- Dec 23, 2014
This is not a Buzzfeed “Top 12 Cute Pumpkins” list, nor is it Letterman’s “Top Ten Last Days I Have on TV” list; it’s the Campaign Legal Center’s Top 5 Wins and Top 5 Losses for Money in Politics and Voting Rights! It’s been an interesting year, with ups and downs, and we have highlighted the most important of each...
- Dec 19, 2014
The Campaign Legal Center would like to mark The Colbert Report’s “passing into Eternity” by recognizing the great success of Stephen Colbert in raising public awareness about the increasingly influential role of undisclosed money in politics...
Video of the Voting Rights Institute in Miami Training the Next Generation of Voting Rights Lawyers and ActivistsDec 11, 2014
On October 8, the latest Voting Rights Institute training was held in Miami to train the next generation of Voting Rights attorneys and activists. Video of the session, sponsored by the Campaign Legal Center and the American Constitution Society, is now available.
- Nov 25, 2014
Last week, CNN and Huffington Post broke stories about the Republican and Democratic Parties using Twitter feeds to secretly communicate ad buy and polling information to outside groups prohibited from coordinating their spending with parties...
- Oct 5, 2014
While ever more is spent by independent groups in American elections, less and less is known about those holding the purse-strings. And in a new litigation offensive, opponents of campaign finance reform are making an all-out attempt to eviscerate what little political transparency still exists.
- Aug 26, 2014
I would like to speak as the emissary of an outlier among philosophically conservative private foundations. Our organization, the Stuart Family Foundation, has consistently supported campaign finance reform along the lines of McCain-Feingold / BCRA. This reflects the judgment and experiences of our founder, Ambassador Robert D. Stuart, Jr., who after many decades of fund-raising on behalf of the GOP, came to realize in the 1990s that the soft-money loophole had corrupted the action of the Congress and was undermining public faith in the integrity of elections. This conviction has placed us sharply at odds with other conservative philanthropies, so I would like to talk a bit about why conservatives seem generally opposed to campaign finance reform and what might be done to bring them around, for without their support, for the foreseeable future, nothing will change for the better.
- Jul 22, 2014
Last year was the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC (in large part upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or McCain-Feingold as it’s commonly known). The Court’s recent decision inMcCutcheon v. FEC (invalidating federal aggregate contribution limits), has brought a wave of commentary evaluating the shortcomings of our campaign finance system, and much of this commentary has blamed the McCain-Feingold law for creating many of these problems. The 10 year anniversary of McConnell, and this year’s McCutcheon decision, certainly provide a good moment to take stock of the legacy of McCain-Feingold, and to evaluate the state of the federal campaign finance system as a whole...
- Jul 18, 2014
The opposition to campaign finance reform is not monolithic. Some comes from conservatives who believe it’s really a cover to push some sort of substantive Democratic/liberal agenda. Others are fine with reducing First Amendment speech and representative democracy into mere commodities to be bought and sold, and approve of the idea that money can and should buy political power...
- Jul 7, 2014
Last week in Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell, a federal appeals court, in a welcome move, finally asked the crucial question of whether a self-styled “independent” group was in fact independent. The Supreme Court’s naïve or disingenuous decision in Citizens United struck down the federal corporate spending restrictions while at the same time assuring us that independent spending, by virtue of its independence, could not corrupt candidates. Even accepting that proposition—however unrealistic—candidates and committees have worked tirelessly to push the envelope in terms of just how much “coordination” they could get away with under current law. A line was finally drawn last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...
- Jun 25, 2014One year ago today—June 25, 2013—the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in the landmark decision Shelby County v. Holder.
A narrow 5-4 majority rendered the Act's coverage formula unconstitutional. The formula had required certain states and jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices to receive preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing new election practices or procedures. Nine states, primarily in the Deep South, and a handful of jurisdictions from Manhattan, New York to Monterey, California were covered under the formula. Since the decision inShelby, several previously covered jurisdictions have swiftly enacted or administered discriminatory voting changes that would not have been possible before the ruling.