Tagged: Election law

3

RBG revises opinion after professor flags error

How often does it happen that a law professor flags a factual error in a Supreme Court opinion and the Justice thereafter changes that opinion to correct the error? Answer: not that often.

So when it happens, some of us think that credit should be given. Okay? So, onto the story, albeit the brief version.

In a post on his Election Law Blog yesterday, Professor Rick Hasen wrote:

In Justice Ginsburg’s 6-page dissent in the Texas voter id case, she writes: “Nor will Texas accept photo ID cards issued by the U. S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.”

A few people have pointed me to material from Texas which seems to suggest that these cards would be acceptable as a form of military identification. Veterans ID cards do not expire, and therefore they seem to meet the Texas requirement: “a United States military identification card that contains the person’s photograph that has not expired or that expired no earlier than 60 days before the date of presentation.” (my emphasis)

By way of an update, he added: The Texas Secretary of State’s office has responded via Twitter: “Veterans Affairs ID cards are an acceptable form of photo ID in TX.

In response, Justice Ginsburg revised her dissent, as noted by Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog:

In ticking off her objections, Ginsburg wrote that Texas would not even accept “photo ID cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.”  On Wednesday, the Justice conceded that that comment was incorrect.  That kind of ID card, she said through the Court’s public information office, is “an acceptable form of photo identification for voting in Texas.”  So she simply deleted the sentence, and reissued the opinion.  The Court also said that she had made “small stylistic changes” on two pages of her opinion, and that the corrected version could be read on the Court’s website.

Nothing groundbreaking, but noteworthy nonetheless. Meanwhile, kudos to Professor Hasen (and his tipsters) for helping to get the official record straight.

Re correcting the official record, see: Adam Liptak, “Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing,” New York Times, May 24, 2014 (“The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include ‘truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,’ said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.”).

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 37 (First Amendment News) McCutcheon case produces flood of scholarly commentary — 41 works!

UPDATED: 10-24-14

Before proceeding to the scholarly output on McCutcheon, here is where we stand this Term on First Amendment free expression cases:

Review Granted

  1. Elonis v. United States (to be argued on 12-1-14)
  2. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
  3. Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Review Pending

  1. Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York 
  2. Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell
  3. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al  v. Federal Election Commission

Review Denied

  1. City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books, Inc.
  2. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States 
  3. Mehanna v. United States 

* * * *

Erin Murphy arguing in McCutcheon case

Erin Murphy arguing in McCutcheon case

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) is barley six months old and it has already produced an abundance of scholarly commentary, including books, symposia, and articles — no fewer than 40 such works. And all of this before the revered Harvard Law Review issue dedicated to the last Supreme Court term finds its way to print. Ditto for the equally acclaimed Supreme Court Review. How times have changed. The days of waiting are over; we live in a wired era. That’s the good news. The bad news, of course, is: who can possibly begin to read all of this?

That said, and for better or worse, below is a list of books (e-books and print ones) and articles and essays (in online companions and print journals) that either discuss McCutcheon in full or in part (e.g. Zephyr Teachout’s book) or issues very much related to the decision (e.g, Robert Post’s book). All were published after the decision came down on April 2, 2014. Browse them and see how many catch your eye.

5 Books

36 Scholarly Articles or Blog Posts  Read More

0

FAN 36.1 (First Amendment News) Skover to Speak on McCutcheon Case

By way of a shameless plug for my coauthor:

INFLUENTIAL VOICES  

David Skover

David Skover

Seattle University School of Law
is proud to present
Professor David Skover

SCOTUS Books-in-Brief: When Money Speaks: A New Venture in E-Publishing

Wednesday, October 29
Room C6, Sullivan Hall, 4:30 p.m.
Reception to follow

The event is open to all, but RSVPs are requested.

Professor Skover will speak about the creation of the SCOTUS Books-in-Brief imprint and his latest coauthored book, When Money Speaks: The McCutcheon Decision, Campaign Finance Laws, and the First Amendment.

When Money Speaks analyzes the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck aggregate limits on contributions to political candidates. It has been called “a brilliant discussion of campaign finance in America” and “the best book on the topic.”

