Schumer-Van Hollen Bill to Disclose Corporate & Union Political Influence Deserves Bipartisan Support: Statement of Policy Director Meredith McGeheeApr 29, 2010
The vast majority of Americans remain justifiably outraged by the Supreme Court's activist decision in Citizens United - a decision ignoring precedent and unleashing vast corporate and union treasury funds on our elections.
- Apr 28, 2010
The Campaign Legal Center, together with Democracy 21, filed comments yesterday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in regard to an advisory opinion request (AOR 2010-7) submitted on behalf of "Yes on FAIR." The California political committee is seeking the Commission's opinion as to whether "Members of Congress may solicit funds for Yes on FAIR outside the limits and source restrictions prescribed by the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") [ i.e., soft money]."
- Apr 21, 2010
On Monday, April 19, 2010, the Legal Center, along with Democracy 21, filed an amici brief with the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cao v. FEC . The case was filed by the RNC and others in November 2008 to challenge the party coordinated spending limits and the $5,000 political committee contribution limit as applied to coordinated spending.
- Apr 15, 2010
The Campaign Legal Center, joined by the Center for Governmental Studies and Common Cause, filed a brief amici curiae last week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, supporting the City of San Diego in its defense of limits on contributions to non-candidate / non-party political committees in Thalheimer v. City of San Diego.
SPEECHNOW.ORG Decision begins Legacy of Activist Citizens united Ruling & trumpets Need For Legislative reforms: Statement of Paul S. Ryan, Associate Legal Counsel
The decision by the DC Circuit in SpeechNow.org to allow unlimited contributions to political committees to make independent expenditures demonstrates a judicial lack of understanding of the realities of the way corruption threatens our elections. This decision, and the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court this term allowing corporate independent political expenditures, simply ignore history and the reality that independent expenditures can and do corrupt, buy access to, and curry favor with Members of Congress, and residents of the White House. To hold that the only form of true corruption is the literal quid pro quo of a bribe for a vote is simply untethered from political reality.
We welcome the decision of the three-judge district court panel in RNC v FEC to uphold the McCain-Feingold soft money ban from legal attack by those who seek to allow unlimited and corrupting contributions by corporations and special interests to the national party committees. Though an appeal to the Supreme Court may well follow day's decision, the court rightfully recognized that the Supreme Court's 2003 McConnell decision is still the law of the land when it comes to the ban on soft money contributions to political party committees. The panel rightfully recognized that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United did not address the constitutionality of the soft money ban.
- Mar 25, 2010
Today the Campaign Legal Center and the League of Women Voters of the United States released "Developing an Action Agenda for Redistricting in 2011", a report stemming from a conference convened to bring a broad spectrum of stakeholders and experts to the table to seek common ground.