First Amendment Coalition » campaign finance laws

Citing the state’s campaign laws, judge benches attack ads on governor

donal brown — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:14:32 +0000

A Kentucky judge granted a restraining order to halt attack ads on the governor financed by Restoring America after the organization failed to identify its donors under the state’s campaign finance laws.

The judge cited the public right for transparency, but legal experts said they expect to see the ruling overturned on free speech grounds. -db

From the Lexington Herald-Leader, October 17, 2011, by Beth Musgrave.

Full story

Supreme Court to decide on free speech challenge of Arizona election-finance law

donal brown — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:11:24 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal brought by opponents of Arizona’s campaign finance law that they say violates the First Amendment. -db

Reuters
November 29 2010
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Reuters) – The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will decide another campaign finance law, taking up a challenge to Arizona’s system that provided money to political candidates who faced big-spending opponents.

The high court, in a decision criticized by President Barack Obama, ruled by a 5-4 vote in January that corporations have the free-speech right to spend freely to support or oppose candidates for federal office like president or Congress.

In the Arizona case, the justices agreed to hear and decide an appeal by opponents of the 1998 law arguing that it violated constitutional free-speech rights. The justices struck down a similar federal law in 2008.

Under Arizona’s state law, candidates who opt for public financing of their campaigns can get funds up to two times their base amount when outspent by privately funded rivals or targeted by independent group spending.

Supporters of the law said it was constitutionally sound, that it advanced free-speech values rather than burdening them, that it sought to deter corruption and that it placed no limit on how much privately financed candidates may raise or spend on their campaigns.

Opponents said the public money infringed on the free-speech rights of privately financed candidates and their contributors by inhibiting fundraising and spending, discouraging participation in campaigns and limiting what voters will hear about politics.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in March, with a decision likely by the end of June.

Editing by Will Dunham.

Free speech: Federal appeals court rules finance law too onerous for small groups supporting ballot initiatives

donal brown — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:40:13 +0000

A federal appeals court in Denver ruled that campaign finance reports were too burdensome for small groups raising small amounts of money to contest ballot measures. -db

Tri-City Herald
November 9, 2010
By P. Solomon Banda

DENVER – A federal appellate court ruled Tuesday that requiring small groups who promote ballot initiatives to file campaign finance reports is so burdensome that it’s unconstitutional, dealing the latest blow to open-government advocates.

A libertarian legal group, the Institute for Justice, believes the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in a case over Colorado requirements for campaign reporting could help overturn similar laws in other states.

Steve Simpson, an attorney for the Arlington, Va.-based group, said it is the first ruling in the nation where reporting requirements for issues groups were deemed so burdensome that they violate the First Amendment. He said the latest decision splits from a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last year that dealt with small amounts of money, but didn’t examine the burden the reporting requirements placed on the First Amendment.

The Colorado case could set up the issue to go before the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this year lifted prohibitions against corporations and unions from airing candidate ads. The state case affects groups campaigning for or against ballot measures.

At issue in the state case is a voter-approved amendment that requires groups of two or more people who spend more than $200 to report their spending. The appellate court ruled that the government cannot justify imposing campaign limits on such small groups, saying the burden outweighs the government’s interest in ensuring fair elections.

The judges cited the amendment’s preamble that the reporting requirement is meant to limit large campaign contributions that unfairly influence elections.

“It is unlikely that the Colorado voters who approved the disclosure requirements … were thinking of the No Annexation committee,” the panel wrote in their opinion.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed against a group of six homeowners who fought a proposal to have their subdivision annexed by the city of Parker, 20 miles south of Denver. The group raised and spent less than $1,000, prompting annexation supporters to allege a violation of Amendment 27.

Although the 10th Circuit panel declined to establish a “bright line” for determining the monetary limit that would require issues groups to file campaign reports, Simpson said there was “no distinction between a little group and a large group spending money.”

“I think the court was trying to issue a narrow ruling that applied to these facts, but I think its reasoning applies to everyone,” Simpson said.

Supporters of the law disagree with Simpson’s assessment.

Simpson’s group “failed” in its attempt to overturn Colorado’s amendment, Jenny Flanagan, Colorado Common Cause Executive Director said in a statement. “It is important to look for ways to make sure that voters have comprehensive and accurate information about the interests seeking to influence their votes.”

Rich Coolidge, a spokesman with Colorado’s secretary of state that is responsible for enforcing election laws, said they are reviewing the ruling and haven’t decided whether to appeal.