The SCOTUS Books-in-Brief series provides readers with reliable, informative, and engaging narrative accounts of significant Supreme Court rulings shortly after they come down.

Introduction by Dean Annette E. Clark 

 

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 34 (First Amendment News) Hybrid PACS — yet another case goes to High Court

I am posting this column a few days early since I will be traveling this week, but next week I’ll return to the scheduled Wednesday postings.

* * * *

Contributions earmarked solely for use in independent expenditures by “hybrid” political committees that engage in both independent expenditures and direct contributions to candidates appears destined to be a coming campaign-finance law battleground. — Judge Edith Brown Clement (2014)

Dan Backer

Dan Backer

The cases seem endless — that is, all those campaign cases that are finding their way to courts. One gets dizzy just drying to keep up with all of them as they are listed weekly on Professor Rick Hasen’s Election Law blog.

Recall, last week I posted a story about a campaign finance case that James Bopp, Jr. filed with the Supreme Court on Friday. Before the digital ink on that case could dry, voila, a new campaign finance case found its way to the Court only moments ago.

The case: Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al v FEC.  

The two issues in the case are: (1) Whether a political committee that makes highly restricted direct contributions has a First Amendment right to engage in unrestricted non-contribution activities through a separate and segregated non-contribution account, and (2) Whether the First Amendment forbids a government from restricting political speech based on the disclosure interest—an interest in providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending—including when a more narrowly tailored remedy is available.

→ The man principally behind the case is a mild-mannered and quiet sort of guy, Dan Backer. He is no big time K street lawyer. No, his professional credentials are much more modest. He is the founder and principal attorney for DB Capitol Strategies, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria Virginia. More importantly (and as David Skover and I noted in our book When Money Speaks), he was one of the driving forces behind the successful litigation of McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). When his team lost that case in the D.C. Circuit (in an opinion by Judge Janice Rogers Brown), it did not stop him — he took the case to the Supreme Court where Erin Murphy successfully argued the case for the Petitioner.

And now, Backer and a new team are at it again, in yet another campaign finance case — and again challenging a ruling by Judge Brown and her colleagues on the D.C. Circuit.

Lower Court ruling — “‘You can’t always get what you want'” 

→ Court of Appeals decision (D.C. Cir., Aug, 5, 2014), per Judge Janice Rogers Brown (joined by Judges Thomas Griffith and David Sentelle). Here is how Judge Brown began her opinion:

“The iconic musician Mick Jagger famously mused, ‘You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find, you get what you need.’ The Rolling Stones, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, on Let It Bleed (Decca Records 1969). Here, Stop This Insanity Inc. (STII)—a grassroots organization—wants to remove the congressionally-imposed binds on solicitation by separate segregated funds, a type of political action committee connected to a parent corporation. What it needs, however, it already has—an unrestrained vehicle, in the form of that parent corporation, which can engage in unlimited political spending. Because this less-obsolete and less-onerous alternative exists, we decline Stop This Insanity’s invitation for us to tinker with what has become a statutory artifact.”

And here is how she ended it, albeit with musical flare:

“STII is already capable of sweeping solicitation. And yet, it wants a vehicle capable of soliciting without transparency. The Court has endorsed disclosure as “a particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information,” McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at 1460, and the Appellants’ approach would stifle the Government’s ability to achieve that endeavor. Our Constitution does not compel such a result.IIIWe may never know why the Appellants wish to do things the hard way. The Constitution, however, does not guarantee a right to be obstinate. Try as it might, STII will get no satisfaction.”

Tillman Breckenridge

Tillman Breckenridge

The players

 Counsel of record on Cert. PetitionTillman J. Breckenridge.

 Other Counsel in the Case: The petition was filed by Tillman Breckenridge and Tara Brennan of the Reed Smith law firm, working in conjunction with the William & Mary Law School Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic, and Dan Backer.

→ Counsel for the FEC in Court of Appeals: Erin Chlopak, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Federal Election Commission.

The initial advisory opinion request to the FEC and court filing were done by Steven Hoersting and Dan Backer.

