DOCSLIB.ORG

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 87 United States District Court District of Columbia Republican Party of Louisiana et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Case No. 15-cv-1241-CRC-SS-TSC Federal Election Commission, THREE-JUDGE COURT Defendant ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on all counts in their Verified Complaint for Declara- tory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1) and request oral argument. In support, Plaintiffs file herewith • Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Supporting Their Motion for Summary Judgment, • Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, • Exhibit 1, and • Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James Bopp, Jr. James Bopp, Jr., Bar #CO 0041 [email protected] Richard E. Coleson* [email protected] *Corrine L. Purvis,* [email protected] THE BOPP LAW FIRM, PC 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 812/232-2434 telephone 812/235-3685 facsimile Counsel for Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Motion 1 Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 87 Certificate of Service I certify that on February 11, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will notify: Charles Kitcher, [email protected] Gregory John Mueller, [email protected] Harry Jacobs Summers, [email protected] Kevin Deeley, [email protected] Seth E. Nesin, [email protected] Counsel for Defendant FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20463 202/694-1650. /s/ James Bopp, Jr. James Bopp, Jr., DC Bar #CO 0041 Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 87 United States District Court District of Columbia Republican Party of Louisiana et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Case No. 15-cv-1241-CRC-SS-TSC Federal Election Commission, THREE-JUDGE COURT Defendant ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Supporting Their Motion for Summary Judgment James Bopp, Jr., Bar #CO 0041 [email protected] Richard E. Coleson* [email protected] Corrine L. Purvis* [email protected] THE BOPP LAW FIRM, PC 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 812/232-2434 telephone 812/235-3685 facsimile Counsel for Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 87 Table of Contents Table of Authorities. iii Introduction. 1 Facts. 3 Argument. 14 I. Standard of Review & Scrutiny: FEC Must Prove a “Fit” to Quid-Pro-Quo Corruption..14 A. McConnell’s Scrutiny Analysis Neither Applies Nor Controls.. 15 B. McCutcheon Controls the Contribution Context, Requiring a “Fit” to Narrow Cor- ruption... 16 C. Citizens United’s Strict Scrutiny Controls the Independent-Communication Context.. 17 II. Only Narrow “Corruption” Is Cognizable; Independent Communications Pose None.. 18 A. Challenged Provisions Burden First Amendment Rights. 18 B. The Required Analysis Requires Careful Scrutiny of Interests and Tailoring Based on Narrow Quid-Pro-Quo Corruption.. 22 C. Independent-Expenditure Cases Hold that Independence Removes Corruption.. 26 D. Political Parties’ Independent Activities Are Also Non-Corrupting... 27 1. IE-PAC Case Statements Distinguishing Party-Committees Are Dicta.. 28 2. Party-Committee Coordination with Candidates May Not Be Presumed... 28 3. What the Colorado Cases and McConnell Really Said Supports Plaintiffs.. 33 III. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional, as Applied and Facially.. 36 A. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional as Applied in Count I.. 37 B. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional as Applied in Count II.. 40 C. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional as Applied in Count III... 42 D. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional Facially (Count IV).. 44 Conclusion. 45 Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo i Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 87 Table of Authorities Cases Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett, 131 S.Ct. 2806 (2011). 24 Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982). 24 *Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).. passim Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011). 26 *Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). passim Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) . 2, 16, 24-25, 27-34 EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 26 Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992). 24 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Colo. 1999). 34 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 213 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2000) . 34 *FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) . passim FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 839 F. Supp. 1488 (D. Col. 1993) . 16, 32 FEC v. Nat’l Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985). 24, 29-30 *FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007). 19, 22 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978). 24, 30 Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).. 1, 2 McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). 1, 25, 37, 44 *McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).. passim McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991). 