September 22, 2010 •
Minnesota Disclosure Law Upheld
Minnesota Law Requiring Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending Upheld by U.S. District Court
U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank denied a temporary injunction in a lawsuit brought by supporters of Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, upholding a new Minnesota law that revealed political donations from several corporations. The law was enacted in May after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United earlier this year freed businesses to spend corporate money on elections, overturning restrictions on corporate political spending in about half the states, including Minnesota.
Minnesota lawmakers responded by enacting disclosure requirements so that corporate campaign spending would be public. In his decision, Judge Frank explained the public has an interest in knowing who speaks and who pays for campaign messages and advertisements as elections approach.
Photo of Tom Emmer from the Minnesota House of Representatives Web site.
September 21, 2010 •
Corporations Get Approval for Independent Expenditures in Ohio Elections
A federal court has set aside the state’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures.
Under the consent decree signed by Judge George C. Smith, corporations may engage in express advocacy for or against a candidate for Ohio office. Corporations are still prohibited from making direct contributions to a candidate or working with a candidate on these independent expenditures. This order brings Ohio elections into compliance with the January “Citizens United” decision which held corporations have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures.
The decision may have a major impact on Ohio’s campaign finance regulation because the statute in question contains a clause which states if any section of the law is deemed unconstitutional, the entire law is automatically repealed. A federal court will determine the validity of the remainder of the law next week.
September 14, 2010 •
Independent Expenditure Reporting Requirements under Attack
A pro-life group has filed suit in federal court challenging aspects of Iowa’s legislative response to “Citizens United.”
The new law requires groups like The Iowa Right-to-Life Committee, which is organized as a corporation, to form a PAC if they wish to make independent expenditures. The group claims this requirement and the new disclosure requirements are an unconstitutional burden on their First Amendment rights.
Supporters of the law are calling this suit a “political stunt.”
Photo of the Iowa Capitol by Cburnett on Wikipedia.
September 8, 2010 •
Michigan – Pooling of Independent Expenditures Allowed
Unions and corporations in Michigan are allowed to pool funds for independent expenditures under an agreement reached between Secretary of State Land and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber filed for, and was granted, a preliminary injunction against Land’s initial interpretation of Michigan’s campaign finance laws in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. Land ruled the Chamber may make independent expenditures but could not set up a PAC to make them. Under the stipulated ruling, corporations, organization, and unions are still prohibited from making direct corporate contributions or using a PAC to do so.
Register to view our Citizens United Update and read how other states are reacting to the Citizens United decision, here.
August 25, 2010 •
The DISCLOSE ACT: An Overview
The DISCLOSE Act, or the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, has been the source of controversy and argument this past summer.
The Act was introduced as a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It passed the House, but failed in the Senate before the August recess. It is headed back to the floor for a vote next month when the Senate returns.
The Act would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act as follows:
- Prohibit foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making contributions and expenditures;
- Require that prior to making any contribution or expenditure, the highest ranking official of a corporation must file a certification with the FEC that they are not prohibited from making the contribution or expenditure;
- Declare that a domestic corporation is permitted to create and solicit contributions for a separate segregated fund, as long as a foreign national does not contribute to or have any power or control over the fund;
- Require that any person or corporation that makes an independent expenditures of more than $10,000:
- File a disclosure report within 24 hours of the expenditure; and
- File a new report each time they make or contract to make another expenditures of $10,000 or more;
- Require that certain radio or television ads include a statement identifying the name of the committee responsible for it; and
- Require corporations, labor organization, non-profits, and political organizations to report additional information on their independent expenditure reports, including certain transfers of money.
Photo by Diliff on Wikipedia.
August 11, 2010 •
Wisconsin G.A.B. Settles Issue-Ad Lawsuit
The Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.) has settled the lawsuit brought by One Wisconsin Now and Wisconsin Club for Growth over the board’s issue advocacy regulations.
Per the terms of a settlement reached Tuesday, the G.A.B. will not enforce regulations requiring groups who run issue ads to disclose their financing if the ads they paid for aired 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Now, only advertisements advocating the defeat or election of identified candidates will be regulated in Wisconsin.
U.S. District Judge William M. Conley is expected to approve the settlement ending the litigation on August 11, 2010.
Here is the statement from the G.A.B. Web site.
You can read the Wisconsin Department of Justice stipulation letter to Judge Conley, and the Stipulation and Proposed Order.
For more news: “State agrees to drop new campaign ad rules,” by Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Photograph taken by Dori
August 11, 2010 •
Wisconsin Attorney General Issues Citizens United Opinion
State Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen issued a formal opinion on the impact on Wisconsin law of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Van Hollen explains, per Citizens United, any ban on corporate independent expenditures found in Wisconsin law violates the free speech and association guarantees of the First Amendment. The current prohibition found in Wisconsin law, however, banning the making and acceptance of corporate contributions was not reached by the Supreme Court and so it remains standing. Van Hollen goes on to explain Citizens United did not exclude issue advocacy from the scope of permissible reporting, disclosure, and disclaimer regulations which may be imposed by states like Wisconsin.
Finally, Van Hollen concurred with the recent efforts by the Government Accountability Board to suspend its enforcement of the corporate expenditure prohibition found in state law at Wisconsin Statutes § 11.38 (1)(a)(1) as those provision were clearly reached by the Citizens United decision. Attorney General Van Hollen’s opinion may be found at the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Web site.