Circuit Split

In his cert. petition, Mr. Breckenridge maintains that “the D.C. and Second Circuits directly conflict with the Fifth and Tenth Circuits on whether hybrid PACs can be prohibited.” The cases to which he refers are:

  1. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al v FEC (D.C. Cir., 2014)
  2. Vermont Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell (2nd Cir., 2014)
  3. Catholic Leadership Coal. of Tex. v. Reisman (5th Cir., 2014)
  4. Republican Party of N.M. v. King (10th Cir., 2013)

 → Will such differences in the Circuits be enough to prompt four of the Justices to review the enmeshment issue and/or the discourse one? Here is Professor Rick Hasen’s prediction: “I give this a reasonable chance of a cert. grant, given the circuit split (though not on the disclosure issues, but on the coordination/enmeshment issue.”

On a related matter: Federal judge rules donor disclosure required for political documentary

This from the JURIST website (Sept. 23, 2014):

The US District Court for the District of Colorado denied on Monday a request by Citizens United for a preliminary injunction to allow the conservative organization to air a political documentary without disclosing the film’s advertising donors as required by state law. The documentary, Rocky Mountain Heist, which the group hopes to air before November’s elections, “concerns various Colorado advocacy groups and their impact on Colorado government and public policy.” Citizens United argued, on First Amendment grounds, that its organization should be considered a “press entity,” entitled to the same exemptions as traditional media outlets, which are not required to disclose their donors. Otherwise, the group argued, it would be the victim of “viewpoint-based discrimination.” The court disagreed stating that people should be able to “discern the private interests behind speech when determining how much weight to afford it.” Citizens United intends [press release] to appeal this ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Supreme Court: Results of Sept. 29th Conference Read More

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 33 (First Amendment News) What is a PAC? The next big issue?

This is the hottest issue in campaign finance litigation right now. James Bopp, Jr. 

James Bopp

James Bopp

What is the next big campaign finance class of cases, the ones most likely to go the Supreme Court? Ask different people and you will get pretty much the same answers, ranging from “soft money” cases to certain kinds of campaign disclosure cases to campaign speech and judicial elections cases to certain kinds of contributions made by for-profit and non-profit corporations cases, among others.

James Bopp, a noted campaign finance lawyer, has his own views on the matter. Here is the issue that he thinks will get considerably more judicial attention in the near future: “whether an issue advocacy group, that does some political speech, can be deemed to be a Political Action Committee even though it is not under the control of a candidate and it’s major purpose is not the election or nomination of candidates.” Moreover, he stressed that this “is an important issue since deeming a group to be a PAC vitiates the right to political speech that groups won in Citizens United, since no issue advocacy group wants to suffer PAC burdens to do a small amount of political speech.”

Circuit split

Most recently, this issue was examined by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit in a case familiarly named Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell (June 28, 2014). The opinion was written by Judge Christopher Droney and joined in by Judges Richard Wesley and Vincent Briccetti. The case for the Petitioners was argued by Randy Elf (with James Bopp, Jr., on the brief).

In a variety of challenges to Vermont’s campaign laws, the Court rejected the Petitioners’ argument that the state’s PAC disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment because Vermont may only impose a disclosure regime on an organization if “the major purpose” of the organization is to advance a candidacy.” Here is Judge Droney’s reply to that argument:

Prior to Citizens United, the Fourth Circuit held that an organization could only be subjected to a political committee regulatory regime if the organization met “the major purpose” test. N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 288‐89, 295 (4th Cir. 2008) (“NCRL III”). However, since Citizens United and its approval of extensive disclosure regimes, two Circuits have concluded that the major purpose test is not a constitutional requirement. See Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464, 490 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he line‐drawing concerns that led the [Supreme] Court to adopt the major purpose limitation for contribution expenditure limits in Buckley do not control our overbreadth analysis of the disclosure requirements . . . .”).  Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 59 (1st Cir. 2011) (“We find no reason to believe that this so called ‘major purpose’ test, like the other narrowing constructions adopted in Buckley, is anything more than an artifact of the Court’s construction of a federal statute.”); see also Human Life of Wash., Inc.  v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, at 1009‐11 (9th Cir., 2010) (concluding that Buckley did not lay down a bright‐line test requiring that the major purpose of an organization must be to support or oppose a candidate, and that a state law regulating organizations with a major purpose of engaging in such actions was constitutional).

