|
Feb 16, 2007 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: February 16, 2007 Legal Center Sends Ethics and Lobbying Reform Comparison Chart to House
The Campaign Legal Center sent a side by side comparison chart of lobbying reform measures passed by the House and Senate in the opening days of the 110th Congress. The chart covers provisions in the legislation relating to lobbying reform, travel and gifts rules, the revolving door, disclosure and earmarks.
The Campaign Legal Center supports the proposals to strengthen the House and Senate Rules as well as the Senate provisions to revise lobbying disclosure, particularly the provisions dealing with disclosure of bundled contributions by lobbyists.
Legal Center Submits Amicus Brief in COMPAC v. City of San Jose
The Legal Center filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae and a proposed amicus brief this week with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee (COMPAC), et al. v. City of San Jose, et al., to support the City of San Jose's defense of its municipal limit on contributions to political committees making independent expenditures.
San Jose enacted a $250 limit on contributions to "independent committees" which make contributions or expenditures "in aid of and/or opposition to" candidates in City elections. This limit resembles many other municipal limits in California which similarly attempt to rein in contributions to "independent expenditure committees." In July of 2006, two political committees associated with the San Jose Chamber of Commerce challenged the San Jose contribution limit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting that the limit violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff committees, striking down San Jose's contribution limit, a decision which the City of San Jose has appealed.
The Legal Center's amicus brief makes clear that the City may constitutionally limit contributions to political committees making only independent expenditures. The brief highlighted that the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC upheld the "soft money" provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which imposed federal limits on contributions to national and state parties, even if the contributions were ultimately used for independent purposes. The McConnell decision, argues the brief, confirms that the state's interest in preventing actual or apparent corruption supports limits on contributions to political committees making independent expenditures - like the San Jose limits at issue here.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) filed court papers today seeking to participate as amici curiae ("friends of the court") in the "Shays III" lawsuit brought by Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), challenging FEC regulations pertaining to "coordinated communications," federal candidate and officeholder solicitation at state party fundraising events, and "federal election activity."
Nearly three years ago, Senators McCain and Feingold filed a brief amici curiae in the "Shays I" lawsuit, urging the Court to invalidate numerous regulations promulgated by the FEC to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The Shays I court invalidated 15 out of 19 challenged regulations and ordered the FEC to initiate new rulemaking proceedings. The FEC completed the court-ordered rulemaking proceedings in 2006, failing to fix several problems identified in the Shays I lawsuit and prompting the Shays III lawsuit.
The Campaign Legal Center serves as counsel to Senators McCain and Feingold in the matter. The Senators' motion to participate in Shays III as amici curiae can be found here , and their amici memorandum can be found here .
On February 9, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled en banc to reverse the conviction of Nelson Valdez under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) for three counts of accepting an illegal gratuity.
Valdes, a former D.C. Metropolitan Police Department detective, obtained vehicle registration and arrest warrant information from a restricted police database and sold it to an undercover FBI informant. He was subsequently convicted in the District Court of the District of Columbia for accepting illegal cash gratuities in exchange for disclosing police information. On appeal, a split D. C. Circuit panel reversed Valdes' conviction, finding that the government did not present sufficient evidence that Valdes' actions were a "formal" part of his job such that they constituted an "official act" within the meaning of the anti-gratuities statute. The D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved, however, to rehear the case en banc in September of 2006. The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief with the D. C. Circuit, supporting the position of the United States that reversing Valdes' conviction would undermine the gratuities statute.
The Court of Appeals' en banc decision rejected the position of the United States and affirmed its earlier decision that Valdes' sale of government information was not an "official act" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). In so ruling, the Court of Appeals has significantly narrowed the federal anti-gratuities statute: a public official can escape prosecution for selling official favors simply by arguing that the improper actions they took were not sufficiently "official."
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 entry: " The Way From San Jose: Contribution Limits in the Ninth Circuit " or to sign up for blog updates, click here .
To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on a variety of Campaign Legal Center issues, please click here . |
