|
Jan 19, 2007 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: January 19, 2007
Policy Director Statement
Following the Senate's passage of the Ethics and Lobbying Reform Bill on January 18, Legal Center Policy Director Meredith McGehee stated, "Clearly the American people are not willing to accept the status quo and the message they delivered on Election Day was heard by their elected officials." She continues, "Senate Majority Leader Reid is to be commended for his leadership and perseverance in passing this bill in the face of stiff opposition that was not limited to just one side of the aisle."
The Senate voted against an amendment creating an Office of Public Integrity and also against a provision dealing with "astroturf" lobbying disclosure. It is expected these issues will be revisited when the House takes up the matter next month.
McGehee concludes, "The vote by the Senate tonight was a marked change from last year's feeble and insincere attempt at lobby and ethics reform. The final vote tally reflects the fact that the Senate recognizes just how important it is to reassure constituents that it will no longer be 'business as usual' in Washington."
Ethics & Lobbying Bill
Throughout the controversial debate of the Senate ethics and lobbying bill, the Legal Center and a coalition of reform groups maintained steady pressure on Congress to pass strong reforms. In addition to office visits and calls with Members and staffers, the reform coalition sent a steady stream of letters and materials to the Senate including a chart summarizing their position on key pending amendments to the Senate ethics and lobbying reform legislation. The groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. In addition to the chart, the groups also sent to the Senate letters describing their positions on the various amendments, including the Reid Amendment , Obama-Feingold Amendment , Feingold Amendment , and the Bennett Amendment .
The groups also issued a statement when forty-five Senators voted to obstruct and kill the ethics and lobbying reform legislation, stating "No Senator can credibly justify to the American people killing ethics and lobbying reform, and thereby preserving corrupt practices in the Senate." Legal Center Policy Director Meredith McGehee also stated, "Despite the best efforts of Senate Republicans, this issue and the public outrage that led to the introduction of these reform proposals will not go away."
On January 12, 2007, the Campaign Legal Center filed its Jurisdictional Statement in the United States Supreme Court in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. The Jurisdictional Statement was filed pursuant to an appeal of the decision of a divided three-judge court issued in December 2006. That decision struck down the application of the "electioneering communications"' provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to three specific ads that the Wisconsin Right To Life corporation (WRTL) sought to air during the 2004 Wisconsin Senate election. The ads mentioned then-candidate Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) by name.
BCRA's "'electioneering communications'" 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 must instead be funded with corporate or labor union PAC funds provided by individual donors. In McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "electioneering communications" provisions in a facial challenge.
The Legal Center's Jurisdictional Statement urged the Supreme Court to note probable jurisdiction, set the case down for full briefing and argument, and reverse the decision below. The Jurisdictional Statement argued the district court's decision was seriously flawed and contrary to the Court's landmark decision in McConnell v. FEC. The Solicitor General filed a similar Jurisdictional Statement with the Supreme Court on behalf of the FEC urging the same result.
The lawsuit was brought by WRTL in 2004 against the Federal Election Commission. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT), Martin Meehan (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), intervened in the case as defendants to help defend the law. The Legal Center is serving as co-counsel to the defendant-intervenors in the case.
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set oral argument in two pending campaign finance cases: California Pro Life Council v. Randolph, and Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Brewer. The Campaign Legal Center is participating in both cases as amicus curiae and has filed briefs with the court of appeals.
California Pro Life Council v. Randolph involves a claim that certain reporting and disclosure provisions in California's Political Reform Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of groups that expressly advocate for and against the passage of ballot measure initiatives. The trial court rejected the challenge to the provisions. The Legal Center's amicus brief urged the appellate panel to affirm the lower court decision, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC establishes that reasonable campaign finance disclosure requirements are free of constitutional infirmity, and that the State of California has established that its ballot advocacy disclosure requirements further a compelling governmental interest.
The appeal in Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Brewer raises the question of whether Arizona's matching funds provision of its public financing system hinders the ability of individuals and groups to engage in protected free speech, and whether the public financing system constitutionally encourages voluntary compliance with spending limits in exchange for public campaign financing. The trial court upheld Arizona's public financing system, and the Legal Center's amicus brief urges the court of appeals to affirm the lower court's decision.
Both cases are set for oral argument on February 12, 2007.
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: "Ethics & Lobbying Reform Back on Track," "Ignoring Election Results & Sabotaging Reform," "Fare Thee Well, Messrs. Norton and Kahl" or to sign up for blog updates, click here.
Week in the News
To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on a variety of Campaign Legal Center issues, please click here. |