24 *McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S.Ct. 1434 (2014). passim Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).. 40 Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo ii Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 6 of 87 RNC v. FEC, 561 U.S. 1040 (2010).. 25 RNC v. FEC, 698 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2010). 25 RNC v. FEC, No. 14-0853 (D.D.C., voluntarily dismissed 2014) . 20 Shays v. FEC, 528 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 4, 38-39 *SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).. 2, 20, 25-27, 31, 33 Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). 24 Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 (2006). 22 Constitutions, Statutes & Rules 11 C.F.R. 100.16. 31 11 C.F.R. 100.24. 1 11 C.F.R. 100.24(a)(2)(i)(A). 8 11 C.F.R. 100.24(a)(3)(i)(A). 8 11 C.F.R. 100.24(a)(4). 11 11 C.F.R. 100.24(b)(3). 39-40 11 C.F.R. 100.24(c)(7). 9-10 11 C.F.R. 100.25. 11 11 C.F.R. 100.26. 4, 11, 39-40 11 C.F.R. 100.5(e)(4). 3 11 C.F.R. 109.21. 31 11 C.F.R. 109.30. 8, 29 11 C.F.R. 109.37. 8, 29, 31 11 C.F.R. 300.2(g). 1 11 C.F.R. 300.2(k). 1 11 C.F.R. 300.30(c). 3, 21 11 C.F.R. 300.31. 3 Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo iii Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 7 of 87 11 C.F.R. 300.32. ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DOCUMENY RESUME CG 016 510 White House Conference on Aging
    DOCUMENY RESUME ED 227 382 CG 016 510 TITLE White House Conference on Aging (Washington, D.C., November 30-December 3, 1981). Final Report. VOlume, 2: Process Proceedings. INSTfTUTION Whitellouse Conference on Aging, Washington, D..C. SPONS AGENCY Department of Health and Human $ervices, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 81 NOTE 141p.; For related documents, see tD-215257-269 And CG 016 509-511. - PUB TYPE Collected Works - ConIerence,Proceedings (021) -- Reports - General (140 . EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 PlUs.Postage. DESCRIp7ORS Aging (Individuals); Committees; Conferendes; *Economic Climate; *Federal Legislation; Gerontology; *Governthent Role; History; Human ServiCes; *Older Adults; Quality of Life; Retirement IDENTIFIERS *White House Conference on Aging ABSTRACT This secopd volume of the final report of the 1981 White House Conference on Aging.presents a historicaloverview of the Conference, tracing its history from its indeption as ajoin' resolution in Congress in 1979 through 'thenationwide preparatory activities, to its culmination with the gathering of delegates and observers in late November of 1981. Previous conferences areoutlined , and the eConomic climate at the time of the 1981Conferenc'e is .described. Enabling legislation and early preparations forthe conferenca are reviewed, and the conference processis described in detail. The texts of welcothing speeches and keynotead-dresses to the Conference delegates are also presented. Reports of the14 Conference' committeesare sumniarized. The appendices present the text ofthe 1981 White House Conference on Aging Act andprovide,lists of the . National Advisory Committee, the state-White House Confekence on ,Aging coordinatOrs, state Wbite House Conferences onAging, the technical committees, the mini-confeiences,_delegates,observers, international observers, official rules of procedure, Conference committee leadership, and the 1981 White House Conference onAging staff.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Indiana Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-02991 Brief Of
    Received: 2/29/2020 11:08 PM In the Indiana Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-02991 Indiana Family Institute, Inc.; Indiana Family Ac- tion, Inc.; and The American Family Association of Indiana; Plaintiffs-Appellants v. The City of Carmel, Indiana; City Attorney for the Appeal from the City of Carmel, Indiana; Douglas Haney, in his offi- Hamilton County Superior Court 1 cial capacity as City Attorney for the City of Carmel, Indiana; The City of Indianapolis-Marion County, Case No. 29D01-1512-MI-010207 Indiana; The City of Indianapolis-Marion County Equal Opportunity Advisory Board; The City of Hon. Michael A. Casati, Judge Bloomington, Indiana; The City of Bloomington Human Rights Commission; The City of Columbus, Indiana; The City of Columbus Human Rights Commission; The State of Indiana; Attorney Gen- eral Curtis Hill, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Indiana; Defendants-Appellees Brief of Appellant American Family Association of Indiana James Bopp, Jr. Lead Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants [email protected] Richard E. Coleson [email protected] Melena S. Siebert [email protected] The Bopp Law Firm, PC 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: 812-232-2434 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants 1 BRIEF OF APPELLANT AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION OF INDIANA (“AFA”) Table of Contents Table of Contents . 2 Table of Authorities . 4 Statement of Issues . 5 Statement of Case . 6 Statement of Facts. 7 A. RFRAs have a strongly bipartisan history, same-sex marriage is recent, and this is a type of compelled-speech case called a forced-inclusion-expressive-association case.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines to Help Lawyers Practicing in the Court of Chancery
