Cases: North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake: Intervenor / Amicus Filings

Legal Center Files unopposed Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae

On February 28, 2005, the Campaign Legal Center, along with Democracy 21, filed an unopposed motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae in NC Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, No. 5:99-CV-798-BO(3) (E.D. N.C.)—a constitutional challenge to, among other things, the state's contribution limits imposed on independent expenditure political committees (IEPCs). CLC and Democracy 21 also submitted a proposed amicus curiae brief with the motion.

In the brief, we explained why the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell makes clear that contributions ma de for independent expenditures ma y be regulated. In addition, we explained th at further support for limiting contributions to state political committees such as NCRL can be gleaned from an examination of the role that 527 organizations have played in federal elections.

We noted that 527 organizations are organized for the purpose of making independent expenditures, and thus function essentially the same as IEPC's, although they have avoided registering as federal political committees. While 527's organizations purport to be independent of the major political parties, the evidence is strongly to the contrary. Indeed, the major political parties have played a significant role in the formation of a number of 527 groups. We highlighted the activities of two major 527's, the Media Fund (aligned with Democrats) and the Progress for America (aligned with Republicans), in the brief, explaining the close ties between these supposedly "independent" 527's and the national parties.

As explained in the brief, there is no reason to believe that this potential for the circumvention of meaningful contribution limits on candidates and parties by the use of supposedly independent committees is a problem that is limited to federal elections. We submit that the experience at the federal level has potential to take place at the state level as well. We argued that "If supposedly independent political committees are allowed to receive unlimited contributions, donors will use those contributions to buy access to and influence with those candidates aided by the committee. Such unlimited contributions, even if given to supposedly independent committees, create the potential for the same kind of corruption that was at the heart of the Supreme Court's analysis in McConnell upholding restrictions on donations to party committees. This danger of real or potential corruption arising from unlimited donations to political committees is sufficient to justify the contribution limits imposed on such gifts."

To view a copy of the amicus curiae brief, click here.

Legal Center Amicus Brief

On July 9, 2004, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and the National Voting Rights Institute filed as amici curiae in support of appellants.

In the first round of litigation, both this Court and the District Court struck down North Carolina 's limit on individual contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures (IEPCs). 344 F.3d 418, 433-34; District Court Order of October 24, 2001 at 14a-30a. Amici submit that the Supreme Court's recent decision in McConnell v. FEC, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003), undercuts this conclusion in two different ways.

Click here to view the brief in its entirety.