Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Always Bet Against the Suckers
Pretty interseting article I got in my email today:
Always Bet Against the Suckers
By Brian Hicks | Thursday, December 9th, 2010
A successful investor always has their own proprietary economic indicators, ones they’ve developed through personal observations in everyday life.
Less about mathematical models, these personal indicators are more about the deductions from gut instincts.
In August 1999, I stumbled upon one when I took my family for a night of fun at Friendly’s restaurant. It was there at a dirty booth shoveling down dry, disgusting Clamboat Basket and chicken strips, that I developed my “Rudeness Indicator."
Here’s how it started…
Advertisement
CNBC Says It Could Be Energy's Silver Bullet
No one thought it would happen. But one tiny solar company just crushed every obstacle in the industry's way.
It's 300% more efficient than rooftop panels, can be applied to any glass surface, generates electricity at night, and could hand you 595% over the coming months!
Click here for the full story.
We were greeted by a hostess on a cell phone talking to her friend. A roll of the eyes and a long, exhaling sigh… I could tell she resented me for brining my family there and interrupting her day.
It took 10 minutes for the waitress to come to our table. And all she did was bring water.
Another 15 minutes went by before she took our order. During those 25 minutes between being seated and ordering, she walked around joking with the other waitresses, constantly fooling with her hair and nails.
The poor manager in charge of controlling this circus was running around barking orders while bussing most of the tables himself. I could tell he was a day away from firing everybody — or quitting.
The girls just tuned him out... The waitresses were beyond rude. They hated the customers.
Lazy and constantly looking at the clock, they could’ve cared less about making tips.
It was so blatantly absurd that I thought for a moment I was on a hidden camera prank show. And that’s when I realized Friendly’s was scraping the bottom of the barrel of the hiring pool.
And I also realized they didn’t have a choice: They were stuck with this pathetic crew of staff.
You see, this was August 1999. The stock market was booming. The economy was firing on all cylinders. The United States was at full employment.
Anybody who wanted a job could get one within a day.
In fact, attracting new employees meant handing out big signing bonuses, stock options, and BMWs. Remember those days?
Well Friendly’s found itself in a similar situation, but with a different problem.
Desperate to find live bodies to fill waitress positions, Friendly’s had to hire employees straight out of inner city neighborhoods and transport them 20 miles out to their suburban restaurants.
It wasn’t just Friendly’s, either... I went to the nearby BJ’s, Sam’s Club, McDonalds, and even a Target, and I encountered rude employees.
It was at this point I knew the economy was at a top. It couldn’t go any higher.
Think about it... If employers are forced to hire people who a) don’t care if they get fired (so they're rude to customers) because they can find another job within hours; or b) don’t want to work, then the economy is overheating. It has nowhere to go but lower.
Couple that with the fact that everybody was asking me about dot-com stocks...
People who had never played the market were now playing it. This was the epitome of the "greater fool" theory.
These people were, dear reader, the suckers.
The next morning, I went to work and shorted Friendly’s and began selling my long positions.
We all know happened the following year...
I’ve used my Rudeness Indicator since to call market tops. It usually works.
However, I’ve developed another stock indicator that I think will be as successful as my Rudeness Indicator...
Obama’s Clinton Moment
I want you to take a look at this chart of the Dow from the mid-1990s...
friendlys
In September 1994, the Clinton Health Care Bill was declared dead. It wasn’t a coincidence that stocks and the economy took off once the final nail was hammered in the health care bill coffin...
Clinton’s hard-left base urged him to fight on, to get universal health care passed. This was the Progessives' moment in the sun.
But Bill got the message.
The Republicans swept into Congress with the Contract for America. Clinton now how to deal with divided government.
So Clinton did what any good politician does: He got out of the way… and took credit for the subsequent, booming economy.
And he never again tried to get universal health care passed.
Smart dude, right?
His hard-left base was livid with him. But it didn’t matter to Clinton...
He knew the golden rule: True believers (the naïve) are always first to the slaughter-house. They are to be used. This rule is as true for politics as it is for the stock market.
I have a simple rule I live by when it comes to American presidents: The higher the expectations when he takes office, the more disappointing he becomes. If a president takes office with low expectations (Bill Clinton, for example), he tends to outperform.
Had Obama been a stock at the time he took the oath, I would’ve shorted the heck out of him.
I mean, Obama came into office with an 80% approval rating. And like the full employment of 1999, there was nowhere to go but down.
This past Monday, Obama sacrificed the naïve. He betrayed his base by agreeing to extend tax cuts to all Americans. His left-leaning base is imploding with anger. Just watch MSNBC and see for yourself.
For me, this is great news. I always knew Obama was a cutthroat. I love it.
It’s now time to go long Obama.
Stay tuned,
Brian Hicks
Publisher, Wealth Daily
Why Emmer lost
Written by Erin Haust
Thursday, 09 December 2010 08:06
Political pundits, radio talk show hosts, and local Minnesota media-types are attempting to pinpoint where the Tom Emmer campaign went wrong. By most accounts, failed former senator Mark Dayton should have been easy to beat, but Minnesota Republicans are left scratching their heads in disbelief as Tom Emmer conceded in a press conference today.
Minnesota Republicans have been vocal on talk radio, blog sites and Facebook posts citing the reason for defeat was an ad the Dayton campaign ran falsely accusing Emmer, who roughly 30 years ago made the mistake of driving under the influence of alcohol, of using his position as a state representative to steer drunk driving legislation.
The ad, and subsequent silence from the Emmer campaign to refute the claims, clearly negatively effected the election results. Keeping in mind local races resulted in the Minnesota House and Senate changing to Republican control for the first time in decades, the blame for losing at the top of the ticket must be placed squarely on the state party and the Emmer campaign for reasons other than just one ad.
Dayton's history of ties to socialist, progressive groups is far from secret. Dayton spokeswoman and Executive Director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota, Denise Cardinal, was a featured speaker alongside self-avowed communist and community organizer Van Jones at the America's Future Now! conference last summer. They and other speakers demanded redistribution of wealth in the United States and discussed radical, revolutionary tactics to accomplish that end. Neither the state party nor the Emmer campaign made the connection between radicals like Cardinal and Van Jones and the Dayton campaign.
In October, Alliance for a Better Minnesota gained national media attention when Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel superstar and number one audience-getter in evening cable news programming, used at least 3 segments over 2 days to highlight the ABM boycott of Target stores. Target had made a political donation to an independent organization that later backed Emmer for governor. In turn, ABM lead a smear campaign against Target. O'Reilly exposed the hypocritical and shameful tactic used by ABM to disillusion Minnesota voters. Again, the state party and Emmer campaign was silent.
Dayton's campaign received millions of dollars from groups and individuals linked to socialists, progressives and communists. George Soros funded organizations like Democracy Alliance contributed heavily to his campaign. Soros himself is scheduled to co-host a fundraiser for Dayton in the coming week.
