|
Mar 14, 2008 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: March 14, 2008
On March 13, Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert issued a statement calling for a congressional hearing to resolve contradictory statements and unanswered questions in a report issued this week by an Inspector General to the Election Administration Commission (EAC). The EAC asked for the IG review after allegations surfaced last year that the federal agency had been improperly influenced to change and to suppress a report written by two outside consultants on voter fraud. While the report concluded that there was no improper outside or political pressure put on the EAC to alter the report, the IG did not reach a conclusion (or attempt to resolve contradictory statements by two EAC commissioners) that there had been outside pressure on one of the commissioners to block or delay the release of the voter fraud study. Hebert's call for a congressional hearing focused on this point. The IG report also criticized the agency for mismanagement of the voter fraud report project, noting the project "was set to fail from the beginning [.]" The EAC was established in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, to bring about improvements in the administration of federal elections and to ensure that all eligible voters are able to vote without hindrance.
On March 7, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit granted leave to the Legal Center to file a brief as a friend of the court in Shays v. FEC (Shays III). The Legal Center serves as counsel to United States Senator Russ Feingold in the appeal and the brief was submitted on Senator Feingold's behalf. This appeal arises following a decision of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, which held that several FEC regulations implementing BCRA did not meet the basic requirement of "reasoned decisionmaking" in the Administrative Procedures Act. The regulations pertain to the standard for "coordination," federal candidate and officeholder solicitations at state party fundraising events, and the definition of "federal election activity." The friend of the court brief made three major points: 1) That the lower court's decision invalidating the FEC's "coordination" regulation was correct; 2) That the FEC "federal election activity" regulations compromised BCRA's "soft money" ban and violated the Administrative Procedures Act; and 3) Both BCRA and the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC make clear that federal candidates are prohibited from soliciting "soft money" at state party fundraising events.
On March 12, 2007, plaintiffs in the case SpeechNow.org v. FEC filed their reply brief in further support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. The case concerns an as-applied challenge to the contribution limits and disclosure requirements imposed on so-called "independent committees" by the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 submitted an amici curiae brief on March 5, 2008 to defend the contribution limits and to urge the court to deny SpeechNow.org's motion for preliminary injunction. The defendant FEC filed its opposition to plaintiff's motion on the same date. Both amici and the FEC argue that the challenged contribution limits represent but a marginal burden on First Amendment rights, and are justified by the state interest in preventing corruption and averting circumvention of federal campaign finance laws and regulations.
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: "'He Said, She Said' at the EAC," "Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much?" 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. |
