Mar 15, 2005 -- Legal Center Files Brief in Key Contribution Limits Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 15, 2005
Press Contact: Mark Glaze, 202-271-0982

Washington, D.C. - The Campaign Legal Center announced today that a federal court in North Carolina had granted the Center's motion to file a "friend of the court" brief in a constitutional challenge to North Carolina's contribution limits on independent expenditure political committee's, or IEPCs. The Legal Center was joined by Democracy 21 on the brief. The case is NC Right to Life v. Leake, No. 5:99-CV-798-BO(3)(E.D.N.C.).

"There are compelling reasons why states like North Carolina have tried to regulate contributions to independent expenditure political committees," said Gerry Hebert, CLC's Director of Litigation. "If these committees are exempt from the same limits as other political party or candidate committees, then they will become the primary means for big money and corporate and union donors to circumvent the soft money restrictions that governments are now instituting," Hebert added. "If independent expenditure committees are exempt from some of the same types of restrictions that apply to other political committees," Hebert said, "they will become the primary means for donors to circumvent soft money provisions. And the Supreme Court has made clear that government can fight corruption by preventing circumvention of campaign finance laws."

The brief sets forth the view that the Supreme Court made clear in its 2003 McConnell v. FEC decision that contributions made for independent expenditures may constitutionally be regulated to combat the appearance and reality of corruption. In addition, the brief explains that further support for limiting contributions to state political committees such as NCRL can be gleaned from an examination of the role that 527 organizations have played in federal elections.

The brief explains that 527 organizations are organized for the purpose of making independent expenditures, and thus function essentially the same as IEPC's, although they have avoided registering as federal political committees. While 527 organizations purport to be independent of the major political parties, the evidence is strongly to the contrary, the authors argue, noting that the major political parties have played a significant role in the formation of a number of 527 groups. In particular, the brief highlights the activities of two major 527s, the Media Fund (aligned with Democrats) and the Progress for America (aligned with Republicans), examining the close ties between these supposedly "independent" 527s and the national parties.

The Legal Center and Democracy 21 argue that there is no reason to believe this potential for circumvention of contribution limits on candidates and parties through use of supposedly independent committees is limited to federal elections. The brief submits that the experience at the federal level has potential to occur at the state level as well.

From the brief: "If supposedly independent political committees are allowed to receive unlimited contributions, donors will use those contributions to buy access to and influence with those candidates aided by the committee. Such unlimited contributions, even if given to supposedly independent committees, create the potential for the same kind of corruption that was at the heart of the Supreme Court's analysis in McConnell upholding restrictions on donations to party committees. This danger of real or potential corruption arising from unlimited donations to political committees is sufficient to justify the contribution limits imposed on such gifts."

To read the brief by the Legal Center and Democracy 21, please click here.

To read other case documents, please click below:

2005 District Court Filings
Supreme Court Documents