The Republican Party of Minnesota and the Emmer campaign failed to take advantage of the national media attention Dayton's friends and allies were receiving during the campaign and throughout the recount. The opposition research was non-existent. The state party and the Emmer campaign failed miserably to expose Dayton's past and present relationships, even when national media outlets were on the cusp of breaking the stories wide open.
Dayton was a failed senator with a disappointing past. He has personal issues that, though tragic, should have been mentioned during the campaign. He has dealt with depression, addiction, and alcoholism. He has admitted to "falling off the wagon" at the end of his term as senator. Is he in danger of slipping again? Is he stable enough to lead the state? What will he do if the going gets tough in the governor's mansion?
Dayton was quoted in January 2010 saying, "Anyone involved in recovery knows that no one, regardless of length of sobriety, can guarantee its permanent continuation.”
The bottom line is that Dayton should have been an easy target. Without smearing him personally, there was enough political ammunition to expose him for the socialist sympathizer and progressive elitist that he is and demand a public conversation about his ties to radical groups. If Minnesotans had known of Dayton's relationships with communists, could Emmer have picked up 10,000 more votes?
Cross-posted at Minnesota Conservative Examiner Comments welcome.
Thursday, 09 December 2010 08:06
Political pundits, radio talk show hosts, and local Minnesota media-types are attempting to pinpoint where the Tom Emmer campaign went wrong. By most accounts, failed former senator Mark Dayton should have been easy to beat, but Minnesota Republicans are left scratching their heads in disbelief as Tom Emmer conceded in a press conference today.
Minnesota Republicans have been vocal on talk radio, blog sites and Facebook posts citing the reason for defeat was an ad the Dayton campaign ran falsely accusing Emmer, who roughly 30 years ago made the mistake of driving under the influence of alcohol, of using his position as a state representative to steer drunk driving legislation.
The ad, and subsequent silence from the Emmer campaign to refute the claims, clearly negatively effected the election results. Keeping in mind local races resulted in the Minnesota House and Senate changing to Republican control for the first time in decades, the blame for losing at the top of the ticket must be placed squarely on the state party and the Emmer campaign for reasons other than just one ad.
Dayton's history of ties to socialist, progressive groups is far from secret. Dayton spokeswoman and Executive Director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota, Denise Cardinal, was a featured speaker alongside self-avowed communist and community organizer Van Jones at the America's Future Now! conference last summer. They and other speakers demanded redistribution of wealth in the United States and discussed radical, revolutionary tactics to accomplish that end. Neither the state party nor the Emmer campaign made the connection between radicals like Cardinal and Van Jones and the Dayton campaign.
In October, Alliance for a Better Minnesota gained national media attention when Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel superstar and number one audience-getter in evening cable news programming, used at least 3 segments over 2 days to highlight the ABM boycott of Target stores. Target had made a political donation to an independent organization that later backed Emmer for governor. In turn, ABM lead a smear campaign against Target. O'Reilly exposed the hypocritical and shameful tactic used by ABM to disillusion Minnesota voters. Again, the state party and Emmer campaign was silent.
Dayton's campaign received millions of dollars from groups and individuals linked to socialists, progressives and communists. George Soros funded organizations like Democracy Alliance contributed heavily to his campaign. Soros himself is scheduled to co-host a fundraiser for Dayton in the coming week.
The Republican Party of Minnesota and the Emmer campaign failed to take advantage of the national media attention Dayton's friends and allies were receiving during the campaign and throughout the recount. The opposition research was non-existent. The state party and the Emmer campaign failed miserably to expose Dayton's past and present relationships, even when national media outlets were on the cusp of breaking the stories wide open.
Dayton was a failed senator with a disappointing past. He has personal issues that, though tragic, should have been mentioned during the campaign. He has dealt with depression, addiction, and alcoholism. He has admitted to "falling off the wagon" at the end of his term as senator. Is he in danger of slipping again? Is he stable enough to lead the state? What will he do if the going gets tough in the governor's mansion?
Dayton was quoted in January 2010 saying, "Anyone involved in recovery knows that no one, regardless of length of sobriety, can guarantee its permanent continuation.”
The bottom line is that Dayton should have been an easy target. Without smearing him personally, there was enough political ammunition to expose him for the socialist sympathizer and progressive elitist that he is and demand a public conversation about his ties to radical groups. If Minnesotans had known of Dayton's relationships with communists, could Emmer have picked up 10,000 more votes?
Cross-posted at Minnesota Conservative Examiner Comments welcome.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Campaign Finance Lawsuits on the Rise!
Thursday, 16 September 2010 20:00 | Written by CLC
Courtesy of The Campaign Legal Center
A flood of new litigation has been triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s highly controversial decision in Citizens United v. FEC which overturned longstanding precedent and allowed corporations and unions to use their treasury funds to impact federal elections. While legal challenges to campaign finance laws picked up after the Roberts Court’s 2007 decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, the spike in litigation in the wake of Citizens United is unprecedented. Challenges are pending from Maine to Hawaii as litigants rush to get before the Roberts Court. Seemingly no campaign finance law will be left undisturbed by the rash of new lawsuits, not even the type of disclosure laws that the Supreme Court upheld by a wide margin in Citizens United.
The Campaign Legal Center is actively involved in a great number of these cases across the country. The following summary outlines the cases, their status, and the Legal Center’s involvement.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
Citizens United v. FEC (U.S. Sup. Ct.) [CLOSED]
Case Description: Citizens United filed suit to challenge the federal “electioneering communications” corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements as applied to its film entitled Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On July 18, 2008, a three-judge panel upheld the federal law. When the case reached the Supreme Court, plaintiff expanded the scope of the action by requesting that the Supreme Court overturn its past decisions upholding restrictions on corporate election expenditures.
Case Status: On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the 60-year-old federal restriction on corporate expenditures in candidate elections, and overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC (2003).
The FEC has been petitioned to commence a rulemaking to implement the Citizens United decision, and the Legal Center intends to participate in any such rulemaking.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed one amici brief with the district court and two amici briefs with the Supreme Court. The district court brief and first Supreme Court brief focused on the constitutionality of the BCRA disclosure requirements. The second Supreme Court brief, filed upon the Court’s order for reargument, addressed the broader question of the validity of the Austin and McConnell decisions.
Doe v. Reed, 09-559 (U.S. Sup. Ct.)
Case Description: Plaintiffs initiated this action to halt Washington State from making petitions connected to a state ballot measure available in response to requests made under the state Public Records Act. Plaintiffs charged that the state law was unconstitutional in connection to ballot measure petitions, and as applied to petitions for Referenda 71, a domestic partnership ballot measure. On September 10, 2009, the district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the release of the petitions, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, allowing the release of petitions. The Supreme Court, however, intervened on October 20, 2009 to again block the petitions’ release.
On October 22, 2009, the Ninth Circuit found that the disclosure of the petitions and petition signatories was justified by the governmental interest in protecting the integrity of the referenda process and providing public information. Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court accepted the case.
