camp finance 2 bak

campaignfinance719

TWO

12/17 age of trump capt 719

see also cult of corruption

see dark $

see

public fund election / small donor

really good report 918

https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Dark-Money-Illuminated-Report.pdf

Dark Money tracks the influence of corporate money in contemporary American politics. Using the state of Montana as a primary case study, the film engages with the complex history that Montana state politics has with corporate influence in politics. Starting with the story of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, Dark Money shows how the influence of mining corporations caused state legislators to relax mining regulations, which resulted in an environmental catastrophe in Butte, Montana, with problems that persist today. As a result, Montana banned corporate campaign financing of state politics in 1912.[4] However, since the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, corporate interests and big money have made their way back on the scene in Montana and have become a growing national concern. The film traces the steps taken by Montana Attorney General (and now Governor) Steve Bullock to seek relief from campaign finance abuses at a time when the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was ground to a halt by the appointment of three new Republican members, headed by Don McGahn, who systemically blocked all enforcement of FEC regulations.

In 2015, Montana reasserted its campaign finance sovereignty with passage of the Montana Disclose Act, which, by requiring full disclosure of contributors' names, removed the "dark" aspect of the Big Money influence on their campaigns.[5] John S. Adams of the Montana Free Press plays a central role in the film as an investigative journalist who has been tracking state politics and "following the money" for several years. Adams has reported on everything from the role of the American Tradition Partnership (formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership) funds in the shaping of state election laws[6] to the illegal political activities of a "right to work" PAC in Montana as well.[7] The film follows Adams's work as a reporter, but it also includes interviews from other prominent figures in Montana state politics and those involved in the movement to examine and limit the influence of dark money in politics.

Director Kimberly Reed explains that she was motivated to make the film because the way to understand any public issue is to understand what guides it. “The first thing you have to look at is the money that’s fueling that issue,” she explains. “Just by following that money, you can tell a lot about the powers-that-be behind it.”[8]

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/07/montana-pols-launch-fight-against-nonprofit

Two Montana politicians on Tuesday launched separate fights against the Trump administration’s decision to relax disclosure requirements on certain politically active nonprofit groups.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) introduced legislation that would overturn the decision and increase nonprofit transparency requirements. Gov. Steve Bullock (D-Mont.) filed a lawsuit in a Montana Federal District Court that would prevent the administration from implementing the new rules.

The Treasury Department announced last week that it would no longer require certain nonprofit organizations, such as 501(c)(4) groups, to disclose identifying information about their donors to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The move, which the department said will save resources and prevent the accidental release of confidential information, could allow groups like the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood to pour “dark money” into nationwide elections with less government oversight than before.

Tester’s legislation, dubbed the Spotlight Act, would effectively reverse the department’s new rules. The Spotlight Act would also require 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) groups to disclose to the IRS and the public the names of donors who contribute more than $5,000. Those groups do not have to release the names of any donors under current laws, which is why many politically active nonprofits are called “dark money” groups.

Bullock’s lawsuit, first reported by The New York Times, claims the IRS and Treasury Department unlawfully interfered with Montana’s ability to gather the data it needs to manage its tax laws. The suit also claims the Trump administration did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies such as the Treasury Department to provide opportunities for public comment before changing policies.

Bullock’s litigation is seeking to nullify the new IRS rules, according to court documents.

Tester and Bullock have both been champions of campaign finance reform that increases election transparency. Tester has introduced multiple campaign finance reform plans, including a proposed constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not people and a bill that would require senators to file campaign finance disclosures electronically.

Bullock helped push legislation in Montana that requires independent groups to disclose their donors if they spend money in state elections, regardless of the group’s tax status. He also signed an executive order requiring recipients of government contracts to disclose dark money spending in Montana elections.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/ted-cruzs-lawyer-actually-compared-him-to-rosa-parks-in-the-fight-against-campaign-finance-law/

Ted Cruz is currently involved in a campaign finance battle, and attorneys for the far-right Texas senator are being lambasted for comparing their lawsuit to the actions of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.[same week hunter 5 affairs as legit biz expense]

At issue in Cruz’ lawsuit is a $260,000 contribution for his 2018 campaign. The day before he narrowly defeated Democrat Beto O’Rourke in Texas’ U.S. Senate race, Cruz contributed $260,000 of his own money to his campaign — which was a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Under that law, candidates can only reimburse themselves for up to $250,000 with funds raised after an election.

...

619

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/bipartisan-push-to-crack-down-on-money-laundering-and-dark-money-shell-companies

A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to require obscure corporations and limited-liability companies to disclose their true owners to law enforcement to snuff out laundered cash and political “dark money” flowing into the U.S. from foreign-influenced shell companies.

Members of Congress have introduced a number of bills mandating disclosure of companies’ beneficial owners — the person or persons who enjoy the benefits of ownership and control the company — to federal investigators. Lawmakers are mostly attempting to crack down on money laundering and the financing of other illegal activities. But the proposed legislation could also impact foreign interference in U.S. politics.

Foreign nationals and governments are prohibited from directly or indirectly engaging in activity to influence U.S. elections. But opaque LLCs, which are not required to disclose their beneficial owners to the public or law enforcement, frequently contribute to politically-active outside groups. This untraceable process has prompted concerns that they are anonymously injecting foreign money into the U.S. political process.

More than 4,000 LLCs contributed to groups in 2016, nearly quadruple the number in 2012. In the 2016 election cycle alone, nearly $46 million came from LLCs at the federal level, nearly double the $24 million from LLCs in the 2012 presidential election cycle.

Overall, direct spending in U.S. federal elections by groups that do not disclose their donors has exceeded $1 billion since OpenSecrets began tracking dark money in 2006.

