|
Sep 29, 2006 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: September 29, 2006
On Tuesday, Roll Call reported that K Street lobbyists are being summoned and told again to give to Republican congressional members exclusively or pay the price if the Republicans maintain their majority in the House. A Roll Call article on Wednesday indicated that lobbyists are also being called to Capitol Hill by the Democratic leadership in an aggressive fundraising push.
Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert released statements in response to both of these articles saying, "This is the 'K Street Project Redoubled' which John Boehner vowed in January to end if elected Majority leader - the same John Boehner who stated 'If I am elected majority leader, there will no longer be a 'K Street project' or anything else like it.' Wrong." And in response to the Democratic fundraising, "For payment of $500, a small amount for high-paid lobbyists but an amount most Americans can't part with, you get an evening with Leader Pelosi, who has tattooed the GOP leadership over the 'culture of corruption' ever since the Abramoff-DeLay-Ney scandals broke."
To read the statement " GOP Shakedown of Lobbyists " , click here.
To read the statement " Democrats' Turn to Shakedown Lobbyists " , click here.
Supreme Court Grants Cert in Washington State Campaign Finance Case
On Monday, September 24, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari in Washington v. Washington Education Association. The state sought review of a state supreme court decision striking down on federal constitutional grounds a state law requiring labor unions to obtain affirmative authorization from nonmembers before using such nonmembers' "agency shop fees" (i.e., fees paid by nonmembers to cover the costs of collective bargaining) for political purposes. The Washington Supreme Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a state law requirement that prohibited labor unions from using non-union employees' dues for political activities without the workers' express consent.
The Legal Center filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the State of Washington's cert. petition. In the amicus brief, the Legal Center argued that the state supreme court decision directly conflicted with U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the longstanding federal law that prohibits unions (and corporations) from using treasury funds to influence federal elections, but allows workers to "opt-in" to supporting union political activities by making contributions to a union PAC. The Legal Center also argued that the state court decision undermines similar "opt-in" laws in at least 14 other states. The Legal Center intends to file another amicus brief on the merits now that the Supreme Court has taken the case.
To read the Legal Center's amicus brief, click here, and to read a blog posting on the case by the Legal Center's Associate Legal Counsel, Paul Ryan, click here.
A three-judge federal district court panel dismissed this week a lawsuit brought by the Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. (CCLM) against the Federal Election Commission to challenge the constitutionality of the ''electioneering communication'' provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). CCLM had challenged the provisions as they applied to a broadcast ad that CCLM wanted to pay for with its corporate funds and run just before the June primary election in Maine . The ad referenced both sitting senators from Maine , Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Senator Snowe was a candidate on the June 13 Republican primary ballot in Maine .
In an earlier decision in the case, the district court denied a request by CCLM for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the ''electioneering communication'' provisions of BCRA as they applied to the broadcast ad CCLM wanted to pay for with its corporate funds. The Supreme Court denied a request by CCLM for an expedited review of the district court's denial of CCLM's preliminary injunction request.
CCLM , which is a non-profit corporation, argued that their broadcast ad was "a grassroots lobbying ad", and that BCRA violated the group's First Amendment rights by prohibiting the use of its corporate funds to pay for that ad. BCRA's ''electioneering communication'' provisions prohibit the use of corporate (or union) treasury funds to pay for any broadcast ad that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and is aired within 30 days of a primary election, or 60 days of a general election involving that candidate. Such ads may be broadcast using funds from the corporation's PAC or by dropping the reference to a federal candidate, but CCLM decided to exercise neither of those options with regard to the proposed ad.
The Legal Center serves as co-counsel in the case to the defendant intervenors: Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA), the principal sponsors of BCRA, and Maine Representative Tom Allen (D-ME).
To read the opinion in the case, click here .
To read the Legal Center 's statement on the decision, click here.
On September 26, 2006, the Campaign Legal Center joined Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG in a letter sent to the Senate urging them to pass S. 1508, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. This legislation would require electronic filing of the campaign finance disclosure reports filed with the Senate under federal campaign finance laws.
Currently, all federal candidates, party committees and federal PACs are required to file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically — with the sole exception of Senate candidates who are still filing paper reports. This exception for Senate candidates has no rational basis, makes no sense and is not defensible.
Meredith McGehee, Policy Director at the Campaign Legal Center offered support for the measure but also cautioned that it should not be "confused in any way, shape or form with the promised lobbying and ethics reforms. But it is an important step forward."
To view the letter sent to all Senators, click here.
To view Meredith McGehee's statement, click here.
In response to Federal Communications Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps call to their colleagues for new public-interest obligations for digital broadcasters, Legal Center Policy Director Meredith McGehee applauded Commissioners Adelstein and Copps and urged the FCC to take action on this issue.
The statement, released September 29, says, "This process has been stalled for nearly seven years and the FCC has still not defined the public-interest duties, creating confusion for both broadcasters and the viewing public. Not only will clear public-interest obligations promise relevant and quality programming for viewers, but well-defined obligations will create greater certainty for broadcasters as they chart courses for programming in the digital world."
To read the full statement, click here .
Legal Center Blog Highlights
Each week, the Campaign Legal Center staff posts blog entries on its site, www.clcblog.org. Click to read this week's entries: Supreme Court Grants Cert in Washington Campaign Finance Case, The K Street Project Revisited, What's good for the Elephant is Good for the Donkey, Court Dismisses BCRA Challenge by Christian Civic League of Maine, Chairman Toner: What Were You Thinking?, Some Answers for Mr. Bauer, and Where have you gone, Mr. Norton? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you or to sign up for blog updates, click here.
To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on campaign finance, including two op-eds by Meredith McGehee titled "A Little White Bribe," and " Leadership PACs are the new political slush funds in D.C.," and J. Gerald Hebert's op-ed "Chairman Toner: What Were You Thinking?" please click here. |