Case Status: On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the law facially. The Court, however, remanded the case to the district court, allowing the consideration of plaintiffs’ as-applied claim to go forward.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case and intends to participate in the consideration of the as-applied claim.
RNC v. FEC (U.S. Sup. Ct.) [CLOSED]
Case Description: On November 13, 2008, the RNC brought a constitutional challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the “soft money” restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that bar the national parties from raising or spending soft money and prohibit state parties from using soft money for activities that affect federal elections, such as voter registration or GOTV drives. On March 26, 2010, a three-judge panel upheld the challenged soft money restrictions.
Case Status: On June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of the three-judge panel to dismiss the RNC’s as-applied challenge to the soft money restrictions. Three justices – Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas – would have noted probable jurisdiction and accepted the appeal.
CLC Position/Involvement: On March 9, 2009, the CLC filed an amici brief on behalf of former Representatives Shays and Meehan and Senators McCain and Feingold.
FEDERAL LAW LITIGATION
Cao (RNC) v. FEC, No. 10-30146 (5th Cir.)
Case Description: On November 13, 2008, the RNC filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Louisiana to the federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates for federal office. The district court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to certify constitutional questions to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: On September 10, 2010, the Fifth Circuit rejected all of plaintiffs’ claims, and upheld the party coordinated spending limits.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC and D21 filed an amicus brief on April 19, 2010 with the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the constitutionality of the party coordinated spending limits.
Koerber v. FEC, 2:08-cv-00039 (E.D.N.C.)
Case Description: In September 2008, the Committee for Truth in Politics challenged the constitutionality of the federal disclosure requirements for “electioneering communications,” and the FEC’s policy on when a group is a “political committee” under federal law. On October 29, 2008, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief, finding that plaintiffs’ challenge was not likely to succeed. Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but then voluntarily dismissed their appeal following the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the district court on May 21, 2010.
Case Status: On June 3, 2010, the district court stayed the proceedings pending a final resolution of a different case, Real Truth About Obama v. FEC.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC, with Democracy 21, filed amici briefs defending the law on October 14, 2008 with the district court, and on April 24, 2009 with the Fourth Circuit.
The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. (RTAO) v. FEC, 08-cv-00483 (4th Cir.)
Case Description: RTAO requested that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia enjoin a number of FEC regulations governing when independent groups must register as federal political committees and comply with the applicable federal restrictions and disclosures. The district court denied RTAO’s request for preliminary relief, finding that RTAO was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its case. On August 5, 2009, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, and plaintiff thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.
Case Status: On April 26, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit, remanding the case for further consideration in light of Citizens United and “the Solicitor General’s suggestion of mootness.” On June 8, 2010, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC, along with Democracy 21, filed amici briefs with the district court and the Fourth Circuit on August 14, 2008 and October 28, 2008, respectively.
SpeechNow.org v. FEC (D.C. Cir.), Nos. 08-5223, 09-5342 [CLOSED]
Case Description: In February 2008, SpeechNow.org filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia to challenge the federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements as applied to SpeechNow.org and other political committees that make only independent expenditures in elections. On July 1, 2008, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit struck down the federal contribution limit as applied to SpeechNow.org and other “independent expenditure committees,” but upheld the political committee disclosure requirements as applied to such groups. The government declined to appeal the decision.
CLC Position/Involvement: On March 5, 2008, the Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed an amici brief with the district court to defend the contribution limits. The Legal Center filed two amici briefs with the D.C. Circuit on September 30, 2009 and December 15, 2009.
U.S. v. O’Donnell, No. 09-50296 (9th Cir.)
Case Description: Pierce O’Donnell was indicted for contributing $26,000 of his money to the Edwards for President campaign through 13 individuals – primarily employees of his law firm as well as some of his relatives – with the understanding that he would either advance them funds or reimburse them after the contribution was made. In June 2009, a federal district court dismissed two counts of the indictment that were based on a federal law provision, see 2 U.S.C. § 441f, which prohibited donors from making contributions “in the name of another.” The district court found that this provision applied only to contributions made under false names, and not to a person’s reimbursement of the contributions made by others to a political campaign.
Case Status: On June 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision and held that federal law “prohibits straw donor contributions, in which a defendant solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own names and furnishes the money for the gift either through an advance or a prearranged reimbursement.” On June 28, 2010, O’Donnell petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc of the decision.
CLC Position/Involvement: On September 23, 2009, the CLC, with Democracy 21, filed an amici curiae brief with the Ninth Circuit, urging the Court to correct the erroneous interpretation given to the FECA provision by the district court below.
STATE/MUNICIPAL LAW LITIGATION
State Disclosure Cases
Center for Individual Freedom (CIF) v. Madigan, No. 10-cv-04383 (N.D. Ill.)
Case Description: On July 12, 2010, CIF initiated an action challenging two disclosure-related provisions of Illinois law. CIF is challenging the state provision requiring non-profit organizations to register and report if they spend over $5,000 on expenditures on behalf of or in opposition to candidates. It also argues that the provisions regulating political committees are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they require groups to register and file regular disclosure reports if they accept contribution or make expenditures over $3,000 on behalf of or in opposition to candidates.
Case Status: On August 26, 2010, the district court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Family PAC v. Reed, 3:09-cv-05662 (W.D. Wash.)
Case Description: In October 2009, Family PAC filed suit to challenge multiple provisions of Washington’s ballot measure disclosure law. Specifically, plaintiff challenged:
(1) The state restriction prohibiting contributions of greater than $5,000 to ballot measure advocacy committees during the 21-day period before an election; and
(2) The state requirement that ballot measure committees disclose the names and addresses of donors giving more than $25, and disclose employer information of donors giving more than $100.
On October 27, 2009, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
Case Status: On September 1, 2010, the district court upheld the $25 and $100 reporting thresholds, but struck down the $5,000 contribution limit in the 21-day pre-election period.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Human Life of Washington, Inc. (“HLW”) v. Brumsickle, No. 09-35128 (9th Cir.)
Case Description: In April 2008, HLW challenged the constitutionality of several components of the State of Washington’s political committee disclosure regime, including the State’s definitions of “political committee,” “independent expenditure,” and “political advertising.” The district court rejected HLW’s challenges to these disclosure provisions in January 2009, and plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: On September 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit postponed oral argument pending the issuance of a decision in Citizens United v. FEC; supplemental briefing was conducted in January and February of 2010 to address the applicability of the Citizens United decision. Oral argument was heard on May 7, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: On June 4, 2009, the CLC filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit to defend the disclosure laws.
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) v. McKee, No. 1:09-cv-538 (D. Maine)
Case Description: Plaintiffs challenged Maine’s ballot question committee registration statute, which requires any person or entity that receives contributions or makes expenditures over $5,000 “for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question” to register and file reports with the state commission. The court denied NOM’s request for a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the law on October 28, 2009. The parties are briefing summary judgment motions on these claims.