We join the Circuits that have considered PAC definitions in this context after Citizens United and hold that the Constitution does not require disclosure regulatory statutes to be limited to groups having “the major purpose” of nominating or electing a candidate.

 Counsel for Respondent: Eve R. Jacobs‐Carnahan (Megan J. Shafritz, on the brief), Assistant Attorneys General for the State of Vermont.

Amicus briefs in support of the Respondent were filed by J. Gerald Hebert, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21.

 Additionally, George Jepsen, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut and Maura Murphy Osborne, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, filed an amicus brief for the States of Connecticut, New York, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New1 Mexico, and Washington, all joined in support of the Respondent.

The next move: “Several cases raising this issue,” says Bopp, “will be filed with the Supreme Court, including one this Friday contesting the decision of the Second Circuit in Vermont Right to Life v Sorrell.”

→ See also below re C-SPAN link on Heritage event (Sept., 18) on campaign finance law and the First Amendment (with Floyd Abrams, Ronald Collins, Adam Liptak, Erin Murphy, and James Swanson).

New Litigation

Challenge to bans on controversial subway ads  Read More

10

31.1 (First Amendment News) Proposed amendment to 1st Amendment fails — A brief history of it all

We must preserve our Bill of Rights including our rights to free speech. We must not allow officials to diminish and ration that right. We must not let this proposal become the supreme law of the land. – Senator Chuck Grassley, Sept. 10, 2014

Text of First Amendment on stone tablet facing Pennsylvania Avenue -- the Newseum, Washington, D.C.

Text of First Amendment on stone tablet facing Pennsylvania Avenue — the Newseum

It’s over now, the campaign to amend the First Amendment. The Democratic-led effort died in the Senate yesterday by a vote of 54-42. Thankfully, the constitutional theatrics have ended and the 1791 text remains safe, at least from any Article V threat by lawmakers.

Not surprisingly, reports Burgess Everett writing in Politico, “Senate Republicans unanimously rejected a constitutional amendment sought by Democrats that would allow Congress to regulate campaign finance reform. . . . The failure of the proposal followed a surprising result on Monday, when the measure advanced past an initial filibuster despite broad GOP opposition to the measure.”

“Grassley and two dozen other Senate Republicans voted to advance the bill,” added Everett, “to blunt Democrats’ plans to hold a second round of campaign-flavored Democratic votes on proposals aimed at raising the minimum wage, overturning the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision, chipping away at gender pay disparities and reforming the student loan system.”

After the vote, Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said: “Today, Senate Republicans clearly showed that they would rather sideline hardworking families in order to protect the Koch brothers and other radical interests that are working to fix our elections and buy our democracy.” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) had a quite different view: “The proposed amendment would restrict the most important speech the First Amendment protects, core political speech. It’s hard to imagine what would be more radical than the Congress passing a constitutional amendment to overturn a dozen Supreme Court decisions that have protected individual rights. Free speech would be dramatically curtailed.” (See also text of Senator Grassley’s floor statement.)

Looking back: Justice Stevens takes the stage 

The constitutional campaign movement got a big boost last April when Justice John Paul Stevens proposed an amendment to the First Amendment. Remember, he did so in his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the ConstitutionHis proposed amendment provided:

Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.

On April 30, 2014, Justice Stevens testified before a Senate Rules Committee at which he read a statement in defense of his proposed amendment.

Looking back:  The Leahy hearing  Read More

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m
0

FAN 31 (First Amendment News): “Freedom from Speech” — a timely broadside

“This is a surreal time for freedom of speech.” 

