- Feb 11, 2010
FEC's opposition to the petition for certiorari. The question presented in the brief is whether the court of appeals correctly concluded that the limits on coordinated expenditures by a political party in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq., can constitutionally be applied to communications that a party coordinates with its candidates and then adopts as its “own speech.”
- Mar 1, 2010
Respondents’ opposition to the petition for certiorari. It is argued that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted, the judgment of the court of appeals should be vacated, and the case should be remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims as moot. Also, in all other respects, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
- Oct 19, 2010
Respondent's brief in opposition to petition for certiorari. Respondents argue that Scott and Green Party did not address the constitutionality of the Arizona model of public funding, in which triggered matching funds are instrumental to protecting the state’s limited resources while encouraging participation in a system that reduces both the reality and appearance of quid pro quo corruption. Although the three circuits may have employed different reasoning, their holdings are 4 reconcilable. Thus, the Court should deny the petitions and allow states like Arizona to continue to serve as laboratories for innovative campaign finance reforms
Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle: Respondent's brief in opposition to petition for certiorariJan 12, 2011
Respondent State of Washington's brief in opposition to petition for certiorari.
- Feb 14, 2011
Merits brief by Respondent Arizona. The question presented is whether the First Amendment allows Arizona to condition the release of a portion of government subsidies to publicly funded candidates on the campaign activity of privately funded candidates and independent expenditure groups.
- Feb 14, 2011
Merits brief by Respondent Clean Elections Institute, Inc. As explained in the brief, the triggered matching funds provision of Arizona’s public financing law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952, provides candidates who choose to accept public funding, abide by expenditure limits, and forgo private contributions with limited supplemental public funds based on campaign spending by their privately financed opponents and independent expenditure committees. Thus, the question presented is whether this triggered matching funds provision, which serves to combat corruption and expand electoral speech and competition in a viewpoint neutral and fiscally responsible way, is constitutional?
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield: Intervening defendants'/respondents' brief in opposition to certiorariFeb 22, 2011
Amicus brief by Audrey Blondin, Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, and Tom Sevigny in opposition to certiorari. The question presented is whether the Second Circuit erred in holding, based on its review of the factual record in this case, that petitioners had failed to prove that Connecticut’s law establishing a public-financing system for state elected offices imposes an unfair or unnecessary burden on the electoral opportunities of minor parties.
American Tradition Partnership (ATP) v. Bullock: Respondents' brief in opposition to the petition for certiorariMay 18, 2012
Respondents' brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. Brief attempts to answer question of whether the Montana Corrupt Practices Act, which requires natural persons associating as business corporations to contribute to and account for political campaign expenditures through a segregated fund of voluntary contributions, violates the First Amendment in light of the minimal burdens imposed by the Act, significant differences between state and federal elections, unrefuted evidence of actual and likely corruption in Montana’s elections, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).