Photo of J.B. Van Hollen by WisPolitics.com on Wikipedia.
August 10, 2010 •
Nola Werren’s Impressions from NCSL 2010
Nola Werren, Esq., a Client Specialist at State and Federal Communications, Inc., manages the company’s C³ Consulting Services.
For the twelfth consecutive year, State and Federal Communications, Inc. exhibited at the National Conference of State Legislature’s Annual Legislative Summit. This year the conference was held in Louisville, Kentucky. We always find that our attendance at the conference is enriching and productive, even when some days start with a 7:30 a.m. team breakfast meeting and end with the SGAC Late Night event [which, by the way, is never a disappointment]!
However, this year stands apart from the rest in that I was invited to moderate one of the continuing legal education sessions. Entitled Citizens United v. FEC: Political Blockbuster?, the panel addressed the ruling in January by the United States Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to bar corporations and labor unions from making either independent expenditures or electioneering communications. At NCSL’s 2010 Spring Forum held in Washington, D.C., in April, the group immediately saw the importance of including a session at the annual Legislative Summit to address the impact the Court decision will undoubtedly have on the states.
The panel was comprised of Ken Gross, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Washington, D.C.; Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel PLLC, in Virginia; and Maryland Delegate Jon S. Cardin, who represents Maryland’s 11th District in Northwest Baltimore County. Disclosure requirements in light of the post-Citizens United political landscape were perhaps the most lively debated issue by the panel, and it could not have been more timely given the fact that within the hour after our panel adjourned, Senate Democrats failed to gather the 60 votes needed to overcome an expected filibuster of The DISCLOSE Act, Congress’ legislative response to the ruling in Citizens United.
Here is Nola Werren moderating the Citizens United Panel discussion at NCSL:
No recap of this year’s NCSL Legislative Summit would be complete without mentioning Ohio Night. The venue for the event was the LeRoy Neiman Gallery at the Muhammad Ali Center. Having grown up watching a lot of Sunday afternoon sports with my dad, I was quite familiar with LeRoy Neiman and his signature artistic style. He would usually start with a blank canvass at the beginning of, let’s say, a golf tournament, and by the end of the tournament, his abstract was complete and captured the essence of the event in all its vivid glory. Well, the gallery at the Muhammad Ali Center did not disappoint. Especially impressive were his renderings of the two Ali versus Liston fights for boxing’s world heavyweight championships.
Every year since 1999, our experience at the annual NCSL Legislative Summit seems to outdo the previous year. Next year’s summit in San Antonio will undoubtedly live up to that expectation….and who knows what “political blockbuster” might occur between now and then.
July 29, 2010 •
Wyoming Lawmakers Challenge State Election Law
Four Wyoming lawmakers are challenging the provisions of the state election code prohibiting political contributions by corporations.
The legal petition filed by the lawmakers asks a state district court to review Wyoming’s election law in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At present, Wyoming law prohibits corporations from making campaign contributions, a position which puts it at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
While Wyoming’s election law hasn’t yet been challenged on grounds raised by Citizens United, it is seen by some lawmakers in Cheyenne as only a matter of time before a lawsuit emerges. The lawmakers hope their petition will preempt any such litigation against the state.
Here are some useful Wyoming links:
Wyoming State Legislature Web site
July 28, 2010 •
U.S. Senate Fails to Pass DISCLOSE Act
On a vote of 57-41, the Senate Democrats failed to gather the 60 votes needed to overcome an expected filibuster of S. 3628, Congress’ legislative response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
For the time being, the Supreme Court’s ruling stands. Another vote is thought possible in September after Congress returns from the August recess.
Here are three articles for further reading:
“Senate Dems lack votes to overcome Republican filibuster of Disclose Act,” by Alexander Bolton in The Hill.
“Dems table campaign finance reform,” by Meredith Shiner in Politico.
“Bill on political ad disclosures falls a little short in Senate,” by Dan Eggen in the Washington Post.
July 23, 2010 •
DISCLOSE Act Heads to U.S. Senate Next Week
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has filed cloture on the DISCLOSE Act, Congress’ response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The measure will come to a vote on the floor of the Senate early next week. Reid’s move begins the endgame for the legislation even though he does not yet have the votes to overcome the anticipated filibuster from the bill’s opponents.
New York Senator Charles Schumer, who authored S. 3295, the Senate’s version of the DISCLOSE Act, has modified the bill to address concerns raised when H.R. 5175 was passed by the House earlier this summer. Democrats hope the changes will be enough to win the support of Maine GOP Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of whom expressed reservations regarding the House bill. For example, Senator Collins believes H.R. 5175 provides unions with special exemptions and a corresponding unfair political advantage over corporations.
It is unclear at this time whether or not changes to the Senate bill offered by Schumer will be enough to overcome Collins’ and Snowe’s objections. The Senate vote could come as early as Tuesday.
If you are looking for more coverage, the Hill has two articles by Susan Crabtree:
“Schumer files new version of campaign-finance bill to court centrist votes,” July 22, 2010
“Sen. Reid sets up showdown next week on campaign finance,” July23, 2010
State and Federal Communications, Inc. provides research and consulting services for government relations professionals on lobbying laws, procurement lobbying laws, political contribution laws in the United States and Canada. Learn more by visiting stateandfed.com.