He is a First Amendment activist / he likes his freedom robust / he refuses to leave censorial speech codes alone / and he is making a real difference in safeguarding free speech in America (see, e.g., here). True, there can be an irksome quality about him, or at least so think some college administrators who cabin liberty in “free speech zones” (oh, the Orwellian irony of the phrase!). There is an air of Tom Paine about him, if only in his willingness to speak boldly and perceptively about our contemporary crisis in free speech, a crisis fostered as much by close-minded liberals as by ideologically driven conservatives. And if you miss those wonderfully irreverent Christopher Hitchins broadsides, then take heed: here is someone with a dollop of the same brazen DNA. Even so, he is civil / he speaks softly / he listens to other voices / he welcomes a hearty give-and-take / and he puts his views to the test in the marketplace of ideas (see, e.g., his last book).

The man of whom I speak: Greg Lukianoff.

His broadside: Freedom from Speech (61 pp.) (paperback: $5.39 / Kindle: $4.79)

photoHis publisher: Encounter Books.

This timely broadside is as American as blue jeans . . . and yet its message struggles to survive in a nation where governmental intolerance and groupthink orthodoxy too often rule over the minds and voices and campaigns of those who would have their messages heard. If you want a turgid academic read, avoid this work. So, too, if you want everything from the obvious to the obfuscated documented by a long string of fancy footnotes dotted with case names and the like. And if you yearn for a work that merrily balances away individual freedom of speech in the name of some professorial parlor norm, Lukianoff’s pamphlet will not be your cup of tea. Just  common sense and plain speech are served up in this pamphlet in defense of free speech.

Why the title?

Before answering that question, it is important to note that Lukianoff”s concerns are not confined to the First Amendment. Hardly. What troubles this Stanford Law School educated activist are threats to the culture of free speech in America and abroad. “People all over the globe,” he argues, “are coming to expect emotional and intellectual comfort as though it were a right.” That focus brings us back to the title. Censorship due to hypersensitivity, Lukianoff argues, “is precisely what you would expect when you train a generation to believe that they have a right not to be offended. Eventually, they stop demanding freedom of speech and start demanding freedom from speech.”

While some might reasonably take issue with the author’s criticisms of private actors punishing others for offensive speech (e.g. offensive types such as Donald Sterling, the Duck Dynasty guys, Don Imus, and Howard Stern), I nonetheless think Lukianoff makes a telling point when he highlights the growing trend, particularly on college campuses, towards various forms of what he labels a “sensitivity-based censorship.” On that score he adds: “The idea that we can truly tackle hard issues while remaining universally inoffensive — an impossible pipe dream even if it were desirable — seems to be growing increasingly popular.”

Education in censorship?  Read More

0

FAN 30. 3 (First Amendment News) Senate votes to begin debate on proposed amendment to First Amendment

This from Susan Ferrechio  writing in the Washington Examiner:

“The Senate voted Monday to begin debate on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would grant Congress and the states the power to imagesregulate campaign finance.The measure cleared a procedural hurdle by a vote of 79-18. It was authored by Democrats, who had anticipated it would be blocked by GOP opposition. But Republicans voted to move ahead with debate, turning what was supposed to be a Democratic messaging bill against the Democrats.”

 This from Ramsey Cox writing for The Hill:

“The Senate on Monday advanced a constitutional amendment meant to reverse two recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending.Republicans are likely to vote against the amendment when it comes up for a final vote, but by allowing it to proceed, ensured that it will tie up the Senate for most of the week.More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats in the 79-18 vote advancing the amendment, well over the 60 votes that were needed. The amendment is almost certain to fail, as it would need to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate, and then would still need to move through the House and be ratified by two-thirds of the states.”

“‘We should have debate on this important amendment,’ Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said before voting for cloture. ‘The majority should be made to answer why they want to silence critics.’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would gladly debate the issue for as long as Republicans require because the amendment is necessary to keep ‘dark money’ out of politics.”

→ This from Burgess Everett writing for Politico:

“Several Senate Republicans joined Democrats on Monday to advance a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and the states greater power to regulate campaign finance. But the bipartisanship ends there. Many of the Republicans only voted for the bill to foul up Democrats’ pre-election messaging schedule, freezing precious Senate floor time for a measure that ultimately has no chance of securing the two-thirds support necessary in both the House and Senate to amend the Constitution. The legislation needed 60 votes to advance and Democrats took a cynical view of the 79-18 tally.”

