Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield: Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of Connecticut’s public financing programJul 13, 2010
Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of Connecticut’s public financing program.
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield: Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of the lobbyist and state contractor contribution restrictionsJul 13, 2010
Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of the lobbyist and state contractor contribution restrictions. The February 11, 2009 partial judgment of the District Court on Count Four of this action is affirmed in part and reversed in part as set forth in sections (1) through (7) of the conclusion. The cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the instructions set forth in section (8) of the conclusion.
- Feb 22, 2011
These consolidated cases, initiated in 2006, challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut’s campaign finance reform legislation, which included a public financing system and pay-to-play restrictions which prohibited contributions from lobbyists, state contractors, and members of their immediate families. In a 2010 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld most of the public funding program and the ban on contributions by state contractors...
- Apr 12, 2012
The League of Women Voters of Florida filed this lawsuit in state court claiming that redistricting plans adopted by the Florida legislature violated the Florida Constitution’s provisions that provide that district boundaries not be drawn so as to favor any incumbent or political party over another...
Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) v. Sorrell: Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Amici Brief of CLC & Democracy 21 Supporting Sorrell and Urging AffirmanceDec 6, 2012
Appellants Vermont Right to Life Committee (“VRLC”) and its “independent-expenditure-only” fund, Vermont Right to Life Committee – Fund for Independent Political Expenditures (“FIPE”), wish to make expenditures to sway Vermont’s elections without providing meaningful disclosure of their spending. In addition, FIPE requests an exemption from the $2,000 contribution limit applicable to political committees, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17 (“V.S.A.”), § 2805(a), although the record shows that there is “no significant functional divide” between FIPE and VRLC’s political committee (“PC”), which makes contributions to Vermont candidates.
- Jul 2, 2014
In 2009, Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) challenged Vermont’s campaign finance law's disclosure provisions and contribution limits as applied to VRLC's fund that allegedly makes only independent expenditures. The district court upheld the challenged disclosure provisions and contribution limit and the court of appeals affirmed...
- Jul 2, 2014
Plaintiffs, a non‐profit corporation and a Vermont political committee, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (William K. Sessions, III, Judge) granting summary judgment to Defendants, Vermont officials charged with enforcing Vermont elections statutes. The non‐profit corporation asserts that statutory provisions requiring identification of the speaker on any “electioneering communication,” requiring reporting of certain “mass media activities,” and defining and requiring reporting by “political committees” are void for vagueness and violate the First Amendment facially and as applied. The Vermont political committee brings an as‐applied challenge against a provision limiting contributions to political committees. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) v. Sorrell: Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Amici Brief of CLC & Democracy 21 Supporting Sorrell and Urging AffirmanceMay 9, 2016
- Apr 28, 2017
CLC filed a brief in support of the New York Attorney General.
- Feb 15, 2018
On February 15, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld that charitable organizations' first amendment rights are not violated by being required to disclose donor information and reversed the Court's ruling that the claim was not ripe.