Litigation

Anti-Disclosure ?Litigation Offensive? Loses One in ME

By Peter Hardin

Portions of Maine’s campaign financing laws that deal with public financing of campaigns, disclosure requirements and campaign contribution limits have been upheld by a federal appeals court.

The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Tuesday a challenge to these provisions, according to an Associated Press article.

Meanwhile, a report by the Campaign Legal Center (which is a JAS partner on state reform issues) stated that the litigation in Maine is part of a broad “litigation offensive” by foes of campaign finance reform, “targeting in particular the laws of those states that took the initiative after Citizens United to strengthen political transparency.” The report elaborated:

“In the last three months alone, this litigation offensive has challenged the political disclosure laws of nine states.  By our tally, disclosure-related laws in California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin are currently under legal attack.”

In Maine, the Brennan Center for Justice had submitted an amicus brief representing eight state legislative candidates and the Maine Citizens for Clean Elections organization. After this week’s ruling, the Brennan Center, which is a JAS partner,  said in a statement that the ruling “ensured that public funding will be fully available to participating candidates in this year’s election and that campaign contribution limits and disclosure requirements will remain in effect.”

The Maine litigation (see Gavel Grab) was brought by Indiana-based lawyer James Bopp, who has been active in challenging campaign finance regulation. In Hawaii, a judge stated in another case brought by Bopp (see Gavel Grab) that he would issue an order overriding a $1,000 limit on contributions to a political action committee, according to a Star Advertiser article.

U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright said he would issue a ruling later regarding other challenges in the lawsuit, including challenges to political reporting requirements.

The Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. FEC has allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions on political advertising, at the same time that eight of the nine justices endorsed political disclosure.

Nonetheless, “an increasing amount of money spent on the 2010 elections is coming from organizations that aren’t required to disclose where they get their funds,” a Wall Street Journal article reported.

In the Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson blamed Citizens United in a commentary headlined, “Midterm campaigns, brought to you by . . . ?”

In Maine, the appeals court acted after a federal district judge earlier  declined to bar payments of ?matching? taxpayer funds to political candidates who qualify for public financing under that state?s law (see Gavel Grab). You can read the First Circuit’s order by clicking here. The critics of Maine’s law unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction against enforcing certain provisions of the law.

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 06, 2010 (boomark / email).