Opaque foreign money has also found its way to political committees. Jho Low, a fugitive Malaysian financier accused of stealing billions, allegedly used a shell company to funnel more than $1 million to a pro-Barack Obama super PAC ahead of the 2012 presidential election. Low has not only been charged in relation to his alleged illegal foreign contributions in support of Obama, but has also been tied to suspicious money transfers funneling money into President Donald Trump’s joint fundraising committee.

These anonymous shell companies also show up in Foreign Agents Registration Act filings, masking the source of money behind influence campaigns and undermining the intent of the law to provide transparency on foreign influence activities.

Lax corporate disclosure laws have turned the U.S. into a top destination for shell companies. Last year, the U.S. surpassed the Cayman Islands to become the second largest haven for secretive offshore accounts and shell companies, according to a report from London-based Tax Justice Network.

“We’re becoming second only to Switzerland in the place people pick to put their money,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said during Wednesday’s hearing on shell companies. “Being second in a lot of things is good … not here.”

Lawmakers have introduced a number of bills to address the flow of untraceable money. Senate Judiciary Committee members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced legislation Tuesday that would require corporations to turn over beneficial ownership information to law enforcement in the event of a subpoena or summons.

A bipartisan group of senators in early June proposed their own bill to combat abuse of shell companies, requiring that corporations and LLCs disclose their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) introduced similar legislation in May.

Whitehouse and Grassley, along with Graham and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) have also introduced legislation to specifically address political contributions from shell companies. The bill, first introduced last year, would make it a felony for individuals to use or help set up a shell company to conceal illegal political activity such as foreign political contributions.

The Treasury Department’s financial crimes enforcement unit finalized a rule last year that requires financial institutions to collect beneficial ownership information for customers opening accounts. But experts say the rule won’t stop the flow of money from foreign shell companies, making Congressional action necessary.

“This was a step in the right direction. But the primary responsibility for identifying the owners of a company cannot lie with banks. It should lie with the companies themselves, at the time of incorporation or when their ownership changes,” former Acting Treasury Secretary Adam Szubin toldthe Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. “And FinCEN’s rule does nothing to illuminate the ownership of shell companies incorporated in the U.S. that exclusively open bank accounts abroad, a route that many dirty companies have followed.”

The House passed the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Act, which would reward whistleblowers who notify the U.S. of assets linked to corrupt foreign individuals, in May. The legislation is currently being considered by the Senate Banking Committee, which will hold a hearing Thursday on the topic of beneficial ownership collection. Among the organizations testifying are the Bank Policy Instituteand Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, both groups pushing for disclosure of beneficial ownership to law enforcement.

These kinds of measures find support from a number of powerful trade associations, public interest groups and think tanks, ranging from the American Banking Association to Public Citizen to the American Enterprise Institute.

Center for Responsive Politics Executive Director Sheila Krumholz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, detailing how shell companies inject money into U.S. politics and advocating for greater transparency of beneficial ownership.

A few organizations have come out against the proposed measures. The National Federation of Independent Business has voiced opposition to some of the disclosure measures, expressing concern over the regulatory burden it would place on small businesses. The American Bar Association also expressed concerns about privacy.

None of the beneficial ownership proposals would propose creating a public registry of beneficial ownership information for businesses. Although some foreign countries keep their own running registries of these owners, U.S. lawmakers have not shown interest in expanding disclosure to that level, citing privacy concerns.

fein freee sp 4 ppl

we filed our opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Lieu v. FEC.

This was an important step on the path to getting the court to review the notorious SpeechNow v. FEC decision for the first time since 2010 -- and potentially overturn it.

Here’s the back story: SpeechNow.org v. FEC was the case that originally unleashed super PACs on our democracy. For nearly a decade, the SpeechNow ruling has allowed big money donors to evade federal campaign contribution limits and further corrupt our political process.

Many scholars and constitutional law experts said that the ruling was legally erroneous at the time, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has even given signals that suggest he would be willing to sustain limits on contributions to super PACs.

Lieu v. FEC is our opportunity. Filed in federal district court on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress and 2016 congressional candidates, the case seeks the reversal of the SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling. And yesterday’s opening brief pushes it along on its journey!

On Fifth Anniversary of Citizens United, Eshoo Co-Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Rid Politics of Dark MoneyThe Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon have cast a dark shadow over our democracy by bringing us dangerously closer to an electoral system where the voices of average Americans are easily drowned out by special interests, shadowy front groups, and a handful of billionaires," said Eshoo. "At a time when Americans of every political persuasion want big money out of our elections, the Democracy for All Amendment will restore their authority to pass laws protecting the integrity of our electoral process. By reversing Citizens United and related cases, this amendment will advance the basic principle of "one voice-one vote' that is integral to our democracy

Statement

By: Anna Eshoo

Date: Jan. 22, 2015

Location: Washington, DC

Keyword Search : Corporation

Yesterday, on the five-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) co-introduced the Democracy for All Amendment. This proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution would reverse highly controversial Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, which have given corporations and America's wealthiest donors a right to buy unlimited influence in our nation's elections. Eshoo joined original co-sponsors of the bill Reps. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Donna F. Edwards (D-Md.), and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).

"The Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon have cast a dark shadow over our democracy by bringing us dangerously closer to an electoral system where the voices of average Americans are easily drowned out by special interests, shadowy front groups, and a handful of billionaires," said Eshoo. "At a time when Americans of every political persuasion want big money out of our elections, the Democracy for All Amendment will restore their authority to pass laws protecting the integrity of our electoral process. By reversing Citizens United and related cases, this amendment will advance the basic principle of "one voice-one vote' that is integral to our democracy."

...

The most important thing we must do to save our democracy is get big money out of politics. It’s a prerequisite to accomplishing everything else.

