Reform groups today urged Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) to support the disclosure provisions in the DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) to ensure voters are aware of the huge amounts of money that individuals, corporations and unions are spending to run ads attempting to sway the elections.  The groups emphasized the tens of millions of dollars already being spent anonymously to support or attack candidates this election season and cited overwhelming public support for disclosure and a legislative response in the wake of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling inCitizens United v. FEC unleashing massive corporate and union treasury funds into federal elections. 

The DISCLOSE Act would require timely and effective disclosure of these campaign-related expenditures, among other provisions.  Prior to the August recess, the legislation fell one vote short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster.  A companion bill (H.R. 5175) to the original Senate bill passed in the House in June.  

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 to Senator Snowe follows below.

September 14, 2010 

Senator Olympia Snowe

154 Senate Russell Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Senator Snowe,

As a result of the Citizens United decision earlier this year, tens of millions of dollars are being spent in the 2010 congressional races without voters having any idea about who is funding these expenditures. This is wrong and unfair to the American people.

Our organizations believe it is essential to enact the disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act in order to provide the American people with campaign finance information for future presidential and congressional elections that they have a right to know.

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 absence of essential campaign finance information for the 2010 elections violates a basic rule of American politics for the past 40 years – that voters have a right to know who is behind the money being spent to influence their votes.  This right to know was firmly established by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo(1976) which upheld the constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure laws.

The absence of this campaign finance information, furthermore, contradicts the longstanding consensus in this country that campaign contributions and expenditures should be disclosed to the American people so that voters can “make informed choices in the political marketplace,” in the words of the Supreme Court. 

The consensus for campaign finance disclosure is fully reflected in the views of Maine voters as shown in a poll taken for Maine Citizens for Clean Elections earlier this year. The poll by Critical Insights, a Maine polling firm, taken in April 2010 found:

• “85% of voters feel it is important to know who paid for the political campaign communications they see or hear,” and
• “[m]ore than 80% of Maine voters believe that having the names of donors to political organizations available to the public is important because it keeps the process open and transparent.” 

As you know, the DISCLOSE Act passed the House in June 2010 and was one vote short of reaching the Senate floor for consideration in July. Senate sponsors have said that the legislation will be brought up again for consideration this fall.

If this disclosure legislation does not pass in this Congress, it may not be possible to establish new disclosure requirements for the next election. Absent such disclosure requirements, hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions will be spent in the 2012 presidential and congressional races without voters having a clue about who is providing these funds.

Your vote can make the difference in whether the disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act are enacted for future elections or whether the legislation is killed.

According to a Survey USA poll last month, 77 percent of voters, including 70 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of independents, view corporate campaign spending as an attempt to bribe politicians rather than as an expression of free speech that should not be limited.

Given the Citizens United decision, nothing can be done at this time to prevent these influence-buying expenditures from being made. But we can at least ensure that the American people know what is going on in their elections and who is behind the money being spent to influence their votes. 

If you have concerns regarding the DISCLOSE Act legislation, or have ideas to improve the provisions in the bill, we ask that you work with the bill’s sponsors and with us to resolve any concerns you may have about the legislation. 

We appreciate your leadership and commitment on past campaign finance reform efforts and look forward to negotiating changes in the DISCLOSE Act that will ensure its passage. Voters across Maine and America are very clear; they want to know who is paying to play in our political system, and they have a basic right to know this information.

Campaign Legal Center            League of Women Voters

Common Cause                        People For the American Way

Democracy 21                          Public Citizen

                                                U.S. PIRG

On September 13, 2010, the Campaign Legal Center, along with Democracy 21, wrote to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) seeking clarification and an explanation regarding statements made by FEC staff to reporters implying that the agency was no longer enforcing its own regulations regarding “express advocacy” in advertising.  If the statement and explanation offered by a FEC spokesperson are correct and in fact the policy of Commission, it would seriously undermine the public’s ability to identify those making independent expenditures in federal elections.  

[1]           Available at http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/chamber-of-commerce-other-groups-sk.html.

[2]           See, e.g., Paul S. Ryan, Wisconsin Right to Life and the Resurrection of Furgatch, Stanford Law & Policy Review Vol. 19:1, 130-163 (2008).

[3]           Affirmed, Real Truth About Obama v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (The “language [of Subpart (b)] corresponds to the definition of the functional equivalent of express advocacy given in Wisconsin Right to Life.  . . .  By limiting its application to communications that yield no other interpretation but express advocacy as described by Wisconsin Right to Life, § 100.22(b) is likely constitutional.”) (vacated for consideration of mootness by 130 S.Ct. 2371 (2010)).

[4]           We recognize that the Chamber of Commerce ads discussed above were subject to disclosure as electioneering communication.  This fact does not, however, change our view of the importance that the Commission enforce Subpart (b) outside the electioneering communication timeframes.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc roundly rejected the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) challenge to the party coordinated spending limits in Cao v. FEC.  The case was filed by the RNC in 2008, challenging the party coordinated spending limits and the $5,000 political committee contribution limit as applied to party coordinated spending.  In an 11-5 decision, the Court of Appeals today upheld the party spending limits and rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims, noting that the Supreme Court had already affirmed the constitutionality of the challenged limits in its 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Committee.

Campaign Legal Center counsel Tara Malloy praised the decision: 

“We are pleased that the court turned away this overreaching attack on established campaign finance law and Supreme Court precedent.  Plaintiffs’ broad-side challenge would have gutted the coordinated spending limits and would have enabled large-scale circumvention of the individual contribution limits.  Anti-reformers have in essence barnstormed the country filing lawsuit after lawsuit challenging long-standing campaign finance laws in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC earlier this year.  Those attacking campaign finance reform smelled blood in the water and have assumed that no campaign finance law was safe.  Today’s decision shows that there is plenty of life left in federal campaign finance law.”  

The Legal Center, along with Democracy 21, filed an amici brief with the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19, 2010 to defend the constitutionality of the party coordinated spending limits. 

To read the court’s decision, click here.

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

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.