|
Jun 29, 2007 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: June 29, 2007 WRTL Decision Will Lead to Confusion and More Litigation: Statement of J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the campaign finance case, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. The Campaign Legal Center serves as co-counsel to appellants U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT), Marty Meehan (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). This case was an as-applied constitutional challenge by WRTL to the electioneering communications provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The Court ruled 5 to 4 that ads proposed by WRTL to run in 2004 "were not express advocacy or its functional equivalent," and because there was no interest sufficiently compelling to justify burdening WRTL's speech, the electioneering communications provisions of BCRA were unconstitutional as applied to WRTL's ads.
Legal Center Executive Director and Director of Litigation, J. Gerald Hebert, stated , "The decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court is disappointing, but it should not be read too broadly by those who oppose campaign finance reform. The Court expressly did not overrule its decision in the McConnell case which upheld nearly all of the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)."
He goes on to say, "BCRA established a bright line test for measuring whether an ad was an electioneering communication and was a common sense approach that was easily understood. The new test announced by the Court today is vague and undoubtedly will be the subject of interpretation by the FEC and lower courts as they struggle to apply it to future ads."
To read the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions on our blog, click here .
Legal Center Debunks Broadcaster Claims, Urges Support for Media Vouchers
In a letter sent to the Senate Rules Committee this week, the Campaign Legal Center urged further hearings on S.1285, the Fair Elections Now Act, and refuted a variety of claims made to the Committee by the National Association of Broadcasters relating to public interest obligations, profit margins and even Supreme Court precedent.
According to the letter, "The ability of our country to have a serious conversation about important national issues is eroding at the same time candidates for Senate and President are being forced to spend more and more of their time raising money, so they can buy airtime for ads. It's a system out of balance and reflects a failure of public policy and of policy makers."
In a letter sent this week to House members, reform groups expressed their opposition to a proposal reportedly being considered by the House special ethics enforcement task force. The reform groups made clear that they do not believe the virtually powerless outside entity being discussed can effectively address the ethics enforcement problems in the House.
The letter from the reform groups states, "Our organizations believe it is essential for the House to establish an effective and publicly credible independent enforcement entity to assist the House Ethics Committee in enforcing the congressional ethics rules. We believe that such an entity is also necessary to help oversee and enforce the lobbying reform laws."
The organizations include the Campaign Legal Center, the Committee for Economic Development, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.
On June 25, 2007, the defendants and intervening defendants filed a letter to the trial court in the consolidated cases Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield and Association of CT Lobbyists v. Garfield. These cases challenge, among other things, the recent public financing system enacted in Connecticut. The letter was submitted pursuant to the court's request at the hearing held on June 6, 2007, where the court heard oral argument on motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings in these cases. The court posed two questions to counsel during the hearing and granted leave to file post-hearing responses. The two questions from the court related to spending limits on candidates who participate in the public financing system, and the available data on third party candidate spending. Suzanne Novak, an attorney with the Brennan Center, presented oral argument for the intervening defendants at the hearing.
The Campaign Legal Center is serving as co-counsel for the intervening defendants with the Brennan Center, Democracy 21, Donald J. Simon of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, and the law firms, WilmerHale and Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
Legal Center Speaks with Students from Seattle University
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel, Paul S. Ryan, and Director of Communications, David Vance, met with a group of students from Seattle University this week to discuss the Legal Center's mission and in particular the topics of campaign finance, presidential public financing, and the FEC, among other topics.
As part of their coursework, the students had created a number of reform proposals and had the opportunity to delve into the possible implications of their ideas with the Legal Center staff.
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: " WRTL and Tax Exemption: Possible Consequences of an Agenda-Setting Opinion ," " A 'Reasonable Interpretation' of Wisconsin Right to Life in a New World of Uncertainty ," " WRTL Decision ," and " Thoughts on the Backroom of the Permanent Campaign: Exploring a Reform Agenda ," or to sign up for the blog, click here .
To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on a variety of Campaign Legal Center issues, please click here . |
