Home > Newsroom > Press Releases
NEWSROOM
Press Releases
2010
CCP joins advocacy groups in challenging Wis. regulations
August 6, 2010
More advocacy groups are joining the challenge to regulations proposed by Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board (GAB).
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) will seek friend-of-the-court status to file a brief in the merits stage of the case. Wisconsin Club for Growth and One Wisconsin Now will argue at a hearing Aug. 12 that the state should be prevented from enforcing a new administrative rule that would require political speakers to register a committee and report funding for their commentary on matters of public policy.
Yesterday, Wisconsin Right to Life filed a similar challenge. The regulations are set to go into effect Aug. 16 (groups would have to register with the GAB by Aug. 13).
"This rule is an overly broad attempt to hamstring political speakers with cumbersome rules and regulations," said CCP vice president Stephen M. Hoersting, who testified in public hearings before the GAB on the rulemaking in 2008. "The state is attempting to redefine campaign finance rules in defiance of both the Wisconsin legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court."
Obama bows to ‘reform’ obstruction, withdraws Sullivan for FEC
August 6, 2010
President Obama has withdrawn the nomination of John J. Sullivan for a seat on the Federal Election Commission, yielding to pressure from groups supportive of campaign finance regulation that criticized Sullivan.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), encouraged by "reform" groups, placed an informal hold on Sullivan last July. After more than a year of limbo—following unanimous approval by the Senate Rules Committee—it seems Sullivan decided to move on.
"Pro-regulation groups have succeeded in blocking a supremely qualified nominee to the Federal Election Commission simply because they disagreed with his work as an attorney for a client," said Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley A. Smith. "These groups don't care about good government or the law, they just want someone on the FEC who will toe their anti-speech line."
Sullivan had broad, bipartisan support, but his nomination was scuttled to appease a consortium of interest groups opposed to expanding political speech rights. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supported a vote on Sullivan and Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) praised Sullivan, calling him "eminently well qualified for this position." Indeed, it appears not a single Senator besides McCain and Feingold opposed his nomination.
"In recent years, campaign finance ‘reformers' have bemoaned the supposed dysfunction at the FEC as it sought to implement court decisions protecting First Amendment rights," Smith said. "It seems their strategy now is to simply oppose any nominee who would faithfully implement campaign finance law and regulations in favor of someone who shares their regulatory worldview."
House committee takes up shareholder regulations
July 28, 2010
The House Financial Services Committee is considering a bill to restrict the political speech of companies in an attempt to subvert the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The shareholder regulation bill, H.R. 4790, would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require an authorization of a majority of shareholders before a public company may make political expenditures. A manager's amendment, which was not publicly available before today's hearing, was introduced to make "corrections" to the bill, said Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), the bill's sponsor.
"Instead of empowering shareholders, this bill would thwart the ability of companies to engage in political spending to further the economic interests of shareholders," said Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission Chairman. "Restricting political decisions to one vote a year would obliterate the First Amendment right of shareholders to advocate for policies that affect legitimate business interests."
Rather than advancing a less restrictive proposal to allow a majority of shareholders to affirmatively decide to abstain from political spending, this proposal would force all companies to wade through a cumbersome layer of regulation simply to speak out on issues and candidates that may impact their bottom lines.
"This bill addresses a nonexistent problem by unconstitutionally curbing the speech of business groups," said Center for Competitive Politics President Sean Parnell. "For decades, Congress has placed similar campaign finance regulations on business and unions. This law would depart from that standard and only restrict corporations."
DISCLOSE Act blocked in Senate
July 27, 2010
In a key victory for supporters of free political speech, the DISCLOSE Act failed on a procedural vote today.
Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked cloture on the bill designed to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, but the legislation stalled on a party-line vote.
"This bill wasn't about disclosure, it was an attempt by the majority to legislate an electoral advantage fewer than 100 days before the midterm elections," said Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC Chairman. "Senators who support free speech in politics must remain vigilant to make sure these campaign finance restrictions aren't pushed through on a later vote or in a lame duck session."
SpeechNow.org seeks cert on campaign finance case
July 23, 2010
Groups of Ordinary Americans Seek to Speak As Freely as Corporations and Unions
ALEXANDRIA, Va.—In the next landmark case challenging campaign finance restrictions after the historic Citizens United decision, the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case challenging federal laws that impose enormous burdens on grassroots groups that simply want to speak out in elections.
