CLC filed this exhibit to be considered with the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This exhibit contains a letter from Earl Comstock to Secretary Ross concerning the census. 

This was submitted by Jessie Liu, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

CLC filed a letter today urging the Court to deny the Rio Grande Foundation's (RGF) Motion for Summary Judgment. Santa Fe's laws require that charities and nonprofits who spend more than $250 to support or oppose City ballot propositions disclose their donors to the government. RGF has challenged these laws, claiming that the City's interest in these laws is "minimal" or "nonexistent", and that they present a burden and potentially expose donors to intimidation and harassment. Voters have a right to be informed about the source and amount of money spent on ballot measure advocacy, and the importance of this right has been recognized by the Supreme Court. 

CLC filed a friend of the court brief in support of the district court's judgment that the Now or Never PAC was legally required to disclose their donors on their campaign finance report. Voters deserve to know who is spending money in order to influence their elections. 

On May 17, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. They again declared that the three statutory subsections were unconstitutional. 

The Court filed an order and amended opinion on September 1, 2015 overturning the district court judgment. 

Intervenor-Defendants Eli Publishing, L.C., F8, LLC, and Steven J. Lund cross-filed in a motion for summary judgment.

The Federal Elections Commission filed a memorandum supporting their own motion for summary judgment and opposing Campaign Legal Center's motion for summary judgment. 

Campaign Legal Center filed a reply memorandum in support of their own motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the defendant's cross-motions for summary judgment.

CLC filed a brief in CLC v. FEC requesting a summary judgment declaring that the FEC must act on CLC's straw donor complaint.

Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment and memorandum in opposition to defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. 

Opinion issued by the three-judge panel, and filed by Circuit Judge Tatel, denying the state's request for a declaratory judgment. 

The Plaintiffs' fourth amended original petition. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief to require public disclosure and to obtain judgment against the wrongdoers for twice the unlawful contributions and expenditures. Plaintiffs believe the Courts should uphold these disclosure laws as they have done before. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request the Courts to determine the issues once and for all so that an unequal political playing field concerning financial disclosure does bot persist. 

It is argued that the Court should reverse the District Court's judgment based on: (1) Just as the taxpayers had Article III injury to challenge the legality of the line-item-veto procedure that retained a substantively lawful tax liability, candidate Nix has Article III injury to challenge the legality of the Section 5 procedure that is retaining substantively lawful electoral burdens; (2) Just as the President’s unconstitutional cancellation of the Medicaid funding law did not “nullify” that law, the unconstitutional Section 5 cannot “nullify” Kinston’s referendum; and (3) Just as the taxpayers brought a facial challenge to the line-item veto even though the President’s cancellation discretion was non-reviewable, Plaintiffs can bring a facial challenge to Section 5 even though the Attorney General’s preclearance discretion is non-reviewable.

Amicus brief by the Campaign Legal Center in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in defense of Texas’ campaign finance laws. Amicus urges the Court to reject KSP’s baseless challenge to Texas’s campaign finance laws and to grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Texas Democratic Party et al. (“TDP”) with respect to KSP’s counterclaim.