In June 2009, NOM filed an amended complaint adding new counts 5-8 to challenge the constitutionality of Maine’s definition of “political action committee,” its regulation of “independent expenditures” and its political disclaimer requirements. The parties agreed to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial, and the consolidated hearing and trial on these new issues occurred on August 12, 2010.
Case Status: On August 19, 2010, the district court rejected in large part plaintiffs’ new claims, but found that (1) the phrase “influence in any way” and the term “influence” in Maine’s campaign finance law are unconstitutionally vague, and (2) a regulation requiring disclosure of any independent expenditure over $250 within 24 hours is unconstitutionally burdensome. Plaintiffs and defendants appealed this decision on August 20, 2010 and September 2, 2010, respectively.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Ohio Right to Life (ORTL) v. Ohio Election Commission, 08-cv-00492 (S.D. Ohio)
Case Description: ORTL filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio to challenge multiple provisions of Ohio’s campaign finance law, including its “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements. On September 5, 2008, the district court granted in part, and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, but rejected ORTL’s request to enjoin Ohio’s electioneering communications disclosure requirements.
Case Status: The case on the merits is still proceeding in the district court. On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
CLC Position/Involvement: On July 18, 2008, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of itself and Ohio Citizen Action, focusing on the constitutionality of Ohio’s disclosure requirements.
Protectmarriage.com v. Bowen, 2:09-cv-00058 (E.D. Calif.)
Case Description: Plaintiffs brought a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to California’s statutory requirement that ballot measure committees disclose the names and other information regarding contributors of $100 or more. Specifically, plaintiffs seek “an as-applied blanket exemption from California’s compelled disclosure provisions because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable probability that compelled disclosure will result in threats, harassment, and reprisals because of their support for Proposition 8.” Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that the law’s $100 threshold for disclosure of contributors is not narrowly tailored.
Case Status: The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on January 30, 2009. The parties are currently conducting discovery.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. (VRTL) v. Sorell, 09-cv-00188 (D.Vt.)
Case Description: VRTL is challenging several aspects of Vermont campaign finance law, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by regulating VRTL as a political committee, requiring disclaimers on electioneering communications, and requiring the reporting of “mass-media activities.” In its amended complaint, it also challenges the state contribution limits as applied to political committees making only independent expenditures and the $100 threshold for reporting contributions to a committee.
Case Status: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2010. The Court denied the state’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel on August 9, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
West Virginians for Life (WVFL) v. Ireland, No. 1:08-cv-01133 (consolidated with Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Ireland, No. 1:08-cv-00190) (S.D.W.Va.)
Case Description: In June 2007, the Center for Individual Freedom (CIF) challenged multiple provisions of West Virginia’s campaign finance law, and requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of these provisions. The West Virginians for Life case was consolidated with the CIF case on October 7, 2008.
The district court on October 17, 2008 granted in part the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary relief, and enjoined the law’s definitions of the terms “expressly advocating” and “electioneering communication.”
Case Status: On September 16, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of The Real Truth About Obama v. FEC. On September 3, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs motion to lift the stay and for leave to file new summary judgment motions. Summary judgment motions are scheduled to be briefed in September and October 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
State Public Financing Cases
Cushing v. McKee, 1:10-cv-00330 (D. Maine)
Case Description: Plaintiffs are challenging the “trigger provisions” of Maine’s public financing program which provide a participating candidate with additional funds if a non-participating opponent and outside groups together outspend the participating candidate. Plaintiffs are also challenging the state independent expenditure reporting requirements, and arguing that the contribution limits are unconstitutionally low.
Case Status: On August 5, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and on August 31, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The TRO is scheduled to be fully briefed by September 13, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, Nos. 09-0599, 09-0609 (2d Cir.)
Case Description: These consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of Connecticut’s recently-enacted public financing system, and statutory ban on contributions from lobbyists, state contractors, and members of their immediate families. On December 19, 2008, the court upheld Connecticut’s ban on “pay-to-play” campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors. In a later decision, the district court struck down elements of Connecticut’s public financing program, holding that the program’s eligibility and qualification requirements imposed an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on minor party candidates, and that the public financing program’s “trigger provisions” violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Case Status: On July 13, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court decision. It held that the public financing program’s “trigger provisions” were unconstitutional, but upheld the program’s eligibility and qualification requirements for minor party candidates. The Second Circuit upheld the ban on state contractor contributions, but found the ban on lobbyist contributions unconstitutionally overbroad.
In August 2010, the Connecticut state legislature amended its campaign finance law in response to the Second Circuit decision.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center served as co-counsel to the defendant-intervenors in the district court.
McComish v. Bennett, Nos. 10-15165, 10-15166 (9th Cir.)
Case Description: Plaintiffs challenged the “matching funds trigger” provisions of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which provide participating candidates with additional funds if a non-participating opponent or outside group spends above a certain threshold. On January 20, 2010, the district court struck down the trigger provisions, and defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed the district court’s decision during the pendency of the appeal.
On May 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit unanimously held that the “trigger provisions” were consistent with the First Amendment, reversing the district court’s ruling on this issue.
Case Status: On June 8, 2010, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court’s order in effect bars the distribution of additional “trigger funds” to publicly-financed candidates in Arizona’s 2010 primary and general elections. On August 17, 2010, plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.
CLC Position/Involvement: On July 24, 2009, the Legal Center filed an amicus curiae brief with district court, and currently is monitoring the Supreme Court appeal.
Scott v. Roberts, No. 10-13211 (11th Cir.)
Case Description: On July 7, 2010, Richard Scott, a 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate in Florida, filed suit to challenge Florida’s millionaire’s amendment, which provides that a publicly-financed gubernatorial candidate, if running against a privately-financed candidate, will receive a dollar-for-dollar match of any amount by which the privately-funded candidate exceeds a $24.9 million spending cap. On July 14, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied Scott’s request for preliminary injunction.
Case Status: On July 30, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, declaring the trigger provision unconstitutional, questioning both whether the public funds program furthered the government’s anti-corruption interest and whether it was narrowly tailored to further that interest.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Wisconsin Right to Life v. Brennan, 3:09-cv-00764 (W.D. Wisc)
Koschnick v. Doyle, 3:09-cv-00767 (W.D. Wisc)
Case Description: In December 2009, two cases were filed to challenge the trigger provisions of Wisconsin’s recently-enacted public financing program, as well as other program components. These cases have not yet been consolidated.
Case Status: Plaintiffs in Brennan moved for summary judgment on July 9, 2010; defendants cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings on the same date. The parties briefed these motions through August.
Plaintiffs in Koschnick moved for judgment on the pleadings on March 1, 2010; the state’s opposition was filed April 30, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
State Contribution Limit Cases
Committee on JOBS, et al. v. Herrera (N.D. Calif.)
Case Description: In June 2007, two political committees filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the constitutionality of San Francisco’s limit on contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures in City elections. The district court granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the law.
Case Status: The parties are currently in settlement negotiations.