Today, big money continues to corrupt American politics – creating a vicious cycle that funnels more wealth and power to those at the top and eroding our democracy.

In the 2018 midterm elections, wealthy donors and Super-PACs poured millions into the campaigns of the same lawmakers who voted to pass the 2017 tax cuts, which gave them huge windfalls.

Consider conservative donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, whose casino business received an estimated $700 million windfall, thanks to Trump and Republicans’ tax cuts. The couple then used some of this extra cash to plow more than $113 million dollars into the 2018 election, breaking the record for political contributions by a single household.[vid]

That’s not a bad return on investment – for them. All told, almost 40 percent of total contributions in the 2018 midterms came from people who donated $10,000 or more. Yet these mega-donors comprise a tiny 0.01 percent of the U.S. population.

It’s a worsening vicious cycle: Lawmakers cut taxes and slash regulations for their wealthy campaign donors. Mega-donors and corporations funnel some of that money back into our political system to keep their lackeys in power. Politicians then propose another round of tax cuts, subsidies or bailouts to secure even more donations.

If this isn’t corruption, I don’t know what is. It also breeds cynicism in our democracy. The game seems rigged because it is. A 2015 poll found that the majority of Americans say lawmakers are corrupt, out of touch with their constituents, and beholden to special interests.

In the 2018 midterms, Americans demanded an end to the corruption. And there are signs lawmakers are finally getting message. House Democrats’ first piece of legislation aims to end the big-money takeover.

We must end this vicious cycle in order to reclaim our democracy. We must get big money out of politics. Now.

yay but why do the right thing?

https://www.alternet.org/stunning-supreme-court-decision-dark-money-were-about-know-lot-more-about-who-funding-our-elections

In a win for increased transparency and those demanding an end to the so-called "dark money" eating away at U.S. democracy, the Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a previous stay on a lower court ruling by rejecting the argument by right-wing advocacy groups who said they should not have to reveal the identity of big-dollar donors who fund their issue-based campaign ads.

Crucially, the ruling means that groups that in the past have been able to hide the source of their funding before, during, and after campaigns will have now have to make that information available before voters go to the polls—in this case, that means before the upcoming mid-term elections. Effective immediately, any group or individual making more than $250 in express advocacy ads — ads that tell viewers who to vote for or against — must now disclose the identities of all contributors who gave more than $200 in a year.

As the Huffington Post reports:

The decision came about after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group, fought for the past six years to get the Federal Election Commission to enforce campaign finance laws against Crossroads GPS, a conservative nonprofit group founded by Karl Rove, a senior adviser to George W. Bush when he was president. CREW finally won its battle on Tuesday.

As of Sept. 18, any group that runs an independent expenditure ? election ads that expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate ? in excess of $250 will have to disclose all political donors above $200.

Norm Eisen, the chairperson of CREW, celebrated the decision on Twitter: "We are about to drive a lot of dark money donors into the light—it's gonna look like the climax of a Harry Potter movie where the creatures shrivel in the sun."

Writing for the Center for Public Integrity, Dave Levinthal and Sarah Kleiner report that "secret money in politics will soon be a lot less secret."

And while Levinthal and Kleiner quoted Federal Election Commission Vice Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, who said it won't be surprising to see some groups "come up with clever ways of getting around the rules," champions of disclosure said the ruling is a major crack in the armor of the forces of those using shadowing groups and their vast fortunes to undermine democracy.

"This is a great day for transparency and democracy," said Noah Bookbinder, CREW's executive director. "Three courts, including the Supreme Court, have now rejected Crossroads' arguments for a stay, meaning we're about to know a lot more about who is funding our elections."

$1 contributions scam to hide the big ones wolff 8/3/18, claim avg #, grassroots support?

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/07/11/democrats-reintroduce-disclose-act-combat-dark-money-poison/

On June 27, Democrats in both chambers of Congress reintroduced the DISCLOSE Act to provide what the lead Senate sponsor, Sheldon Whitehouse (RI-D), calls “a commonsense solution to restore transparency and accountability in our political system.”

The DISCLOSE Act of 2018 is the most recent iteration of a bill that Democrats have pushed since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which eliminated a century-old federal ban on political spending by corporations.

The “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act” (DISCLOSE) was first introduced in 2010 by Representative Chris Van Hollen and Senator Chuck Schumer. DISCLOSE passed in the House that year but a Republican filibuster threat doomed it in the Senate, despite support from 59 senators.

DISCLOSE ACT WOULD SHINE A LIGHT ON DARK MONEY

The 2018 Senate bill comes out of the gate with all Senate Democrats and both Independents supporting it. The companion legislation in the House, introduced by Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI), already has 159 cosponsors.

As things stand today, corporations and wealthy donors can make unlimited expenditures to support or oppose political candidates through super PACs, independent expenditures, and dark money groups, with much of it hidden from the public. The result is a system where billionaires and large corporations dominate the political landscape with little or no accountability. As two Princeton political scientists put it in a recent study of influence in American politics, “economic elites and organized interest groups play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.”

The Brennan Center for Justice released a report in 2016 that found that “dark money sources often hold direct economic interests in the election outcome.” In the absence of effective disclosure laws, special interests are able to launch campaigns on policy issues and influence how people vote while hiding their stake in the outcome. “When viewers learn more about an ad’s sponsor — for instance, that it’s an out-of-state group or a group that does not report its donors — they may become not only more skeptical about the ad’s message but also more critical of the ad’s intended beneficiary,” the report concluded.

In a recent interview, Rep. Cicilline and Sen. Whitehouse spoke about the importance of the DISCLOSE Act in restoring the integrity of our democracy. “Eight out of ten” Americans do not have faith in our democratic institutions due to the influence of money-in-politics, Whitehouse said. He emphasized that Americans want to have a government that “works for the benefit of the many.”