“Ahead of the vote, [Senator Bernie] Sanders and other pro-reform Democrats like [Senators] Al Franken of Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Tom Udall of New Mexico held a rally on the Capitol grounds with amendment supporters and supporting groups like People for the American Way, Common Cause and Public Citizen. The crowd was a solid mix of reporters and demonstrators with signs reading “Democracy is not for sale.”

For commentary, see:

→ Tom Udall & Bernie Sanders, “The Threat to American Democracy,” Politico, Sept. 7, 2014

→ Geoffrey Stone, “The Rift in the ACLU Over Free Speech,” Huffington Post, Sept, 8, 2014 (see also here re ACLU controversy)

 

 

1

FAN 30.1 (First Amendment News) Six former ACLU leaders contest group’s 1st Amendment position on campaign finance — ACLU’s Legislative Director responds

→ The history of campaign finance regulation demonstrates the need to erect sturdy safeguards for free speech. — ACLU amicus brief, Citizens United v. FEC, July 29, 2009

→ Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them. — ACLU 2012 Statement

Below is a September 4, 2014 letter signed by six former leaders of the ACLU and presented to the chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the footnotes have been omitted, the full text with notes can be found here. Finally, note that a September 8, 2014 vote has been scheduled in the Senate concerning a proposal to amend the First Amendment.  

→ Following the statement below is a response from Ms. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU.

ENTER THE DISSENTERS

Dear Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, Subcommittee Chairman Durbin, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cruz:

UnknownThis summer, some have taken to citing a June 2014 letter from the ACLU to bolster opposition to a constitutional amendment that would change the way Congress can regulate election spending.[fn] While, as present and former leaders of the ACLU, we take no position in this letter on whether a constitutional amendment is the most appropriate way to pursue campaign finance reform, we believe that the current leadership of the National ACLU has endorsed a deeply contested and incorrect reading of the First Amendment as a rigid deregulatory straitjacket that threatens the integrity of American democracy. [Bold type above & italicized bracketed text below  = added]

[Here is the ACLU position as stated on its website:  “Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of ‘big money’ in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”

→ And there is this statement by Laura W. Murphy, director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office (June 2012): “If there is one thing we absolutely should not be doing, it’s tinkering with our founding document to prevent groups like the ACLU (or even billionaires like Sheldon Adelson) from speaking freely about the central issues in our democracy. Doing so will fatally undermine the First Amendment, diminish the deterrent factor of a durable Constitution and give comfort to those who would use the amendment process to limit basic civil liberties and rights. It will literally ‘break’ the Constitution.”]

In 1998, some of us signed the enclosed letter circulated by every then-living retired leader of the ACLU, protesting the ACLU’s erroneous insistence that the First Amendment makes it impossible to regulate massive campaign spending by the richest 1/10 of 1% of the American electorate. [fn] Things have only gotten worse since 1998. The passage of 16 years means that fewer 20th century ACLU leaders are left to sign this letter. More importantly, over the past 16 years, using the ACLU’s erroneous reading of the First Amendment as a fig leaf, five justices have added huge multi-national corporations to the list of unlimited campaign spenders, [fn] and authorized wealthy individuals to contribute virtually unlimited sums to party leaders in a never-ending search for wealth-driven political influence. [fn] Under the ACLU’s erroneous reading of the First Amendment, it is no exaggeration to label today’s version of American democracy as “one dollar-one vote.” We reiterate the substance of the 1998 letter, and add the following additional comments in light of the unfortunate events of the last 16 years.

John Shattuck, one of the signers of letter

John Shattuck, one of the signers of letter

Our campaign finance system, already in dreadful shape in 1998, has only gotten worse. Today, American democracy is almost irretrievably broken because it is dominated by self-interested, wealthy interests. We believe that reform of our campaign finance system is the only way to fulfill Lincoln’s hope that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. The 2012 federal election cycle was the most expensive in our history, with a combined price tag of $6.3 billion. Most of the money came from the top 1% of the economic tree. Indeed, even within the 1%, the top 10% of the 1% exercised overwhelming independent groups, including super PACs, collectively spent $1 billion.[fn] It is the supremely wealthy that provide the bulk of that money. And because of loopholes in the reporting statutes, we don’t even know who many of them are.