CLC Position/Involvement: On August 27, 2007, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of itself and four other nonprofit political reform organizations supporting the constitutionality of the San Francisco ordinance.
Iowa Right to Life (IRTL) v. Miller, 10-cv-00416 (S.D. Iowa)
Case Description: On September 7, 2010, IRTL filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to challenge several aspects of Iowa’s campaign finance law, including the following:
(1) The state independent expenditure disclosure requirements. Plaintiff claims such requirements are tantamount to the imposition of political committee status on groups making independent expenditures and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
(2) The state restriction on corporate contributions to candidates and political parties. Plaintiff also requests that the court reject the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Beaumont v. FEC upholding the constitutionality of corporate contribution limits.
(3) The state requirement that entities obtain annual approval from their board of directors for independent expenditures.
Case Status: On September 7, 2010, plaintiff filed its complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the challenged provisions. The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Land, 10-cv-00664 (W.D. Mich.) [CLOSED]
Case Description: On July 12, 2010, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce challenged a Michigan law, and the Secretary of State’s interpretation thereof, which prohibited the Chamber PAC from accepting corporate contributions and using them to fund independent expenditures. Plaintiff argued that Citizen United recognized that corporate “independent expenditure activities” were fully protected by the First Amendment, and therefore corporate contributions to a PAC for the purpose of financing independent expenditures could not be restricted.
Case Status: On July 23, 2010, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was in part granted, and in part denied: the court preliminarily enjoined the law insofar as it restricted corporate contributions to a PAC to fund independent expenditures, but declined to enjoin the law insofar as it restricted corporate contributions to fund coordinated expenditures. On August 30, 2010, parties stipulated to a judgment and order for a permanent injunction that would preclude the state from enforcing its corporate contribution restrictions in connection to independent expenditures.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life (MCCL) v. Swanson, 10-cv-2938 (D. Minn.)
Case Description: On July 7, 2010, MCCL challenged multiple provisions of Minnesota’s campaign finance law pertaining to the regulation of corporations. The challenged provisions include:
(1) The state requirement that corporations establish “political funds,” subject to registration, record-keeping and reporting requirements, to make independent expenditures.
(2) The state restriction on corporate contributions to political committees making only independent expenditures.
(3) The requirement that corporations establish “conduit funds” to give contributions to parties and candidates. Plaintiff alleges that corporations, unlike unions or other associations, are not permitted to control such funds. Plaintiff also suggests that the court reconsider the Supreme Court’s decision in Beaumont v. FEC.
Case Status: On August 20, 2010, the court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, No. 10-55322 (9th Cir)
Case Description: In December 2009, plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge to several aspects of San Diego’s campaign finance laws. One of the challenged San Diego laws provides that a “general purpose recipient committee” may only use individual contributions – not contributions from corporations, labor unions or other entities – to support or oppose a municipal candidate by making independent expenditures, and those contributions are subject to a $500 limit. In February 2010, the district court preliminarily enjoined the City’s enforcement of the contribution limit and the City appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: The case is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument is scheduled for October 4, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: On April 9, 2010, the Legal Center filed a brief amici curie with the Ninth Circuit on behalf of itself and two other public interest groups to support the contribution limit.
Yamada v. Kuramoto, 10-cv-00497 (D. Haw.)
Case Description: On August 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed suit to challenge multiple aspects of Hawaii state campaign finance law. Challenged provisions include:
(1) The state definitions of “political committee,” “expenditure” and other terms. Plaintiff claim these definition are both overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.
(2) The electioneering communications reporting requirements;
(3) A requirement that “advertisements,” as defined by state law, include disclaimers disclosing the sponsor of the ad and its connection to any candidate;
(4) The state restriction on contributions from government contractors; and
(5) The contribution limits applicable to independent expenditure committees.
Case Status: Plaintiffs filed their complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction on August 27, 2010. The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for October 1, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Courtesy of The Campaign Legal Center
A flood of new litigation has been triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s highly controversial decision in Citizens United v. FEC which overturned longstanding precedent and allowed corporations and unions to use their treasury funds to impact federal elections. While legal challenges to campaign finance laws picked up after the Roberts Court’s 2007 decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, the spike in litigation in the wake of Citizens United is unprecedented. Challenges are pending from Maine to Hawaii as litigants rush to get before the Roberts Court. Seemingly no campaign finance law will be left undisturbed by the rash of new lawsuits, not even the type of disclosure laws that the Supreme Court upheld by a wide margin in Citizens United.
The Campaign Legal Center is actively involved in a great number of these cases across the country. The following summary outlines the cases, their status, and the Legal Center’s involvement.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
Citizens United v. FEC (U.S. Sup. Ct.) [CLOSED]
Case Description: Citizens United filed suit to challenge the federal “electioneering communications” corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements as applied to its film entitled Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On July 18, 2008, a three-judge panel upheld the federal law. When the case reached the Supreme Court, plaintiff expanded the scope of the action by requesting that the Supreme Court overturn its past decisions upholding restrictions on corporate election expenditures.
Case Status: On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the 60-year-old federal restriction on corporate expenditures in candidate elections, and overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC (2003).
The FEC has been petitioned to commence a rulemaking to implement the Citizens United decision, and the Legal Center intends to participate in any such rulemaking.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed one amici brief with the district court and two amici briefs with the Supreme Court. The district court brief and first Supreme Court brief focused on the constitutionality of the BCRA disclosure requirements. The second Supreme Court brief, filed upon the Court’s order for reargument, addressed the broader question of the validity of the Austin and McConnell decisions.
Doe v. Reed, 09-559 (U.S. Sup. Ct.)
Case Description: Plaintiffs initiated this action to halt Washington State from making petitions connected to a state ballot measure available in response to requests made under the state Public Records Act. Plaintiffs charged that the state law was unconstitutional in connection to ballot measure petitions, and as applied to petitions for Referenda 71, a domestic partnership ballot measure. On September 10, 2009, the district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the release of the petitions, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, allowing the release of petitions. The Supreme Court, however, intervened on October 20, 2009 to again block the petitions’ release.
On October 22, 2009, the Ninth Circuit found that the disclosure of the petitions and petition signatories was justified by the governmental interest in protecting the integrity of the referenda process and providing public information. Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court accepted the case.
Case Status: On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the law facially. The Court, however, remanded the case to the district court, allowing the consideration of plaintiffs’ as-applied claim to go forward.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case and intends to participate in the consideration of the as-applied claim.
RNC v. FEC (U.S. Sup. Ct.) [CLOSED]
Case Description: On November 13, 2008, the RNC brought a constitutional challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the “soft money” restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that bar the national parties from raising or spending soft money and prohibit state parties from using soft money for activities that affect federal elections, such as voter registration or GOTV drives. On March 26, 2010, a three-judge panel upheld the challenged soft money restrictions.
Case Status: On June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of the three-judge panel to dismiss the RNC’s as-applied challenge to the soft money restrictions. Three justices – Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas – would have noted probable jurisdiction and accepted the appeal.
