is a huge victory for Texans who had been stripped of their right to vote by their elected representatives. This is the second time in a week that the State of Texas has been found by a federal court to have violated the Voting Rights Act and the rights of its citizens. Earlier this week, a federal court found Texas’ three statewide redistricting plans to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act. These two decisions speak volumes about the fact that the Voting Rights Act is still very much needed to protect the rights of minority voters, even in the 21^st Century.

This is also a significant decision because it is the first time a federal court has ruled on the legality of a voter ID law under the Voting Rights Act and the Texas law plainly did not stand up to the scrutiny. Minority voters are being targeted by these voter ID laws for blatantly partisan purposes.

If legislators feel that voter ID laws must be on the books, this decision makes clear laws have to be inclusive and flexible to ensure all eligible citizens have free access to their most basic right, the right to vote.  

Hebert and the Campaign Legal Center represented voters in Texas who would have been disadvantaged by the voter ID bill.

The Campaign Legal Center today submitted an amicus brief  in opposition to the latest attempt by outside groups to gut existing disclosure laws in a case brought by the Hispanic Leadership Fund (HLF) against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The organization is seeking to air television advertisements criticizing President Obama without complying with “electioneering communication” disclosure requirements, which include donor disclosure.

“Electioneering communication” disclosure requirements apply to broadcast ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate in close proximity to an election. The law defines “clearly identified” to include not only ads that explicitly name a candidate, but also ads that make the identity of the candidate “apparent by unambiguous reference.”

The ads proposed by HLF would not mention President Obama by name and instead would use the terms “the White House” and “the Administration” and even audio recordings of the President’s voice. In an attempt to evade the electioneering communication disclosure requirements, HLF argues that its ads do not refer to a clearly identified candidate.

“The proposed ads are unsubtle and unambiguous attack ads against a clearly identified candidate. Federal law requires the funders of such advertisements to be revealed to the public,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “For decades the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld disclosure laws as serving the vital public interests in enabling voters to make informed decisions on Election Day and preventing corruption of elected officials. The court should reject HLF’s efforts to deny voters this critical information regarding the special interests trying to sway their votes.”

HLF v. FEC was originally filed in federal court in Des Moines, Iowa, but the court dismissed it as an improper venue.

The challenge is based on an advisory opinion request (AOR) filed with the FEC in June by American Future Fund (AFF), asking whether it could run similar ads to those proposed by HLF. The FEC, as it has regularly under the current lineup of commissioners, deadlocked on whether such advertisements constitutedelectioneering communications requiring donor disclosure reports. The Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed comments arguing that the ads clearly constituted “electioneering communications” subject to disclosure laws requiring the group to reveal its funders.  

To read the brief filed today by the Campaign Legal Center, click here. 

To read the comments filed by the Legal Center and Democracy 21, click here.