    GUIDELINES TO HELP LAWYERS PRACTICING IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY The vast majority of attorneys who litigate in and appear before the Court conduct themselves in accordance with the highest traditions of Chancery practice. These Guidelines are intended to ensure that all attorneys are aware of the expectations of the Court and to provide helpful guidance in practicing in our Court. These Guidelines are not binding Court Rules, they are intended as a practice aid that will allow our excellent Bar to handle cases even more smoothly and to minimize disputes over process, rather than the substantive merits. These Guidelines do not establish a “standard of conduct” or a “standard of care” by which the performance of attorneys in a given case can or should be measured. The Guidelines are not intended to be used as a sword to wound adversaries. To the contrary, they are intended to reduce conflicts among counsel and parties over non-merits issues, and allow them to more efficiently and less contentiously handle their disputes in this Court. Accordingly, the Court does not intend that these Guidelines, or the sample forms attached hereto, be cited as authority in the context of any dispute before the Court. These guidelines reflect some suggested best practices for moving cases forward to completion in the Court of Chancery. They have been developed jointly by the Court and its Rules Committee to provide help to practitioners. The members of the Court and its Rules Committee recognize that a particular situation may call for the parties to proceed in a different manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of Negligence Under the Tort of Negligence, There Are Four Elements a Plaintiff Must Establish to Succeed in Holding a Defendant Liable
    Elements of Negligence Under the tort of negligence, there are four elements a plaintiff must establish to succeed in holding a defendant liable. The Court of Appeals of Georgia outlined the elements for a prima facie case of negligence in Johnson v. American National Red Cross as follows: “(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct; (2) a breach of this duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) damage to the plaintiff.” Johnson, 569 S.E.2d 242, 247 (Ga. App. 2002). Under the first element, a legal duty to a standard of due care, the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to conform to a standard of conduct for protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury. The duty of care will be determined by the applicable standard of care and several factors can heighten the standard of care depending upon the relationship between the parties, whether the plaintiff was foreseeable, the profession of the defendant, etc. For example, the Red Cross has a duty, when supplying blood donations to hospitals, to make its best efforts to ensure blood supplied is not tainted with any transferable viruses or diseases, such as an undetectable rare strain of HIV. A breach of the duty of care occurs when the defendant’s actions do not meet the required level of applicable standard of care due to the plaintiff. Whether a breach of the duty of the applicable standard of care occurs is a question for the trier of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 142 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996 No. 95 House of Representatives The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was floor in a wheelchair, but he was abso- is New Jersey's largest circulation called to order by the Speaker. lutely, totally dedicated to serving. He daily, which essentially addressed the f loved this House. He loved the process issue of health insurance reform as of dealing with issues and problems and well as medical savings accounts and MORNING BUSINESS helping people, and he loved the inter- pointed out how significant this legis- The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the action between human beings. lation is in terms of providing addi- order of the House of May 12, 1995, the I think all of us are a little poorer tional health insurance for many Chair will now recognize Members from and all of us in the House I think on Americans who lose their health insur- lists submitted by the majority and both sides of the aisle are certainly a ance when they lose a job or because of minority leaders for morning hour de- little sadder at the loss of this fine, a prior medical condition. bates. The Chair will alternate recogni- wonderful gentleman who passed away The editorial also details to some ex- tion between the parties, with each over the weekend. I simply wanted to tent, I would say, why we should not party limited to not to exceed 30 min- share with the House those thoughts on include medical savings accounts if we utes, and each Member except the ma- behalf I think of all the Members of the ever want to see health insurance re- jority and minority leaders limited to House.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Dispositive Motions: a Basic Breakdown