According to Sen. Whitehouse, dark money “has been poisonous to the American democracy we cherish.” Whitehouse believes that increased transparency would encourage congressional debate about the “merits of clearing dark money out of our political system.”

“The cockroaches are everywhere. I say let’s turn on the lights,” Whitehouse said.

Common Cause, a leading nonpartisan group fighting for campaign reform, praised the proposed law as “grounded in the principle expressed by the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that ‘sunshine is the best disinfectant.'”

The DISCLOSE Act of 2018 would mandate that organizations spending money in elections — including super PACs and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups — must promptly disclose their donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle, and report expenditures of $10,000 or more on election ads within 24 hours. In addition, the bill includes provisions to prevent complex money webs from shielding the identities of donors.

Like the 2017 version of the bill, the 2018 DISCLOSE Act would also “ban campaign contributions and expenditures by corporations that are controlled, influenced, or owned by foreign nationals.”

In a new provision, the bill would repeal controversial riders the Republicans forced through on spending bills that prevent the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requiring public companies to disclose their political spending to shareholders, bar the IRS from developing post-Citizens United regulations on political spending by 501(c)(4) organizations, and block the government from requiring federal contractors to disclose their political donations.

Lastly, the bill contains a “Stand by Your Ad” provision, authored by Sen. Wyden (D-OR), requiring corporations, unions, and other organizations paying for political ads to disclose their top five funders. A similar proposal earned the support of 59 senators in 2010 but was filibustered by the Republicans.

The 2018 DISCLOSE Act is supported by numerous reform groups, including Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Demos, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Citizen, and the Sunlight Foundation.

VIGOROUS OPPOSITION FROM THE RIGHT

Opponents of the DISCLOSE Act include the Institute for Free Speech (formerly known as the Center for Competitive Politics), The Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, The American Conservative Union, CatholicVote.org, and Citizens Against Government Waste.

These groups argue that the act violates the First Amendment, but a Brennan Center analysis found that “there can be no credible doubt” that a similar 2012 version of the DISCLOSE Act was fully constitutional. As Common Cause points out, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected any arguments that disclosure requirements silence speech” and has continually upheld their constitutionality on the grounds that the public has a right to know who is influencing an election. Even the late Justice Antonin Scalia supported disclosure, writing in Doe v. Reed that “[r]equiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren said in an April speech that the DISCLOSE Act would expose the “billionaires [who] have been pouring unlimited, secret money into the hands of carefully picked candidates who will do their bidding.”

Those billionaires fund many of the organizations that oppose the DISCLOSE Act. The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), for example, is funded by conservative donors — such as Richard Uihlein and the Koch brothers — who support Republican candidates and may not want their donations made public.

In 2016, The Bradley Foundation gave IFS $125,000 to fight those calling for greater disclosure rules, something the Bradley Foundation claims will “chill speech,” according to documents acquired by the Center for Media and Democracy.

Rep. Cicilline argues that the lack of disclosure after Citizens United has led to more business-friendly legislation and that dark money in politics leads to “bad public policy.” “The DISCLOSE Act will bring a new level of transparency to our elections. It will ensure the American people know who is really fighting for them. It will restore public faith in our government. It will mark a major step towards fixing what’s broken in Washington,” Cicilline said.

The DISCLOSE Act is part of the Democrats’ broader plan, called “A Better Deal for Our Democracy,” aimed at fixing the federal campaign finance system, improving elections, and strengthening ethics laws.

When Ulysses S. Grant ran for president in 1868, he benefited from large contributions from wealthy entrepreneurs, such as railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt. “Never before was a candidate placed under such great obligation to men of wealth as was Grant,” one historian said of Grant’s donors’ largesse.

But if Grant was among the first presidents to receive large sums of campaign funds from rich businessmen, he was far from the last.

Money and politics in the United States have become increasingly intertwined, a relationship which reached new heights when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money independently in support of or in opposition to a candidate. The effects of Citizens United have been pivotal, and calls to overturn the ruling continue to this day.

However, Citizens United didn’t appear out of nowhere. The ruling was only the latest in a series of important court cases that have loosened campaign finance restrictions.

‘Magic Words’

In the U.S., political contributions are considered an exercise of First Amendment rights. The reasoning behind this was that communicating ideas required spending money.

The 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo was the first case to establish this idea.

In 1975, Sen. James Buckley of New York and others filed suit in U.S. district court against the FEC and Senate secretary Francis Valeo claiming that the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act — the primary federal law regulating campaign finance — was unlawful. According to Buckley, the law’s limitations on campaign contributions and expenditures violated the First Amendment. When the law was upheld, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

In Buckley, the judges ruled that contribution limits were necessary to deter corruption as candidates would feel indebted to big donors. Expenditure limitations, on the other hand, violated freedom of speech since there was no clear connection between expenditure amounts and corruption. In short, candidates could spend unrestricted amounts to advance their campaign.

The Court also deemed independent expenditures – or outside spending by groups in support of or opposition to candidates – constitutionally protected in the Buckley case so long as these expenditures were not formally coordinated with the candidate.

The idea of “express advocacy” was first formulated in the case, too. The Court defined express advocacy as communications that “advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate” and are identifiable by eight so-called “magic words.” The words (and phrases) include “vote for,” “elect,” “cast your ballot for” and “reject.” Any ad using any one of these words would be considered “express advocacy,” according to the Court, and subject to federal campaign regulations.

Corporations have rights, too

Two years after Buckley, several corporations including the First National Bank of Boston were barred from contributing to a Massachusetts referendum on tax policy. The corporations took issue with the Massachusetts law and appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that corporations could contribute money to ballot proposals. Corporations’ right to participate in campaigns as a legal person, which was popularized in Citizens United, is not a new concept. Lesser-known cases after Buckley paved the way for the involvement of corporations.