CLC Position/Involvement: On March 9, 2009, the CLC filed an amici brief on behalf of former Representatives Shays and Meehan and Senators McCain and Feingold.
FEDERAL LAW LITIGATION
Cao (RNC) v. FEC, No. 10-30146 (5th Cir.)
Case Description: On November 13, 2008, the RNC filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Louisiana to the federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates for federal office. The district court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to certify constitutional questions to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: On September 10, 2010, the Fifth Circuit rejected all of plaintiffs’ claims, and upheld the party coordinated spending limits.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC and D21 filed an amicus brief on April 19, 2010 with the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the constitutionality of the party coordinated spending limits.
Koerber v. FEC, 2:08-cv-00039 (E.D.N.C.)
Case Description: In September 2008, the Committee for Truth in Politics challenged the constitutionality of the federal disclosure requirements for “electioneering communications,” and the FEC’s policy on when a group is a “political committee” under federal law. On October 29, 2008, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief, finding that plaintiffs’ challenge was not likely to succeed. Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but then voluntarily dismissed their appeal following the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the district court on May 21, 2010.
Case Status: On June 3, 2010, the district court stayed the proceedings pending a final resolution of a different case, Real Truth About Obama v. FEC.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC, with Democracy 21, filed amici briefs defending the law on October 14, 2008 with the district court, and on April 24, 2009 with the Fourth Circuit.
The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. (RTAO) v. FEC, 08-cv-00483 (4th Cir.)
Case Description: RTAO requested that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia enjoin a number of FEC regulations governing when independent groups must register as federal political committees and comply with the applicable federal restrictions and disclosures. The district court denied RTAO’s request for preliminary relief, finding that RTAO was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its case. On August 5, 2009, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, and plaintiff thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.
Case Status: On April 26, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit, remanding the case for further consideration in light of Citizens United and “the Solicitor General’s suggestion of mootness.” On June 8, 2010, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court.
CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC, along with Democracy 21, filed amici briefs with the district court and the Fourth Circuit on August 14, 2008 and October 28, 2008, respectively.
SpeechNow.org v. FEC (D.C. Cir.), Nos. 08-5223, 09-5342 [CLOSED]
Case Description: In February 2008, SpeechNow.org filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia to challenge the federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements as applied to SpeechNow.org and other political committees that make only independent expenditures in elections. On July 1, 2008, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit struck down the federal contribution limit as applied to SpeechNow.org and other “independent expenditure committees,” but upheld the political committee disclosure requirements as applied to such groups. The government declined to appeal the decision.
CLC Position/Involvement: On March 5, 2008, the Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed an amici brief with the district court to defend the contribution limits. The Legal Center filed two amici briefs with the D.C. Circuit on September 30, 2009 and December 15, 2009.
U.S. v. O’Donnell, No. 09-50296 (9th Cir.)
Case Description: Pierce O’Donnell was indicted for contributing $26,000 of his money to the Edwards for President campaign through 13 individuals – primarily employees of his law firm as well as some of his relatives – with the understanding that he would either advance them funds or reimburse them after the contribution was made. In June 2009, a federal district court dismissed two counts of the indictment that were based on a federal law provision, see 2 U.S.C. § 441f, which prohibited donors from making contributions “in the name of another.” The district court found that this provision applied only to contributions made under false names, and not to a person’s reimbursement of the contributions made by others to a political campaign.
Case Status: On June 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision and held that federal law “prohibits straw donor contributions, in which a defendant solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own names and furnishes the money for the gift either through an advance or a prearranged reimbursement.” On June 28, 2010, O’Donnell petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc of the decision.
CLC Position/Involvement: On September 23, 2009, the CLC, with Democracy 21, filed an amici curiae brief with the Ninth Circuit, urging the Court to correct the erroneous interpretation given to the FECA provision by the district court below.
STATE/MUNICIPAL LAW LITIGATION
State Disclosure Cases
Center for Individual Freedom (CIF) v. Madigan, No. 10-cv-04383 (N.D. Ill.)
Case Description: On July 12, 2010, CIF initiated an action challenging two disclosure-related provisions of Illinois law. CIF is challenging the state provision requiring non-profit organizations to register and report if they spend over $5,000 on expenditures on behalf of or in opposition to candidates. It also argues that the provisions regulating political committees are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they require groups to register and file regular disclosure reports if they accept contribution or make expenditures over $3,000 on behalf of or in opposition to candidates.
Case Status: On August 26, 2010, the district court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Family PAC v. Reed, 3:09-cv-05662 (W.D. Wash.)
Case Description: In October 2009, Family PAC filed suit to challenge multiple provisions of Washington’s ballot measure disclosure law. Specifically, plaintiff challenged:
(1) The state restriction prohibiting contributions of greater than $5,000 to ballot measure advocacy committees during the 21-day period before an election; and
(2) The state requirement that ballot measure committees disclose the names and addresses of donors giving more than $25, and disclose employer information of donors giving more than $100.
On October 27, 2009, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
Case Status: On September 1, 2010, the district court upheld the $25 and $100 reporting thresholds, but struck down the $5,000 contribution limit in the 21-day pre-election period.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Human Life of Washington, Inc. (“HLW”) v. Brumsickle, No. 09-35128 (9th Cir.)
Case Description: In April 2008, HLW challenged the constitutionality of several components of the State of Washington’s political committee disclosure regime, including the State’s definitions of “political committee,” “independent expenditure,” and “political advertising.” The district court rejected HLW’s challenges to these disclosure provisions in January 2009, and plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: On September 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit postponed oral argument pending the issuance of a decision in Citizens United v. FEC; supplemental briefing was conducted in January and February of 2010 to address the applicability of the Citizens United decision. Oral argument was heard on May 7, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: On June 4, 2009, the CLC filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit to defend the disclosure laws.
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) v. McKee, No. 1:09-cv-538 (D. Maine)
Case Description: Plaintiffs challenged Maine’s ballot question committee registration statute, which requires any person or entity that receives contributions or makes expenditures over $5,000 “for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question” to register and file reports with the state commission. The court denied NOM’s request for a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the law on October 28, 2009. The parties are briefing summary judgment motions on these claims.
In June 2009, NOM filed an amended complaint adding new counts 5-8 to challenge the constitutionality of Maine’s definition of “political action committee,” its regulation of “independent expenditures” and its political disclaimer requirements. The parties agreed to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial, and the consolidated hearing and trial on these new issues occurred on August 12, 2010.
Case Status: On August 19, 2010, the district court rejected in large part plaintiffs’ new claims, but found that (1) the phrase “influence in any way” and the term “influence” in Maine’s campaign finance law are unconstitutionally vague, and (2) a regulation requiring disclosure of any independent expenditure over $250 within 24 hours is unconstitutionally burdensome. Plaintiffs and defendants appealed this decision on August 20, 2010 and September 2, 2010, respectively.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Ohio Right to Life (ORTL) v. Ohio Election Commission, 08-cv-00492 (S.D. Ohio)
Case Description: ORTL filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio to challenge multiple provisions of Ohio’s campaign finance law, including its “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements. On September 5, 2008, the district court granted in part, and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, but rejected ORTL’s request to enjoin Ohio’s electioneering communications disclosure requirements.