Super PACs, in particular, have become a mechanism for the wealthy to exert even greater influence over our elections and our elected officials. Only 1,578 donors, each of whom gave at least $50,000, were responsible for more than $760 million — or 89.3% — of all donations to super PACs in 2012.[fn] Thus, a microscopic percentage of the population is funding a significant percentage of the political spending in this country.

Equally, many likely 2016 presidential candidates have made pilgrimages to wealthy independent spenders hoping to bolster their electoral chances.[fn]  Such opportunities for candidates to, as many outlets put it, “kiss the ring” of a major political donor rightfully cause the public to question whether candidates are tailoring their views to the highest bidder.

We believe that the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decisions from Buckley [fn] to Citizens United to McCutcheon are based on three fallacies. Read More

0

FAN 29.1 (First Amendment News) — Florida Bar Joins Petitioner in Urging Court Review of Judicial Elections Case

Barry Richard, counsel for Florida Bar

Barry Richard, counsel for Florida Bar

As difficult as it is to obtain review in the Supreme Court, sometimes a case comes along that makes it hard for the clerks and their bosses to ignore. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar may be just such a case as the stars seem to be aligning in favor of the Petitioner, Lanell Williams-Yulee, having her case ruled upon by the Justices.

In a post a few weeks back, I flagged the Williams-Yulee case in which review was pending in the Court. The issue in the case is whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment. In a per curium opinion, a divided Florida Supreme Court denied the First Amendment challenge.

As I mentioned, a petition for certiorari had been filed by Andrew Pincus, Charles Rothfeld, and Michael Kimberly with assistance from Ernest Myers and Lee Marcus along with Eugene Fidell of the Yale Law School Clinic.

So much for the old news; now, here is the latest development in that case. Last week the Florida Bar filed its response — Barry Richard is the Bar’s counsel of record. Here is what is interesting about the Bar’s response:

The Florida Bar submits that the Florida Supreme Court correctly determined that the challenged Canon 7C(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct complies with the First Amendment. However, The Florida Bar believes that this Court should issue its writ of certiorari to resolve the significant conflicts existing between state high courts and federal circuit courts and among federal circuit courts on this fundamental issue of constitutional rights.

Additionally, the Respondent urges that the Court review the case for three reasons:

  1. “The issues at the heart of the conflicts are not such that they can accommodate different interpretations and applications in different jurisdictions and judicial forums without insulting fundamental principles,”
  2. “Judicial conflicts over the issues raised by the petition are likely to increase in the foreseeable future. Over twenty states that provide for popular election of judges have rules similar to Canon 7C(1)”, and
  3. “The Florida Bar joins the Petitioner in respectfully urging this Court to accept this case for review not only because there is a national need for resolution, but because of the particularly troublesome position in which it places The Florida Bar. Denial of the petition for certiorari would leave the decision of the Florida Supreme Court standing, but would provide The Florida Bar with little comfort. The existing indirect conflict between the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in Weaver v. Bonner . . . a case involving a Georgia judicial candidate, is likely to become a direct conflict when the Eleventh Circuit is inevitably called upon to adjudicate the constitutionality of Canon 7C(1) in a case involving a Florida judicial candidate.”

Of course, counsel for the Petitioner (Andrew Pincus) endorses the Respondent’s request for review:

Typically, a respondent joins in a petitioner’s request for further review only when “there is a clear conflict of decisions” and “the question is undoubtedly of such importance as to need a Supreme Court determination.” Stephen M. Shapiro, et al., Supreme Court Practice 510 (10th ed. 2013). That is precisely the case here. Because this case offers an opportunity to answer the question presented free of any doubt that the controversy here is both ripe and ongoing (see Pet. 15-16 & n.9; Resp. Br. 3), the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. 

(Hat tip to Maureen Johnston over at SCOTUSblog)

Additional information about the case is set out in FAN #25. Stay tuned for future developments.