Justice Lewis Powell, who delivered the opinion of the Court, argued that corporations, along with associations and unions, have the same rights as individuals to express political views.

Attempts to reign it in

In the 1980s, court cases challenged the definition of “express advocacy” put forward by Buckley.

In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the Supreme Court held that a communication does not have to use the so-called “magic words” to be considered express advocacy. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCL) had used treasury funds to create flyers encouraging people to vote “pro-life” and included the names of pro-life candidates running for office. Although MCL had not used any “magic words,” the judges ruled the ads were clearly an attempt to influence an election.

Also in the 1980s, the FEC took land developer Harvey Furgatch to court after he purchased a full-page ad in The New York Times and Boston Globe to encourage voters to prevent “four more years of incoherences, ineptness and illusion” under then-President Jimmy Carter. The case came to be known as FEC v. Furgatch. Furgatch’s defense was that the ad used none of the “magic words” listed in Buckley and remained vague enough to get a legal pass.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that speech could be express advocacy when it is “susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation” – as in this case. They ruled that implied meanings can be considered express advocacy, and therefore Furgatch’s advertisement expressly advocated the defeat of President Carter.

Despite these new limitations on independent expenditure, the ambiguous wording of these laws meant that they were ineffective regulatory tools. The lack of expenditure limits and loose regulations for outside spending created massive inflows of money into campaigns.

In response, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002 to eliminate soft money donations and more tightly regulate independently funded ads. Soft money encompasses the money donated to parties that support general political activities, such as voter registration drives.

The Act also prohibited corporations from funding electioneering communications, or broadcast advertisements mentioning a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. It thereby ignored the ambiguities of the Buckley and Furgatch cases.

A year later, the Supreme Court upheld BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, determining most of BCRA’s provisions constitutional and noting the “substantial evidence to support Congress’ determination that large soft-money contributions to national political parties give rise to corruption…”

All this changed four years later in a case that a number of legal scholars believe was the stepping stone to Citizens United.

The rise of dark money

Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), a politically active nonprofit, ran ads encouraging viewers to contact two U.S. senators during the 2004 presidential election. By running the ads, the group broke the BCRA’s rules restricting political ads funded by corporations in the 60-day period before an election. WRTL ended up suing the FEC, claiming that BCRA was unconstitutional.

In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court deemed BCRA’s prohibition on corporate electioneering communications as unconstitutional. Their reasoning was that ads crafted to focus on policy issues and implicitly advocating for or against candidates should not be considered express advocacy, and therefore cannot be regulated as such – essentially the opposite of the conclusions made in Furgatch.

As long as the ads left out the “magic words” then, a group could easily spend limitless amounts without needing to disclose their donors or report political spending to the FEC.

Wisconsin gave rise to massive spending by dark money groups like political nonprofits that are not legally obligated to disclose their contributions.

During the 2008 election cycle, the first presidential race after Wisconsin, dark money spending on presidential candidates increased from virtually zero to about $25 million. In the 2012 cycle, the amount soared to $141 million.

The Wisconsin Right to Life case is noteworthy not only for helping enable dark money spending but for demonstrating how much the composition of the Supreme Court matters, Brendan Fischer, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, said.

In 2006, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired and was replaced by Samuel Alito, a conservative-leaning justice, which shifted the dynamic on the court.

“Between the McConnell case and the Wisconsin Right to Life ruling, really nothing changed in terms of the statistics or practices of campaign finance,” Fischer said. “All that changed was the makeup of the court.

“[This case] is a reminder that the ideology of the court makes a significant impact.”

Citizens United

When Citizens United v. FEC was decided in 2010, its impact did not shock people closely monitoring campaign finance.

Citizens United wasn’t surprising, Fischer said, given the court’s previous rulings, including its findings in Wisconsin Right to Life.

Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation for the watchdog group Common Cause said that the Wisconsin case did a lot of the damage often attributed to Citizens United as well as much of the damage to campaign finance laws attributed to the Supreme Court.

“Wisconsin Right to Life made permissible corporate funding and created the vague legal standard that acted as a major step toward Citizens United,” Ryan said.

In Citizens United, judges used the ideas stated in previous cases to make their conclusion: As long as money is not given directly to or used in coordination with a candidate, it is not corruptive, and corporations too have the right to freedom of speech.

Given that the Court had already deemed independent expenditure from an individual as not corruptive, it was only logical to expand this argument in Citizens United to conclude that independent expenditure from a group – including a corporation that has First Amendment rights – is also not corrupt, and therefore sanctioned. Now, corporations, as well as associations and unions, were granted legal rights to use unlimited sums of money from their treasury funds to fund independent expenditure.

This line of reasoning also led to the federal Court of Appeals’ 2010 decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which reinforced Citizens United and removed all contribution limits to independent expenditure-only groups. The SpeechNow.org ruling created super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited money to advocate for or against a political candidate, including donations from corporations.

The Supreme Court’s most recent major case on campaign finance, McCutcheon v. FEC, addressed direct contributions rather than outside spending. In this case, Alabama resident Shaun McCutcheon objected to the aggregate contribution limit of $123,200, the amount that individuals were allowed to donate to all federal candidates and parties combined in a single election cycle. He sued the FEC, claiming that the aggregate limit on contributions violated his First Amendment rights.

The majority of the Court agreed with McCutcheon, concluding that one individual donating to many groups does not necessarily give rise to “influence over or access to” elected officials or parties the same way that a single large contribution might. While base limits (the amount allowed to be donated to each candidate) were deemed constitutional, aggregate limits were ruled a violation of a person’s freedom of speech.