Case Status: The case on the merits is still proceeding in the district court. On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
CLC Position/Involvement: On July 18, 2008, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of itself and Ohio Citizen Action, focusing on the constitutionality of Ohio’s disclosure requirements.
Protectmarriage.com v. Bowen, 2:09-cv-00058 (E.D. Calif.)
Case Description: Plaintiffs brought a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to California’s statutory requirement that ballot measure committees disclose the names and other information regarding contributors of $100 or more. Specifically, plaintiffs seek “an as-applied blanket exemption from California’s compelled disclosure provisions because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable probability that compelled disclosure will result in threats, harassment, and reprisals because of their support for Proposition 8.” Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that the law’s $100 threshold for disclosure of contributors is not narrowly tailored.
Case Status: The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on January 30, 2009. The parties are currently conducting discovery.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. (VRTL) v. Sorell, 09-cv-00188 (D.Vt.)
Case Description: VRTL is challenging several aspects of Vermont campaign finance law, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by regulating VRTL as a political committee, requiring disclaimers on electioneering communications, and requiring the reporting of “mass-media activities.” In its amended complaint, it also challenges the state contribution limits as applied to political committees making only independent expenditures and the $100 threshold for reporting contributions to a committee.
Case Status: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2010. The Court denied the state’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel on August 9, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
West Virginians for Life (WVFL) v. Ireland, No. 1:08-cv-01133 (consolidated with Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Ireland, No. 1:08-cv-00190) (S.D.W.Va.)
Case Description: In June 2007, the Center for Individual Freedom (CIF) challenged multiple provisions of West Virginia’s campaign finance law, and requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of these provisions. The West Virginians for Life case was consolidated with the CIF case on October 7, 2008.
The district court on October 17, 2008 granted in part the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary relief, and enjoined the law’s definitions of the terms “expressly advocating” and “electioneering communication.”
Case Status: On September 16, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of The Real Truth About Obama v. FEC. On September 3, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs motion to lift the stay and for leave to file new summary judgment motions. Summary judgment motions are scheduled to be briefed in September and October 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
State Public Financing Cases
Cushing v. McKee, 1:10-cv-00330 (D. Maine)
Case Description: Plaintiffs are challenging the “trigger provisions” of Maine’s public financing program which provide a participating candidate with additional funds if a non-participating opponent and outside groups together outspend the participating candidate. Plaintiffs are also challenging the state independent expenditure reporting requirements, and arguing that the contribution limits are unconstitutionally low.
Case Status: On August 5, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and on August 31, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The TRO is scheduled to be fully briefed by September 13, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, Nos. 09-0599, 09-0609 (2d Cir.)
Case Description: These consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of Connecticut’s recently-enacted public financing system, and statutory ban on contributions from lobbyists, state contractors, and members of their immediate families. On December 19, 2008, the court upheld Connecticut’s ban on “pay-to-play” campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors. In a later decision, the district court struck down elements of Connecticut’s public financing program, holding that the program’s eligibility and qualification requirements imposed an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on minor party candidates, and that the public financing program’s “trigger provisions” violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Case Status: On July 13, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court decision. It held that the public financing program’s “trigger provisions” were unconstitutional, but upheld the program’s eligibility and qualification requirements for minor party candidates. The Second Circuit upheld the ban on state contractor contributions, but found the ban on lobbyist contributions unconstitutionally overbroad.
In August 2010, the Connecticut state legislature amended its campaign finance law in response to the Second Circuit decision.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center served as co-counsel to the defendant-intervenors in the district court.
McComish v. Bennett, Nos. 10-15165, 10-15166 (9th Cir.)
Case Description: Plaintiffs challenged the “matching funds trigger” provisions of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which provide participating candidates with additional funds if a non-participating opponent or outside group spends above a certain threshold. On January 20, 2010, the district court struck down the trigger provisions, and defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed the district court’s decision during the pendency of the appeal.
On May 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit unanimously held that the “trigger provisions” were consistent with the First Amendment, reversing the district court’s ruling on this issue.
Case Status: On June 8, 2010, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court’s order in effect bars the distribution of additional “trigger funds” to publicly-financed candidates in Arizona’s 2010 primary and general elections. On August 17, 2010, plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.
CLC Position/Involvement: On July 24, 2009, the Legal Center filed an amicus curiae brief with district court, and currently is monitoring the Supreme Court appeal.
Scott v. Roberts, No. 10-13211 (11th Cir.)
Case Description: On July 7, 2010, Richard Scott, a 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate in Florida, filed suit to challenge Florida’s millionaire’s amendment, which provides that a publicly-financed gubernatorial candidate, if running against a privately-financed candidate, will receive a dollar-for-dollar match of any amount by which the privately-funded candidate exceeds a $24.9 million spending cap. On July 14, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied Scott’s request for preliminary injunction.
Case Status: On July 30, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, declaring the trigger provision unconstitutional, questioning both whether the public funds program furthered the government’s anti-corruption interest and whether it was narrowly tailored to further that interest.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Wisconsin Right to Life v. Brennan, 3:09-cv-00764 (W.D. Wisc)
Koschnick v. Doyle, 3:09-cv-00767 (W.D. Wisc)
Case Description: In December 2009, two cases were filed to challenge the trigger provisions of Wisconsin’s recently-enacted public financing program, as well as other program components. These cases have not yet been consolidated.
Case Status: Plaintiffs in Brennan moved for summary judgment on July 9, 2010; defendants cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings on the same date. The parties briefed these motions through August.
Plaintiffs in Koschnick moved for judgment on the pleadings on March 1, 2010; the state’s opposition was filed April 30, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
State Contribution Limit Cases
Committee on JOBS, et al. v. Herrera (N.D. Calif.)
Case Description: In June 2007, two political committees filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the constitutionality of San Francisco’s limit on contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures in City elections. The district court granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the law.
Case Status: The parties are currently in settlement negotiations.
CLC Position/Involvement: On August 27, 2007, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of itself and four other nonprofit political reform organizations supporting the constitutionality of the San Francisco ordinance.
Iowa Right to Life (IRTL) v. Miller, 10-cv-00416 (S.D. Iowa)
Case Description: On September 7, 2010, IRTL filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to challenge several aspects of Iowa’s campaign finance law, including the following:
(1) The state independent expenditure disclosure requirements. Plaintiff claims such requirements are tantamount to the imposition of political committee status on groups making independent expenditures and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
(2) The state restriction on corporate contributions to candidates and political parties. Plaintiff also requests that the court reject the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Beaumont v. FEC upholding the constitutionality of corporate contribution limits.