    Civil Dispositive Motions: A Basic Breakdown 1) Simplified Timeline: Motion for 12(b)(6) Motions JNOV** Summary Judgment Motions* Motion for New Trial Motion Motion for D.V. for D.V. (Rul 10 days Discovery and Mediation Plaintiff‟s Defendant‟s Evidence Evidence Process Complaint Trial Jury‟s Entry of Judgment Filed Begins Verdict * Defendant may move at any time. Plaintiff must wait until 30 days after commencement of action. **Movant must have moved for d.v. after close of evidence. 2) Pre-Trial Motions: Rule 12(b)(6) and Summary Judgment A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss 1. Challenge the sufficiency of the complaint on its face. Movant asks the court to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 2. Standard: The court may grant the motion if the allegations in the complaint are insufficient or defective as a matter of law in properly stating a claim for relief. For example: a) The complaint is for fraud, which requires specific pleading, but a required element of fraud is not alleged. 1 b) The complaint alleges breach of contract, but incorporates by reference (and attaches) a contract that is unenforceable as a matter of law. c) The complaint alleges a claim against a public official in a context in which that official has immunity as a matter of law. 3. The court only looks at the complaint (and documents incorporated by reference). a) If the court looks outside the complaint, the motion is effectively converted to a summary judgment and should be treated under the provisions of Rule 56.
    [Show full text]
  • State Judicial Profiles by County 2019-2020
    ALWAYS KNOW WHAT LIES AHEAD STATE JUDICIAL PROFILES BY COUNTY 2019-2020 PREPARED BY THE MEMBER FIRMS OF ® ® USLAW NETWORK STATE JUDICIAL PROFILE BY COUNTY USLAW is your home field advantage. The home field advantage comes from knowing and understanding the venue in a way that allows a competitive advantage – a truism in both sports and business. Jurisdictional awareness is a key ingredient to successfully operating throughout the United States and abroad. Knowing the local rules, the judge, and the local business and legal environment provides our firms’ clients this advantage. USLAW NETWORK bring this advantage to its member firms’ clients with the strength and power of a national presence combined with the understanding of a respected local firm. In order to best serve clients, USLAW NETWORK biennially updates its county- by-county jurisdictional profile, including key court decisions and results that change the legal landscape in various states. The document is supported by the common consensus of member firm lawyers whose understanding of each jurisdiction is based on personal experience and opinion. Please remember that the state county-by-county comparisons are in-state comparisons and not comparisons between states. There are a multitude of factors that go into such subjective observations that can only be developed over years of experience and participation. We are pleased on behalf of USLAW NETWORK to provide you with this jurisdictional snapshot. The information here is a great starter for discussion with the local USLAW member firm on how you can succeed in any jurisdiction. This conversation supplements the snapshot because as we all know as with many things in life, jurisdictions can change quickly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Australian Competition Law
    The Evolution of Australian Competition Law CONTENTS The origins of competition law 11 Limitations of the common law 3 Antitrust statutes in the United States 6 Developments in Australia 9 European Union 23 The origins of competition law Competition law can be traced back to ancient times. Thus, for example, the fi rst attempt to comprehensively codify the law, the eighteenth-century bce Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, contains rules that can be interpreted as curtailing the power of monopolists to engage in price gouging, and in the fi fth century ce the East Roman Emperor Zeno prohibited and exiled monopolists in terms remarkably similar to those used in modern statutes. More recently, and closer to the source of modern Australian law, it is possible to discern in the early English common law at least three lines of attack on anti-competitive conduct.1 Attacks on monopolies Before the Case of Monopolies—Darcy v Allein (1602) 77 ER 1260, the Crown had a practice of granting monopolies in certain lines of trade. These allowed the grantee to engage in a particular trade, without competition, in exchange for royalties paid to the Crown. Darcy v Allein (1602) 77 ER 1260 Court of Kings Bench [Darcy held letters patent from the Crown granting him the exclusive right to import, make and sell playing cards in England for 21 years. Contrary to this grant, Allein made and imported playing cards and sold them to consumers. Darcy thereupon took proceedings against Allein for infringing his letters patent. The fi rst issue that arose was whether their grant was valid.] 1 For a more detailed examination of this topic, see Letwin, ‘The English Common Law Concerning Monopolies’ 21 University of Chicago Law Review 355 (1954).