“We did that action because those (annexation opponents) refused to debate us,” said David Hopkins, an annexation proponent who filed the original election complaint in 2006. “The purpose of the law is to get the debate on what the issues are and not just have a group putting out propaganda without accountability.”

Supreme Court denies emergency injunction on Maine campaign-finance laws

donal brown — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:00:09 +0000

Two Supreme Court justices refused to enjoin Maine’s campaign laws before the Nov. 2 election The laws set disclosure requirements, capped individual contributions to governor candidates to $750 and provided matching funds for some candidates. -db

Courthouse News Service
October 25, 2010
By Annie Youderian

(CN) – The Supreme Court late Friday refused to block three Maine campaign-finance laws, citing the “difficulties in fashioning relief so close to the election.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected a second Supreme Court bid for an emergency injunction, saying the laws’ challengers failed to meet the heavy burden for an order blocking a “presumptively constitutional state legislative act.”

Respect Maine PAC, Rep. Andrew Cushing III and donor Harold Clough challenged the constitutionality of state election laws that set disclosure requirements, capped individual contributions to gubernatorial candidates at $750 and provided matching funds for some candidates under the Maine Clean Election Act.

After losing their bid for relief in the 1st Circuit, the challengers asked Justice Stephen Breyer to issue an emergency injunction. When Breyer turned them down, they refiled their plea with Justice Kennedy.

But Kennedy on Friday evening also refused to enjoin Maine’s campaign-finance laws before the Nov. 2 elections.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito would have barred enforcement of the matching-funds provision, which is similar to an Arizona law the high court blocked earlier.

Kennedy noted that opponents of the Arizona law had appealed a 9th Circuit decision, while the Maine challengers wanted an emergency injunction.

“Such a request ‘demands a significantly higher justification’ than a request for a stay because, unlike a stay, an injunction ‘does not simply suspend judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts,” Kennedy wrote, quoting a 1986 Supreme Court decision.

Free speech: Anti-gay marriage group wants freedom from reporting requirements

donal brown — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:18:58 +0000

The National Organization for Marriage is bringing suit in federal court in Florida claiming that the state’s campaign laws that require record-keeping and reporting are burdensome and discourage them from running media ads in support of their anti-gay marriage position -db

Courthouse News Service
September 27, 2010
By Dan McCue

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (CN) – The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, claims Florida’s campaign law unconstitutionally chills its right to free speech.

The nonprofit, which describes itself as nonpartisan, claims it should be excused from “a panoply of burdens: including registration, recordkeeping and extensive reporting requirements,” because complying with those burdens “would simply not be worth it”.

The group has filed similar lawsuits in Maine, New York and California.

In its federal complaint in Florida, NOM says it intends to spend more than $5,000 in Florida to publish ads on radio, television, by direct mail and on the Internet against candidates for the Florida Legislature who it believes support same-sex marriage legislation.

“NOM does not wish to reveal the candidates’ names in this complaint, because it does not wish to divulge its strategy at this early date,” the complaint states.

It says it fears that without court intervention, the Florida Secretary of State will use the state’s campaign law to stymie its efforts.

“The weight of these burdens [registering with the state, recordkeeping, and reporting under the Florida campaign law] is such that the speech would simply not be worth it for NOM,” the complaint states. “NOM does not want to bear these political-committee burdens that Florida imposes under the electioneering-communications-organization label.”

Earlier this year, the 1st Circuit ruled against NOM, affirming a ruling that the group had to hand over donor information related to its effort to overturn Massachusetts same-sex marriage law.

NOM’s lead counsel is Horatio Mihet with Liberty Counsel in Orlando.

Nonprofit vies for right to fund political ads without limits

donal brown — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:56:47 +0000

A federal appeals court will take up the suit of SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. The nonprofit SpeechNow.org is suing for the right to advocate for free speech and against free speech restriction in campaign reforms without having to set up a separate political action committee. -DB

Institute for Justice

Press Release

January 26, 2010

ARLINGTON, Va.—Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations may fund independent political ads without government-imposed limits. Tomorrow (Wednesday, January 27, 2010), a federal appeals court will consider whether individual Americans who join together to fund political ads share that same unrestricted freedom of speech. This will be the first case in which a lower court considers the impact of last week’s Citizens United decision on other provisions of campaign finance laws.

SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, litigated together by the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics, will be heard at 9:30 a.m. by the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The argument will take place in Courtroom 20 at 333 Constitution Ave., N.W., in Washington, D.C.