Because of these rulings, over the last half century or so, federal campaign finance has become an extremely complex system, balancing transparency and avoiding corruption with freedom of speech and political participation.

Freedom of speech is certainly winning: In 1868, Ulysses Grant’s election effort cost $150,000 – or $2.7 million in today’s money. In 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign committee and outside groups supporting him spent nearly 150 times more. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, combined with outside groups, spent nearly 300 times more.

RELATED TOPICS

Citizens United

dark money

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to LIfe

mccutcheon

scotus

speechnow

SpeechNow v. FEC

super PACs

Supreme Court

trump

618

Over the past two years, political operative Dylan Beesley paid his firm more than $100,000 from the campaign account of Rep. Mark Takai (D-Hawai'i) for "consulting services." Seems like an entirely appropriate expense for a public officeholder who must run for re-election every two years, right? There's just one problem. Rep. Takai was dead that entire time.1

While this may be the most offensive and egregious use of campaign funds long after the campaign is over, it is far from the only one. FEC filings show disbursements from campaign accounts years after candidates last held or ran for office, for everything from limo rides to sports tickets to lavish hotels and dinners.2

Tell the FEC: Kill zombie campaigns. Stop former candidates from using campaign accounts as their personal slush funds.

Federal Election Commission rules forbid the use of campaign funds for personal expenses, but the rules are vague and poorly enforced. In 2013, the FEC issued an advisory opinion that former candidates should wind down all campaign-related expenses within six months. But candidates routinely flout this rule.

An investigation by the Tampa Bay Times found roughly 100 zombie campaigns that were still spending cash long after candidacies have ended.3

Nearly 40 campaigns kept staff on the payroll, including 12 that made payments to family members. About half the former candidates became lobbyists, and many used the extra cash to curry favor with future clients and other candidates.

Perhaps the oldest zombie campaign of all belongs to former Rep. Robin Tallon, Jr. He left office in 1993 with $400,000 in his campaign account. Through investing, he turned that $400,000 into $1 million. Beginning in 2005, Tallon has used the account for everything from new computers, an iPad, $20,000 to his son who was listed as campaign treasurer, and dues to a country club near his home in South Carolina.

The FEC requires candidates who are no longer running for office to either give the money to charity, other candidates, or refund it to donors.

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/03/29/alec-legislator-fast-tracks-bill-block-local-campaign-finance-ordinances-arizona/

A state bill that would ban cities and counties from requiring dark money groups to disclose their donors is moving rapidly through the Arizona state legislature. HB 2153 would make it illegal for localities to require tax exempt organizations to disclose donors and register as political action committees. The bill introduced by Rep. Vince Leach (R-11) was approved by the House and is waiting a final roll-call vote in the Senate.

This state interference in local democracy initiatives is a response to a Tempe ballot measure that passed earlier this month by a 9-to-1 margin which creates an ordinance that requires groups that make more than $1,000 in independent expenditures in municipal elections to disclose its financial supporters and details of the organization. The city of Phoenix is considering revising its charter to curb dark money in a similar fashion.

HB 2153 is based on an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) resolution that was adopted last year which spins campaign finance disclosure as an attack on “donor privacy.” ALEC is a corporate-funded organization that brings lobbyists and state politicians together behind closed doors to rewrite state laws.

Rep. Leach is a GOP legislative member of ALEC, and 22 other Arizona representatives and 8 senators have ties to the group.

ALEC and its sister organization, the State Policy Network (SPN), have made fighting campaign finance disclosure a central goal. ALEC founded the misnamed “Center to Protect Free Speech,” which produced a Donor Disclosure Toolkit for legislatures that details how lawmakers should respond to donor disclosure laws.

ALEC’s toolkit lifts whole sections from an SPN Donor Privacy Toolkit published on its United for Privacy campaign website. Both toolkits are partially written by Jon Riches, Director of National Litigation and General Counsel for the Goldwater Institute, Arizona’s SPN affiliate. Goldwater is lobbying for the passage of HB 2153 and sent its vice president for litigation to testify in support of the bill in front of a House committee.

If the preemption bill passes by roll-call vote in the Senate, it will head to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk. Ducey has written for ALEC and spoken at ALEC meetings, so the measure trampling local democracy is likely to get his signature.

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/03/29/alec-legislator-fast-tracks-bill-block-local-campaign-finance-ordinances-arizona/

Rep. Leach is a GOP legislative member of ALEC, and 22 other Arizona representatives and 8 senators have ties to the group.

judge elections:

https://freespeechforpeople.org/williams-yulee-three-years-later/

city ord

https://freespeechforpeople.org/st-petersburg-city-council-votes-abolish-super-pacs-limit-foreign-corporate-money-local-elections/

thom

As the school shooting in Parkland, Florida has shown, what was considered insanely corrupt political behavior 40 years ago is now normal. And you can thank right-wingers on the Supreme Court.

Back in 1982, the late novelist Robert B. Parker was hard at work on one of his Spencer novels, titled The Widening Gyre. In the book, a local businessman owns a local politician; the politician then makes tax decisions and real estate zoning decisions that help the businessman. Both the politician and the businessman are working as hard as they can to cover it all up.

In 1982 this sort of thing was a major, career-ending scandal for both the politician and the businessman. A wealthy man owning a politician, who, in turn, changed the tax code and altered regulations to increase the businessman’s profits, was considered a symptom of intolerable corruption.

But what Parker and most Americans didn’t realize was that, in 1982, the die had already been cast and the oligarchs had already begun seizing the levers of power in America; a seizure that would lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.

The billionaires doing the seizing of our nation just didn’t come out about it until the presidency of Barack Obama, when the Koch Network, Adelson, the Mercers and the Waltons all became openly, and in some cases braggadociosly political in their “giving.”