SpeechNow.org is a group of citizens who want to defend free speech at the ballot box by running ads that oppose candidates who do not support First Amendment rights. But under federal law, if the group spends more than a small amount of money on ads that call for the election or defeat of political candidates, it must register with the government as a political action committee or "PAC" and be subject to a host of burdensome regulations before speaking.
SpeechNow.org, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), filed its lawsuit in February 2008, arguing that the campaign finance laws that apply to PACs could not constitutionally apply to a group that simply engages in independent political speech-speech that is not coordinated with any political candidates. After more than two years of litigation, in March 2010, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous, nine-judge decision holding that SpeechNow.org could accept unlimited donations to fund its political ads. Unfortunately, the court also held that if SpeechNow.org chose to speak out it would have to register with the government as a PAC.
New version of DISCLOSE Act introduced in Senate
July 22, 2010
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has introduced a new version of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill to subvert the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"The cosmetic surgery Sen. Schumer has performed on the DISCLOSE Act has it looking just as ugly," said Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission Chairman. "It contains the same backroom deals for labor unions and large interests such as the National Rifle Association. Senators should filibuster this modern day Sedition Act."
This bill has been placed on the Senate Calendar and, according to Capitol Hill sources, majority Democrats will try to rush this legislation through without hearings or meaningful debate. DISCLOSE could be on the Senate floor as soon as next week.
"The American people deserve hearings and robust debate on a 116-page bill designed to rewrite campaign finance laws in the midst of a midterm campaign," said CCP President Sean Parnell. "This effort to ram a bill of speech prohibitions and regulations through under the banner of disclosure is disingenuous and tramples on the plain meaning of the First Amendment."
CCP files comments on FEC advisory opinions
July 21, 2010
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) filed comments with the Federal Election Commission supporting two draft advisory opinions affecting independent political groups.
The Club for Growth and Commonsense Ten, a new group formed by Democratic consultants, requested advisory opinions concerning how recent court decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC and SpeechNow.org v. FEC impact their plans to raise money from individuals, companies and unions.
"The consensus draft opinions from the Federal Election Commission are reasonable responses to game-changing court decisions expanding the freedom of political speech," said CCP Vice President of Policy Allison Hayward, who authored the comments. "These guidelines will provide clarity to groups across the political spectrum as midterm elections approach."
FPPC seeks regulatory ‘power grab’
July 16, 2010
The Center for Competitive Politics has submitted comments with the Fair Political Practices Commission explaining that the Commission's interpretation of recent campaign finance court rulings is "fundamentally flawed."
The FPPC solicited comments about the Commission's interpretation of campaign finance law, specifically the definition of "express advocacy," in advance of a Monday hearing.
"FPPC Chairman Dan Schnur has made plain his disdain for the political speech of Californians and his intent to stretch the bounds of regulation," said Center for Competitive Politics Vice President of Policy Allison Hayward, who authored the comments. "This proposal is a power grab to stifle political speech by administrative fiat."
Appellate court strikes down part of Connecticut tax financing program
July 13, 2010 02:56 PM
In an important campaign finance decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that Connecticut's system of taxpayer financed campaigns violates the First Amendment.
"This case is not about Connecticut's ability to combat corruption," said Steve Hoersting, the vice president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "This program put the heavy thumb of government on the scale to force candidates into a catch-22: accept ‘clean elections' subsidies and the state will help you win your election—don't and the state will aid your opponent dollar-for-dollar."
In Sept. 2009, U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill ruled that a provision of Connecticut's tax financing system providing participating candidates with windfall subsidies based on the spending of non-participating candidates and independent groups violated the Constitution. The District Court will now consider whether this provision can be severed from the "Citizens Election Program" (CEP) or if the entire program will fall.
Underhill allowed the program to continue pending the Second Circuit's decision, but the appellate court has now asked the District Court to "act expeditiously" in reconsidering an injunction prohibiting distribution of "rescue funds." Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley, who is self-funding his campaign, has filed a lawsuit focusing on the trigger provision and other issues to prevent the CEP from distributing about $2 million in public funds to the campaign of primary opponent Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele.
"In light of this strong ruling upholding the First Amendment rights of candidates and independent political groups, the District Court should end this failed program once-and-for-all instead of just excising the ‘trigger provision,'" said CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission Chairman.