(3) The state requirement that entities obtain annual approval from their board of directors for independent expenditures.
Case Status: On September 7, 2010, plaintiff filed its complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the challenged provisions. The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Land, 10-cv-00664 (W.D. Mich.) [CLOSED]
Case Description: On July 12, 2010, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce challenged a Michigan law, and the Secretary of State’s interpretation thereof, which prohibited the Chamber PAC from accepting corporate contributions and using them to fund independent expenditures. Plaintiff argued that Citizen United recognized that corporate “independent expenditure activities” were fully protected by the First Amendment, and therefore corporate contributions to a PAC for the purpose of financing independent expenditures could not be restricted.
Case Status: On July 23, 2010, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was in part granted, and in part denied: the court preliminarily enjoined the law insofar as it restricted corporate contributions to a PAC to fund independent expenditures, but declined to enjoin the law insofar as it restricted corporate contributions to fund coordinated expenditures. On August 30, 2010, parties stipulated to a judgment and order for a permanent injunction that would preclude the state from enforcing its corporate contribution restrictions in connection to independent expenditures.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life (MCCL) v. Swanson, 10-cv-2938 (D. Minn.)
Case Description: On July 7, 2010, MCCL challenged multiple provisions of Minnesota’s campaign finance law pertaining to the regulation of corporations. The challenged provisions include:
(1) The state requirement that corporations establish “political funds,” subject to registration, record-keeping and reporting requirements, to make independent expenditures.
(2) The state restriction on corporate contributions to political committees making only independent expenditures.
(3) The requirement that corporations establish “conduit funds” to give contributions to parties and candidates. Plaintiff alleges that corporations, unlike unions or other associations, are not permitted to control such funds. Plaintiff also suggests that the court reconsider the Supreme Court’s decision in Beaumont v. FEC.
Case Status: On August 20, 2010, the court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, No. 10-55322 (9th Cir)
Case Description: In December 2009, plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge to several aspects of San Diego’s campaign finance laws. One of the challenged San Diego laws provides that a “general purpose recipient committee” may only use individual contributions – not contributions from corporations, labor unions or other entities – to support or oppose a municipal candidate by making independent expenditures, and those contributions are subject to a $500 limit. In February 2010, the district court preliminarily enjoined the City’s enforcement of the contribution limit and the City appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case Status: The case is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument is scheduled for October 4, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: On April 9, 2010, the Legal Center filed a brief amici curie with the Ninth Circuit on behalf of itself and two other public interest groups to support the contribution limit.
Yamada v. Kuramoto, 10-cv-00497 (D. Haw.)
Case Description: On August 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed suit to challenge multiple aspects of Hawaii state campaign finance law. Challenged provisions include:
(1) The state definitions of “political committee,” “expenditure” and other terms. Plaintiff claim these definition are both overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.
(2) The electioneering communications reporting requirements;
(3) A requirement that “advertisements,” as defined by state law, include disclaimers disclosing the sponsor of the ad and its connection to any candidate;
(4) The state restriction on contributions from government contractors; and
(5) The contribution limits applicable to independent expenditure committees.
Case Status: Plaintiffs filed their complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction on August 27, 2010. The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for October 1, 2010.
CLC Position/Involvement: The Legal Center has been tracking this case.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Opposition Research Tip #1
In my years of performing opposition research knowing where to get information on a candidate or candidates is imperative. However, you will have the upper hand against your competition if you know, understand, and keep up with current election law. Performing opposition research is a lot more than digging up that arrest in college, that paper the candidate wrote in law school, or the affair he or she had. This information may come up or it may not. The squeaky clean candidate may have violated election law without even knowing it. It happened to Gephardt when after the "Contract with America" election of 2004 he was investigated. After the election, inconsistencies were discovered in a real estate deal he was involved in and what he was reporting on his financial statements he disclosed to Congress. A clear violation of The Starker Amendment. Charges were dismissed by the House Ethics Committee but, it put a black mark on Gephardts' record.
So knowing Election law will give the "Oppo" an upper hand on his or her competition. I'm not inferring you need to go to law school, but it may prove wise to team up with an attorney specializing in Election Law. Inexperienced researchers will pour over news articles, past statements, or social networks (which is fine) however, many of these "dirty" secrets or statements may prove irrelevant. A clear violation of Law, backed by documented proof can seriously damage any candidate. A great place to start is THE ELECTION LAW BLOG. It covers election law, campaign finance, legislation, voting rights, initiatives, redistricting, and the Supreme Court nomination process. A great book, although used in law schools, is The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (University Casebook. Description: The Law of Democracy offers a systematic exploration of the legal construction of American democracy. The book brings together a cluster of issues in law regulating the design of democratic institutions, and the book employs a variety of methods historical, comparative, theoretical, doctrinal to explore foundational questions in the theory and practice of democracy. Covered issues include the historical development of the individual right to vote; current struggles over racial gerrymandering; the relationship of the state to political parties; the constitutional and policy issues surrounding campaign-finance reform; and the tension between majority rule and fair representation of minorities in democratic bodies. Sidenote: Barack Obama contributed to this book. Ahh!! Maybe some juice on him??
In conclusion, it may behoove the opposition researcher to have a thorough knowledge of election law. Violations of law is the most damaging material you can find on a candidate. In our business having the edge is paramount. Know The Law!
So knowing Election law will give the "Oppo" an upper hand on his or her competition. I'm not inferring you need to go to law school, but it may prove wise to team up with an attorney specializing in Election Law. Inexperienced researchers will pour over news articles, past statements, or social networks (which is fine) however, many of these "dirty" secrets or statements may prove irrelevant. A clear violation of Law, backed by documented proof can seriously damage any candidate. A great place to start is THE ELECTION LAW BLOG. It covers election law, campaign finance, legislation, voting rights, initiatives, redistricting, and the Supreme Court nomination process. A great book, although used in law schools, is The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (University Casebook. Description: The Law of Democracy offers a systematic exploration of the legal construction of American democracy. The book brings together a cluster of issues in law regulating the design of democratic institutions, and the book employs a variety of methods historical, comparative, theoretical, doctrinal to explore foundational questions in the theory and practice of democracy. Covered issues include the historical development of the individual right to vote; current struggles over racial gerrymandering; the relationship of the state to political parties; the constitutional and policy issues surrounding campaign-finance reform; and the tension between majority rule and fair representation of minorities in democratic bodies. Sidenote: Barack Obama contributed to this book. Ahh!! Maybe some juice on him??
In conclusion, it may behoove the opposition researcher to have a thorough knowledge of election law. Violations of law is the most damaging material you can find on a candidate. In our business having the edge is paramount. Know The Law!
Sunday, December 5, 2010
2010 Election Spending Round-up
The election results in for the 2010 election cycle. More than $2.6B was spent on the 2010 midterm elections according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This will go down as the most money spent during a midterm election. Full Report here: 2010 Election spending
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
