- Oct 22, 2010
Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal editorial board made a series of factually unsupported attacks on the Campaign Legal Center in a published editorial. This week the paper ran our letter to the editor regarding the demonstrably false accusations.
- Oct 14, 2010
How anyone can argue with a straight face that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is to blame for the flood of secret money or that anonymous funding is the answer to fixing the current campaign finance system is beyond me. The premise is both ridiculous and insulting.
- Oct 8, 2010
The Office of Congressional Ethics is under fire and certainly there is no shortage of Members calling for closing the office altogether or at least stripping it of powers in an attempt to bring it to heel. Either action would be a grave mistake if Congress is to have any hope of rehabilitating itself in the eyes of the public.
Spike in Campaign Finance Lawsuits Nationwide Following Citizens United: Court Cases of Interest by the Campaign Legal CenterSep 16, 2010
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.
- Jul 7, 2010
The Society for Scholarly Publishing takes a look at the DISCLOSE Act with a blog post that begins: “While the notion that information wants to be free has driven many movements around government-financed data and research, it pays to remember that covert political maneuvering and paying for influence are as old as civilization. And some of these forces don’t want information to be free. When some of the most well-funded corporations and interest groups also have a commercial stake in supporting transparency, you have all the ingredients for a real battle.”
- Jun 22, 2010
Misinformation about the DISCLOSE Act continues to be circulated by opponents of the bill. One criticism has been that the timetable would be too short for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to implement the legislation. Doing so is not the Herculean task critics maintain.
- Jun 21, 2010
With all the kerfuffle around the DISCLOSE Act, it is important to remember why this measure is necessary in the first place. 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC which opened up virtually bottomless corporate and union treasury funds for spending on political advertising. Much of the new influx of money is expected to be laundered through shady groups with patriotic names or even trade associations.
Despite the histrionics of the special interests in Washington, the core of the DISCLOSE Act is about disclosing the individuals or entities spending huge amounts of money to impact elections. It is not about suppressing free speech.
The Supreme Court's Opinion in Citizens United makes it clear that the Court believes disclosure of the sources of funding for political ads during election campaigns is not only constitutional but desirable. Justice Kennedy stated that disclosure of the sources of funding of political advertising "provide[s] the electorate with information" and "insure[s] that the voters are fully informed about the person or group who is speaking." Eight of the nine Justices joined this portion of the Court's Opinion. This principle is embodied in the disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act.
If further proof was needed as to the desperate need to pass the DISCLOSE Act to curb money laundering in federal elections, it was provided today by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In essence the Commission refused its General Counsel’s recommendation to investigate what appeared to be a clear violation of federal disclosure requirement laws