As I noted in my book The Crash of 2016, The American Legislative Exchange Council was founded in 1973, right after Lewis Powell’s memo – suggesting a propaganda program to promote the interests of big business and the rich – began circulating through top corporate and high-net-worth circles. That year, too, the Heritage Foundation was created. And in 1977, Charles Koch and friends founded the CATO Institute.

While the efforts of these groups have been multifaceted, their most obvious and deadly impact has been on the ongoing proliferation of weapons of war in America, and the denial of healthcare to millions in so-called red states. With the installation of Reagan, big business and billionaires were finally to get the tax breaks and other goodies that they wanted from Congress and the Executive Branch, while waging war on unions and working people.

But to Lewis Powell, a lawyer by training and the author of the infamous blueprint for billionaires to take over America (now known as The Powell Memo), nothing was more important than targeting the courts.

In his memo, Powell wrote, “Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.”

He noted, “This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.”

Laying out specifics, Powell added, “The Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort.”

In the 1970s, as the US Chamber of Commerce focused on the courts, employing high-priced, savvy lawyers, and flooding the Supreme Court chamber with amicus briefs, a string of explosive decisions throughout the decade gave the #MorbidlyRich what they needed to eventually overthrow FDR’s New Deal and to radically reinterpret the 2nd Amendment.

In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court (which Nixon appointed Lewis Powell to in 1972, the year after Powell wrote his infamous memo) ruled that political money is constitutionally protected free speech, changing American law so that those who have the most money would have the most “First Amendment free speech” in our political system. And if there was anything that the NRA was getting good at, it was raising money from weapons manufacturers and others.

And in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, the Supreme Court ruled that corporate advertising (including promoting M15 weapons of war to our kids) is a protected form of free speech. (Ironically, William Rehnquist was the sole dissenter; he argued that corporate “speech” [advertising] was often deceptive. But the deed was done; Caveat emptor became the new American normal.)That same year, in United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., corporations – as persons – were given Fifth Amendment protections against double jeopardy, limiting the ability of citizens to go after gun manufacturers, among others.

A year later, in 1977, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court overturned state restrictions on corporate political spending, saying such restrictions violate the First Amendment rights of corporations, and giving the NRA and other interest groups an added lever to use to extract legislation.

In their dissents in that case, Justices White, Brennan, and Marshall argued, “The special status of corporations has placed them in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only our economy but the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process.”

But their warnings were ignored.

Then came the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 with millions of dollars in funding by the Koch-connected Bradley Foundation.

They built a nationwide network of jurists, attorneys, legal scholars, and politicians to indoctrinate a new generation’s legal system with billionaire-friendly interpretations: Corporate personhood is real, money is speech, democracy is not sacred, and organized money should always have privilege over organized people.

They also helped lay the case for the Heller decision, which, for the first time in nearly 230 years, found a “right to individual gun ownership” in the 2nd Amendment.

In 2010 the Supreme Court wrapped its gift to corporations and gun manufacturers all up in a neat little bundle with their 5-4 Citizen’s United ruling. With that decision, America was nearly completely turned over to the wealthy and corporations.

Thereafter, oligarchs like Adenson and the Kochs began openly bragging about how much they were spending to buy politicians, legislation, tax breaks, and the deregulation of consumer protections.

President Obama called this out in his 2010 State Of The Union speech:

“It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”

Hard-right corporatist judge Sam Alito silently (and disrespectfully) mouthed, “Not true!” at Obama, but history shows that Alito was the one in error, not Obama. Right on down to the ability of foreign entities to influence our elections and lawmaking by, for example, the possible laundering of campaign money through the NRA.

And so, a few days after Paul Ryan shepherded through Congress a law that confers potentially billions of dollars in tax benefits to them, the Kochs and their friends put a half-million dollars into Ryan’s fundraising committee, while the NRA continues to shower him and Mitch McConnell with support.

In Robert B. Parker’s 1982, this would have been the end of Ryan’s career, and the Kochs and the NRA would be vilified as corrupters of the political process.

In 1971, only 175 companies had registered lobbyists. By 1982, there were nearly 2,500, and today there are over 12,000 lobbyists just registered in DC. Oligarchs were dumping huge amounts of money lobbying for favorable legislation, although it still isn’t really visible to most Americans until tragedies like mass shootings give us an insight into how it all works.

As the Reagan administration rolled into power in 1981, so, too, did the #MorbidlyRich oligarchs, who were seeding brand-new right-wing think tanks devoted to espousing the same free-market, Andrew Mellon/Warren Harding ideologies that led to the 1929 Great Crash: massive tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization.

Back during the era of Nixon, Americans understood the power and dangers of corruption.

As Lamar Waldron and I point out in our book Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination, when the milk producers association wanted the Nixon administration to increase milk price supports (to increase their profitability by over $3 billion), they hid/laundered their “campaign donations” through local GOP groups and a briefcase with $3 million in cash, which were later determined to be illegal, an event that became a major part of the Watergate-era Nixon scandals.

But that was all so pre-1976, the year when the Supreme Court’s Buckleydecision ruled that rich people (or rich corporations) owning their own personal politicians wasn’t corruption; it was free speech.

While it’s taken us over 40 years to fully integrate the 1976 Buckley decision and its spawn into our body politic, the corruption of this entirely new interpretation of the First Amendment is systematically taking apart our nation. And has made it easier and easier for maladjusted people among us to stockpile weapons of war.

For example, can you imagine Richard Nixon lying about how environmentally destructive some industrial poisons are? Nixon couldn’t imagine it; he put into place the Environmental Protection Agency. And he was fine with the fairly strong gun control laws that several states, from California to New York, had in place.