    [Show full text]
  • Porter V. Knickrehm
    Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 1 of 34 • , &.8rufo!4ED ERN OlsTRICcTT COURT 'ARIW/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT couRJUL 272 SAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARI(MI(~§ W 00+ WESTERN DIVISION BY:~~ACI( CL£:RI( ~ HARVE PORTER, et aI., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No.4:03 CV008l2SWW ) KURT KNICKREHM, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF CARE FACILITY ) RESIDENTS AND ELLEN SUE GIBSON ) ) Defendant Intervenors. ) PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND EOUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS Plaintiffs seek summary jUdgment on their Due Process and Equal Protection claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Arkansas Local Rule 56.1. As demonstrated below, the motion should be granted on both claims because there are no disputed issues of material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, lnc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Arnold v. City oj" Columbia, Mo., 197 FJd 1217, 1220 (8 th Cir. 1999). Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 2 of 34 , I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 20- 48-401 et seq. (Michie 2003 Supp!.) and Development Disability Services Director's Office Policy Manual ("Manual") numbers 1020, 1037, 1053, and 1086 because Arkansas law and policies fail to provide adequate judicial hearings at which adults whose liberty is at stake can contest the state's effort to institutionalize them. Plaintiff Harve Porter is an adult diagnosed with moderate mental retardation who is currently involuntarily confined at the state's Alexander Human Development Center ("ALHDC).
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism
    Emory Law Journal Volume 63 Issue 4 2014 The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism Garrick B. Pursley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation Garrick B. Pursley, The Campaign Finance Safeguards of Federalism, 63 Emory L. J. 781 (2014). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol63/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PURSLEY GALLEYSPROOFS 4/3/2014 2:50 PM THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SAFEGUARDS OF FEDERALISM ∗ Garrick B. Pursley ABSTRACT This Article provides the first systematic account of the relationship between campaign finance and federalism. Federalism—a fundamental characteristic of the constitutional structure—depends for its stability on political mechanisms. States and their advocates and representatives in Congress, federal agencies, political parties, intergovernmental lobbying groups, and other political forums work together to check federal interference with state governments. Entire normative theories of federalism depend on the assumption that this system of political safeguards is working effectively in the background. But the federalism and constitutional theory literatures lack a rigorous account of the effects of dramatic political change on pro-federalism political dynamics. Building that account is particularly timely now. Political safeguards work only if states retain significant political influence. But, as recent elections vividly demonstrate, Citizens United has created a new class of political operators—of which Super PACs are emblematic—whose potential political influence may be limitless.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 11-1179 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., fka WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. STEVE BULLOCK, Attorney General of Montana, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Montana --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF RETIRED JUSTICES OF THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT AND JUSTICE AT STAKE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMY POEHLING EDDY Counsel of Record BOTTOMLY EDDY & SANDLER, PLLP 1230 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-3303 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 5 I. The dramatic increase in independent ex- penditures in judicial elections has ad- versely impacted the judiciary’s effective functioning ................................................... 7 A. Judicial election spending
    [Show full text]