|
Dec 14, 2007 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: December 14, 2007
Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert spoke this week at a charter revision committee hearing held by the City of Austin, Texas. It was Hebert's third appearance before the committee. The Charter Revision Committee is charged with reviewing and reporting on the advisability of a charter amendment proposing single-member districts or a representation framework that includes both single-member and at-large seats for council member elections.
The topic was the advisability of changing the method of election for members of the city council. Austin currently elects its six-member city council at large (i.e., citywide), with numbered positions, and the charter revision committee is exploring whether to recommend a change to a district-type election system. At the hearing this week, Hebert presented 2 additional demonstration plans: a 4 district plan and an 8 district plan with two "superdistricts". The committee is expected to make a recommendation to the city council in early 2008.
Legal Center Files Comments in Club For Growth AO Proceeding
In response to an Advisory Opinion Request (AOR 2007-33) submitted to the FEC by the Club for Growth PAC, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, filed comments with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) this week. Club for Growth has requested the Commission's permission to dispense with the spoken "stand-by-your-ad" disclaimer requirements established by federal campaign finance statutes and regulations when it runs 10 and 15 second political television ads.
The Legal Center argued in its comments that federal law requires—in no uncertain terms—that every political committee that pays for an ad on radio or television to state the name, address, telephone number or World Wide Web address of the committee that paid for the communication, state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee and to include a spoken disclaimer stating the name of the committee responsible for the content of the ad. The Supreme Court upheld these statutory requirements as constitutional in McConnell v. FEC. The clarity of the statute leaves no doubt. The PAC's proposed ads must contain the written and spoken disclaimers. The Commission has no basis upon which to conclude otherwise.
Groups Submit Comments in SpeechNow.org AO Proceeding
The Campaign Legal Center, together with Democracy 21, filed comments with the FEC this week in response to an Advisory Opinion Request (AOR 2007-32) by the new 527 organization SpeechNow.org. The 527 seeks the Commission's guidance as to whether it is required to register with the Commission as a political committee and whether it is subject to federal law contribution limits.
The Legal Center advised the FEC that, although this advisory opinion request raises serious issues, it is not a serious advisory opinion request. SpeechNow.org knows full well the answers to the questions it poses. The Commission has recently and repeatedly made clear that 527 groups (like SpeechNow) which have a major purpose to influence federal elections, which make express advocacy expenditures and which solicit contributions to pay for such expenditures, are required by federal law to register as political committees and to abide by contribution limits.
The Legal Center's comments also make the following points. What SpeechNow.org really seeks is a declaration that the political committee requirement and contribution limits are unconstitutional. But that is a determination the FEC should not and cannot make. Instead, the FEC should tell SpeechNow.org what it surely already knows—that its proposed activities will require it to register as a political committee subject to contribution limits. Then, the Commission should send the organization off to the courthouse where it can engage in the constitutional adjudication that it appears to want.
Comments Filed in Reps. McCarthy & Nunes AO Proceeding
Comments were filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 this week regarding alternative draft Advisory Opinions produced by the FEC in response to an Advisory Opinion Request (2007-28) by U.S. Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Devin Nunes (R-CA). The AOR concerns the important issue of whether federal candidates and officeholders can solicit unrestricted soft money for a ballot initiative committee which will use the funds to qualify and support a ballot proposition that will be on the same ballot that federal candidates will be on. The Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed comments in November in response to the original advisory opinion request.
For reasons detailed in our comments filed this week, the Legal Center strongly opposes both alternative draft opinions and urges the FEC to reject both approaches. Using different but equally flawed legal theories, both draft opinions would open the door to federal candidates and officeholders raising unrestricted soft money in contravention of the federal campaign finance laws. This result is even more egregious because it sanctions the raising of soft money by federal candidates for ballot committees that will use the money for voter registration and GOTV activities to influence the same ballot that these federal candidates will appear on. The proposed activity is squarely within the boundaries of what the "soft money" solicitation provisions of federal law restrict.
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: "No Matching Funds to Block," "CLC Files Comments in SpeechNow.org Advisory Opinion Proceeding," " Chorus Against von Spakovsky Continues to Grow," or to sign up for the blog, 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. |