But today’s Republican Party (with a few very, very rare exceptions) is so in debt to – so owned by – a few petrobillionaires and coal multimillionaires and oil companies that they’re perfectly willing to look the world in the face and lie through their teeth about the science of global warming.

They’re so fully-owned by the gun lobby/NRA that they’ve made it illegal for the US government to do any meaningful research into gun deaths; they’ve banned doctors, in a number of states including Florida, from even asking kids if there’s a gun in their home; and McConnell and Ryan have successfully prevented any sort of meaningful legislation to restrict guns from getting a vote even when they know it would pass.

As a result, we’re the laughingstock of the world, and we lose over 30,000 people a year to guns and another 40,000 a year to a lack of access to health care. That’s a lot of blood on GOP hands.

Good government was perceived, prior to the Buckley decision and its embrace by the Reagan administration, as the singular hallmark of American democracy. Today it’s a joke.

In the wake of the most recent Florida school shooting, we find politicians who’ve taken literally millions of dollars through their careers from groups like the NRA refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion about gun control. Forget legislation; they won’t even allow a debate.

This echoes the legislators who’ve taken Koch or ExxonMobil money and refuse to discuss climate change.

Or those indebted to Big Pharma who won’t talk about reforming Medicare Part D so the government can negotiate discounted drug prices.

Or those taking money from agricultural chemical and seed companies who ignore evidence of cancer and other problems with GMOs and the herbicides and pesticides associated with them.

The young people of Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida see this situation with new and clear eyes. They see it for what it is: Corruption.

And they’re mad as hell about how that corruption has led to the deaths of 17 of their friends and teachers.

Every new assault – be it from an “active shooter” or a corporate raider – shows us how the radical shift in the Supreme Court starting with the 1976 Buckleydecision has turned America from a democracy into an oligarchy. Even former President Jimmy Carter came onto my radio/TV program in 2015 to proclaim it:

HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. Your thoughts on that?

CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

The most effective way to solve this problem is to pass a constitutional amendment that will proclaim, clearly and unambiguously, that corporations are not persons and that money is not “free speech.” Groups like MoveToAmend.organd Public Citizen have been working on these campaigns for years, and they’re bearing fruit.

Once the power of money is stripped from our political system, the power of gun manufacturers through the NRA will largely evaporate.

During the years I lived and worked in DC, several Republican politicians confided in me – off the record – that they would love to be out of the clutches of their wealthy donors. And that they’d quickly vote with Democrats to get free of the need to fundraise for hours every day. This could easily become bipartisan quickly, with the right leadership.

The NRA’s essentially outright purchase of senators like Richard Burr ($6.3 million in 2016), Marco Rubio ($3.2 million in 2016), Roy Blunt ($3 million), and Rob Portman ($2.2 million) – and Donald Trump ($30 million in the presidential race) – is so obviously corrupt to many of the students in Parkland that they’re furious.

We should all share their anger, and use it to fight to amend our Constitution to undo the damage these oligarchs and their toadies on the Supreme Court have done to our republic.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

superpacs

https://freespeechforpeople.org/speechnow-v-fec-case-created-super-pacs-challenge/

SpeechNow v. FEC – The Case that Created Super PACs, and Our Challenge

Posted on January 27 2018 by Ron Fein

January 27 marks the eighth anniversary of oral argument in the case that created super PACs. Contrary to popular belief, super PACs were not created by the Supreme Court in Citizens United, but rather by a subsequent lower court decision called SpeechNow v. FEC, argued on January 27, 2010 (just six days after the Citizens United decision).

As we explained in 2015, there are significant cracks in the legal foundation that created super PACs, and several converging developments in election law, constitutional law and even criminal law suggest the end may be in sight.

As a matter of practical reality, empirical research shows that top donors to super PACs are generally the same people as top donors to candidates and political parties, with ample opportunities to exchange super PAC contributions for political favors in a quid pro quo corruption scheme, whether or not the super PAC “coordinates” its media purchases with the campaign. In fact, a federal judge recently went out of his way to reaffirm in a criminal bribery case that contributions to super PACs can be part of bribes, notwithstanding Citizens United, although he found that the particular facts of that case didn’t support a bribery charge.

As a matter of legal doctrine, as explained in a forthcoming article by a group of pre-eminent constitutional scholars, SpeechNow simply misapplied Citizens United: “In Citizens United the Supreme Court struck down limits on a political group’s expenditures while the issue in SpeechNow was the validity of limiting contributions to a political group.” That distinction between limits on expenditures versus limits on contributions is critical because since Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court has recognized different standards of scrutiny for limits on contributions and limits on expenditures. Unfortunately, then-Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to appeal SpeechNow to the Supreme Court, on the (clearly mistaken in retrospect) theory that the SpeechNow decision would “affect only a small subset of federally regulated contributions.” Now, there’s good reason to think that Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Kennedy would be willing to overrule SpeechNow even if they are not prepared to retreat on Citizens United.

So how do we do it? Learn more about Lieu v. FEC, our federal lawsuit challenging SpeechNow (covered here in the Washington Post), and about our legislative efforts in St. Petersburg, Florida, Massachusetts, and elsewhere to challenge super PACs.

WISC WILL

Support for Act 10

In February 2013, WILL helped 3 teachers file an amicus curiae brief defending Governor Scott Walker's union-busting reforms.[6]

WILL also filed a lawsuit against the Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) for allegedly violating Act 10 by approving a labor agreement. The plaintiff in the lawsuit has been teaching at MATC since 1984. She said, "I'm appalled that my union would flout the law and negotiate an illegal contract." [7]

McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC

Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit challenging the Federal Election Commission's biennial limit on individual contributions contending the limit is unconstitutionally low and not supported by a sufficient governmental interest.[8] WILL filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff-appellants. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and will hear the case during the Fall 2013 session.[9]

ONE