|
Jul 20, 2007 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: July 20, 2007
On July 13, 2007, the State of Connecticut and intervening-defendants moved for partial summary judgment in the consolidated cases, Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield and Association of CT Lobbyists v. Garfield, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the state's restrictions on campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the same day, requesting that the court permanently enjoin the provisions of the state campaign finance law relating to these contribution restrictions.
Connecticut's campaign finance law prohibits lobbyists, state contractors, prospective state contractors and members of their immediate families from making contributions to, or soliciting contributions for, candidates for certain state offices. The summary judgment motion for defendants and intervening-defendants argues that Connecticut's contribution restrictions impose only a minimal burden on the First Amendment rights of lobbyists and contractors. The regulated parties remain free to express political support for candidates in numerous ways, such as making independent political expenditures or engaging in various volunteer campaign activities. The motion further argues that any burden on First Amendment rights is outweighed by the state's compelling interest in preventing actual and perceived corruption and in restoring citizens' confidence in state government, particularly in light of the corruption scandals that have struck Connecticut in recent years.
Defendants and intervening defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims challenging the public financing provisions of Connecticut's campaign finance law. These provisions are not addressed in the instant summary judgment motions.
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.
Parties File Joint Motion in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC Case
On September 13, 2006, the three-judge district court in Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) v. FEC denied plaintiff WRTL's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the FEC from enforcing BCRA's "electioneering communication" corporate funding prohibition against WRTL's 2006 "Child Custody Protection Act" ("CCPA") advertisement. The district further held that any further proceedings regarding the 2006 ad would be held in abeyance pending further direction from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then ruled on June 25, 2007 that WRTL's 2004 ads at issue in the same case were entitled to an exemption from BCRA's "electioneering communication" corporate funding prohibition.
In light of the Supreme Court's June decision in WRTL, all parties in the lawsuit filed a joint motion with the district court on July 18, 2007, suggesting that the court find that WRTL's 2006 "CCPA" ad is entitled to the exemption articulated by the Supreme Court in June with respect to WRTL's 2004 ads, and to grant WRTL's request for declaratory relief regarding this issue. Further, the parties urged the court to deny WRTL's request for injunctive relief on the grounds that (1) there is no evidence that WRTL plans to air the "CCPA" ad in the future, (2) WRTL did not air the "CCPA" ad during the 2006 "electioneering communication" time period so there is no possible FEC enforcement action to enjoin, and (3) there is no reason to doubt that the FEC will comply with the declaratory relief suggested above (i.e., recognition that the "CCPA" ad is entitled to exemption from BCRA's "electioneering communication" corporate funding prohibition).
The Legal Center serves as co-counsel in the WRTL case to the defendant-intervenors: Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and former Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA).
In a letter sent this week, reform groups strongly urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to oppose a proposal reportedly being considered that "would gut the core disclosure provisions of the House and Senate-passed lobbying disclosure bills, and would fundamentally undermine the central purpose of the lobbying reform legislation."
The reform groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
The letter continues, "Our organizations strongly urge you to reject any proposal to remove the requirement in the lobbying disclosure bills for lobbying organizations and lobbyists to disclose their campaign finance activities on their quarterly lobbying reports."
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: " Von Spakovsky's Answers Only Raise More Questions ," "A Distortion of Democracy," and " In Proud Defense of McCain-Feingold ," 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. |