The individuals who came together to form SpeechNow.org want to advocate the election of federal candidates who favor free speech and the defeat of those who favor speech restrictions in the name of campaign finance “reform.” SpeechNow.org is completely independent of any political party or candidate. It will not contribute to candidates or parties; its members and supporters simply want to spend their own money on their own independent speech. Federal law, however, requires SpeechNow.org to establish a separate “political action committee” in order to speak, under which the group would be subjected to extremely burdensome rules and limits on the amounts of money it can raise from donors and thus spend on its speech. These limits and red tape—which the U.S. Supreme Court just described as a type of prior restraint on speech—make it virtually impossible for independent groups like SpeechNow.org to raise funds and to speak effectively to voters.

“The Constitution guarantees individuals the right to speak without limit,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson, who will argue the case on behalf of SpeechNow.org. “Last week, the Supreme Court held that corporations enjoy that same right. Yet the FEC perversely maintains that a group of individuals who join together in an unincorporated association may be subjected to burdensome rules and regulations and limits on the amounts they can contribute to their common efforts. This is a flagrant violation of the right of association.”

Simpson said, “The First Amendment guarantees not only the right to speak individually, but the right to band together in support of a common cause. Under the First Amendment, individuals, not the FEC, get to decide how to organize themselves in order to speak most effectively. They cannot be compelled to choose between their right to freedom of speech and their right of association.”

IJ Senior Attorney Bert Gall said, “The FEC argues that the more effective speech is, the more it can be regulated. Under that reasoning, the only people who would be allowed to speak about candidates are those who have no hope of influencing anyone else. But as Chief Justice Roberts said in his concurring opinion in Citizens United, ‘The First Amendment protects more than the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer.’”

“Speech is not corrupting” said Stephen M. Hoersting, vice president of the Center for Competitive Politics and co-counsel for SpeechNow.org. “Speech may influence the outcome of elections and even what candidates say and do. But as the Supreme Court made clear last week, that is the whole point of speaking out during elections. Groups like SpeechNow.org pose no threat of corruption—they pose only a threat to incumbents and the status quo.”

“Billionaires and Hollywood moguls, as well as corporations and unions afterCitizens United, can speak out about candidates without limit,” said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC Chairman who chairs the Center for Competitive Politics. “Grassroots groups like SpeechNow.org must be able to join together for the same purpose without FEC rules and regulations governing when and how much they can speak.”

“As individuals, we can’t affect elections or policies, and that’s why Americans must be free to join together, pool our resources, and advocate for federal candidates who agree with us and against those who do not,” said SpeechNow.org President David Keating. “Speaking out to fellow citizens about important issues in order to influence the outcome of elections is a fundamental American right. But without being able to raise money to pay for ads, free speech is reduced to a whimper.”

Institute for Justice Staff Attorney Robert Frommer said, “Political Action Committees must fill out dozens of forms, keep track of every single penny that they receive or spend, and are subject to the constant threat of audits, fines, and even potential jail time. These complex and confusing regulations make speaking out an insider’s game, available only those who can afford to hire lawyers and accountants. In America, the only thing you should need to speak out is an opinion.”

“The SpeechNow.org case demonstrates that so-called reformers’ chief complaint about Citizens United—that campaign finance restrictions are needed to muzzle corporate political speech—is bogus; they want to silence anyone who seeks to effectively speak out in elections, including ordinary Americans who join together to run ads,” added Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice. “SpeechNow.org is not a corporation, yet the FEC and the reform crowd still argue that it should be regulated in exactly the same way as corporations were before Citizens United.”

The Institute for Justice is a non-profit, public interest law firm that defends free speech and other constitutional rights nationwide. The Center for Competitive Politics is a non-profit organization formed to educate the public on the actual effects of money in politics, and the results of a more free and competitive electoral process.

Washington: Federal judge rejects plea by anti-gay marriage PAC to suspend campaign finance laws

donal brown — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:01:16 +0000

Seatlle Post Intelligencer
October 27, 2009
By Chris Grygiel

Family PAC said the campaign finance laws were hampering their ability to collect contributions before the November 3 election on Referendum 71 extending domestic partnership rights for gay couples. The law limits donations to small contributions in the last weeks before the election which according to the PAC violates the free speech rights of large donors. Last week, the U.S. Supreme court blocked release of the names of those signing the R-71 petitions and has ruled that campaign contributions are political speech and protected by the First Amendment. -DB