|
May 5, 2006 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: May 5, 2006 Legal Center Files Amicus Brief in Washington Supreme Court Case
The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus curiae brief on May 3, 3006, in the Washington State Supreme Court in Voters Education Committee (VEC) v. Washington State Public Disclosure Comm'n (PDC)—supporting the PDC's efforts to enforce the state's "political committee" registration and reporting requirements.
The VEC alleges in the lawsuit that the state definition of "political committee" is unconstitutionally vague, and that the state may only regulate "express advocacy"—not the VEC's 2004 ad criticizing a candidate for Attorney General, which it characterized as "issue advocacy." A state court ruled in 2005 that the VEC ad triggered "political committee" registration and reporting requirements, and that these requirements do not violate the VEC's constitutional rights. The VEC appealed the decision to the State Supreme Court.
The Campaign Legal Center argues in its amicus brief that by registering with the IRS as a Section 527 political organization—the tax status reserved exclusively for organizations with the purpose of influencing candidate elections—the VEC publicly declared that its purpose is to influence candidate elections. As such, the VEC falls squarely within the unambiguous state law definition of "political committee."
To read the full amicus brief, click here.
CLC Addresses Mootness in WRTL v. FEC
On May 1, 2006, the Campaign Legal Center filed a Memorandum in the WRTL v. FEC case in response to a recent order from the three-judge court explaining whether the case continued to present an actual live case or controversy. The FEC also filed a memorandum.
In urging the three-judge court to dismiss the case as moot, the intervenors' memorandum noted that this case involved an attempt by the plaintiff to run ads during the 2004 election cycle. Intervenors noted that the relief sought by the plaintiff when the case was brought, i.e., a declaratory judgment and an injunction, would have no effect at this stage of the proceedings because the election has been held and there is nothing left to enjoin. Rendering a declaratory judgment also makes no sense, the memorandum noted, because it would essentially put the three-judge court in the position of rendering an advisory opinion. The memorandum further explained why this case does not fall within the narrow mootness exception of being a dispute "capable of repetition but evading review." The intervenors' memorandum also made the point that the issue of whether WRTL could run some purely hypothetical ads in the future was not ripe for adjudication by the three-judge court.
The Legal Center is serving as co-counsel for the defendant-intervenors in the case, Senator John McCain and Representatives Chris Shays, Marty Meehan, and Tammy Baldwin. Other co-counsel for the defendant-intervenors include: attorneys at the lawfirm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; Donald Simon of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson and Perry; Scott Nelson of Public Citizen Litigation Group; and Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21.
To read the Congressional Intervenors memo, click here.
To read the FEC's memo, click here.
To read Wisconsin Right to Life's memo, click here.
On May 2, 2006, the Campaign Legal Center, along with Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voter, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG held a press conference with Reps. Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan to urge members in the House to vote against H.R. 4975 the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. Meredith McGehee, Policy Director at the Legal Center spoke at the press event. In a message sent to Members urging them to vote against the lobbying reform bill, the Legal Center stated, "Any minor improvements to the current lobbying system that this bill might bring about are far outweighed by what is missing from this bill." Following the vote in which the House narrowly approved the bill, the Legal Center issued a statement calling the measure "a cynical exercise aimed at providing House members political cover for the fall elections."
The statement continues, "The Campaign Legal Center commends those Members who opposed this measure. We would particularly like to recognize the leadership of Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) for their efforts in promoting real reform. The Legal Center will continue to work for stronger, more effective lobbying laws and ethics rules."
To read the Legal Center's message to House Members, click here.
To read the statement of Meredith McGehee, Policy Director for the Legal Center, click here.
The Campaign Legal Center has a new blog site. In the past week, the Legal Center has commented on campaign finance litigation and reform, ethics and lobbying reform, and media law and policy. Contributors include staff members of the Campaign Legal Center, members of the Legal Center's Board of Trustees, and the Center's Advisory Board. To read this week's blog postings or to sign up for the blog, go to www.clcblog.org.
Week in the News
To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on campaign finance, please click here. |
