DOCSLIB.ORG

Conquering the Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conquering the Courts 1 Conquering the Courts The Religious Right’s Fight to Rig the Rules and Undermine Judicial Independence by Arn Pearson ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS David Armiak, Max Abbott, and Cynthia Moothart contributed to this report. This report was made possible by funding from the Piper Fund, an initiative of the Proteus Fund. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nationally recognized watchdog that leads in-depth, award-winning investigations into the hidden avenues of influence that undermine our democracy, environment, and economic prosperity. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary_______________________________________________ 1 Introduction______________________________________________________ 2 Stacking the Deck Against Rights____________________________________ 3 Focus on the Family and the Family Policy Alliance_____________________ 5 State Profiles_____________________________________________________ 7 Alaska_____________________________________________________ 7 Arkansas___________________________________________________ 8 Florida_____________________________________________________ 8 Iowa_______________________________________________________ 9 Kansas_____________________________________________________ 10 North Carolina_______________________________________________ 12 Tennessee__________________________________________________ 12 Wisconsin__________________________________________________ 13 Conclusion______________________________________________________ 15 Appendix A______________________________________________________ 16 End Notes_______________________________________________________ 18 3 Executive Summary The ouster of three justices from Iowa’s Ten of the biggest politically active reli- Supreme Court in 2010, as retaliation for gious right groups have a combined bud- a unanimous decision overturning the get of more than $220 million. Focus on state’s ban on same-sex marriage, sent the Family and its advocacy partner, the shock waves through courts across the Family Policy Alliance, have not received country. But it was just one battle in a as much attention as some other groups, long-term, well-funded, and highly orga- but spent $92 million in fiscal year 2016, nized crusade by Christian right groups and funneled $6.9 million to a network of to undermine rights by assailing the inde- local partners in 38 states between 2012 pendence of America’s judiciary. and 2015. The religious right and its political strate- Over the past decade, the two groups gists have recognized the importance of have worked in coalition with other the courts for advancing its social agen- “values” organizations, partisan play- da and world view for decades. James ers, and corporate front groups in more Bopp, an Indiana lawyer and former Vice than a dozen states—including Alaska, Chairman of the Republican National Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, North Committee, has effectively married the Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin—to interests of partisan and corporate ac- politicize state courts through legal chal- tors with conservative religious groups lenges, legislation, and election to mount a relentless attack on the spending. walls that protect judges from popular pressures—merit selection, campaign In addition to their Iowa victory, those finance laws, and judicial codes of con- coalitions have passed a 2014 ballot duct that limit what judges can say about measure abolishing Tennessee’s merit their views on legal issues. selection system; won a conservative majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court; However, Bopp’s 2010 U.S. Supreme and mounted a major, but unsuccessful, Court victory in Citizens United has argu- challenge against four Kansas Supreme ably done more to subject state courts Court justices in 2016 based on their to political pressures than anything else. rulings on abortion, death penalty, and That decision opened the door to unlim- school funding cases. ited political spending by corporations, including nonprofits, and outside spend- While religious right groups have not ing on judicial elections since then has been able to replicate their Iowa rout in soared. the past three election cycles, they have stepped up their challenges to judicial Religious right organizations have be- independence and are in it for the long come a major player in that mix in a haul. number of states, and have been em- boldened by the Trump administration’s recent assaults on rights and disdain for the separation of church and state. 1 Introduction In 2009, six years before the U.S. Su- in high-profile congressional, legislative, preme Court affirmed marriage equality, presidential, and gubernatorial elections, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously the push to politicize state judicial elec- upheld a lower court ruling that denial of tions has received less attention. But the marriage licenses to same-sex couples threat is just as real. The influence of big violated the liberty and equal protection money—already pervasive in the making clauses of the state’s constitution.1 of our laws—increasingly casts a shad- ow on how laws and constitutions get The political backlash was swift and dra- interpreted. matic. A network of right-wing religious organizations poured $1 million into the The U.S. Constitution enshrined three state to oppose the 2010 retention elec- branches of government as a check and tion of three of the justices, and all three balance against tyranny, but today’s were voted off the bench, marking the well-financed crusade against judicial first time in state history that even one independence threatens to collapse the justice was ousted. separation of powers into a concentra- tion of power instead. It was not, however, a first for the nation. Social conservatives successfully ousted All courts are under attack by conserva- three California Supreme Court justices tive warriors, but since Iowa those most based on their death penalty decisions in at risk are in the states. Newly empow- 1986, and Karl Rove engineered Repub- ered by Citizens United, the same spe- lican supreme court upsets in Texas and cial interests that have flooded statewide Alabama in 1988 and 1994.2 and legislative races with dark money are bearing down on courts to eliminate But the Iowa sweep signaled a renewed the last barrier to their ideological agen- push by the religious right to impose its da. ideology and agenda on state courts in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s The stakes are high. While the U.S. ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which Supreme Court commands most of our legitimized the intervention of corpo- attention, it hears only around 100 to rations—including nonprofits—in elec- 150 cases each session. By compari- tions. Citizen United’s legal mastermind, son, more than 100 million cases come James Bopp, orchestrated challenges to before nearly 30,000 state court judges judicial selection rules and sitting judges every year.3 And those decisions touch in Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska in 2009 and lives in intimate, deeply personal ways. 2010. While the other two efforts failed, State courts very often have the final say the Iowa upset caused a judicial earth- in determining what human rights and quake, and the religious right came away freedoms we, as a society, affirm or deny with a winning playbook it could put to under the rule of law. use across the nation to impose its ideol- ogy and social policies on state courts. While we have become accustomed to news of powerful “dark money” groups flooding the airwaves and our mailboxes 2 Stacking the Deck Against form of election for their judges, ex- posing them to the public pressures of Rights modern campaigns. Twenty-one states choose their Supreme Court justices by The organized religious right and its popular election, and another 16 have political strategists have long recognized periodic retention elections requiring a the importance of the courts for advanc- 50-percent-plus vote for justices to stay ing its social agenda and world view. in office after being appointed. Attorney James Bopp has spent a good part of the last two decades fighting to Bopp has also spearheaded a string of maximize the influence of his clients in cases challenging restrictions on judicial the halls of justice by challenging re- “speech,” and won a major victory in strictions on campaign spending, judicial White v. Republican Party of Minnesota selection laws, and ethics rules. In his in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court quest, Bopp has married the interests struck down that state’s bar against judi- of the Republican National Committee, cial candidates announcing their views where he served as special counsel and on legal and political issues.5 Bopp’s vice chairman, with powerful conserva- goal is to pressure judges and candi- tive clients like Focus on the Family, the dates to go on the record on hot-button National Right to Life Committee, the issues and so that religious and partisan National Organization for Marriage, and conservatives can mobilize voters to the Christian Coalition. hold them accountable to their ideologi- cal views.6 The target? Any state that has some Source: Common Cause 4 3 But Bopp’s victory in Citizens United ful new ally in the Trump administration, has arguably done more to politicize the which has launched assaults on every- judiciary than anything else. In 2010, the thing from access to contraceptives and first election after the Citizens United abortion to civil rights protections and decision, spending on retention elections marriage equality, and has challenged in just four states (Alaska,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conserving Criminal-Justice Reform
    Conserving Criminal-Justice Reform Lars Trautman and Arthur L. Rizer, III hen carl harris was released from prison in 2009, he de- Wscribed himself as “a man coming out of a cave after 20 years.” Convicted of assault at age 24 after injuring two people who had stolen his crack cocaine, Harris had been a drug dealer since he was 18 years old. After six years in prison, he realized he wanted more out of life. He found God, got clean, and focused on his education. Despite his efforts at personal redemption and societal rehabilitation, Harris sat in prison for another 14 years, costing the federal government more than $300,000. During his 20 years in prison, Harris worked a $1.15-an-hour prison job; his wages failed to cover the cost for his wife, Charlene Hamilton, to visit him in prison, let alone help provide for their two young daugh- ters. As a newly single mother, Hamilton turned to welfare payments and relatives for support; she briefly became homeless a couple of times after being unable to make ends meet. As Hamilton put it: “Basically, I was locked up with him.” None of this is to suggest that Harris should not have gone to prison — even he agrees that he deserved some prison time — but his experience in the criminal-justice system demonstrates that incarceration affects not only prisoners themselves, but also their families, communities, and all American taxpayers. Harris is merely one of millions of Americans who experience the country’s outsized and inefficient criminal-justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • MAP Act Coalition Letter Freedomworks
    April 13, 2021 Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned organizations representing millions of Americans nationwide highly concerned by our country’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory, write in support of the Maximizing America’s Prosperity (MAP) Act, to be introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). As we stare down a mounting national debt of over $28 trillion, the MAP Act presents a long-term solution to our ever-worsening spending patterns by implementing a Swiss-style debt brake that would prevent large budget deficits and increased national debt. Since the introduction of the MAP Act in the 116th Congress, our national debt has increased by more than 25 percent, totaling six trillion dollars higher than the $22 trillion we faced less than two years ago in July of 2019. Similarly, nearly 25 percent of all U.S. debt accumulated since the inception of our country has come since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now more than ever, it is critical that legislators take a serious look at the fiscal situation we find ourselves in, with a budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2020 of $3.132 trillion and a projected share of the national debt held by the public of 102.3 percent of GDP. While markets continue to finance our debt in the current moment, the simple and unavoidable fact remains that our country is not immune from the basic economics of massive debt, that history tells us leads to inevitable crisis. Increased levels of debt even before a resulting crisis slows economic activity -- a phenomenon referred to as “debt drag” -- which especially as we seek recovery from COVID-19 lockdowns, our nation cannot afford.
    [Show full text]
  • Return R%F Or Nni72tinn Exam T from Income
    l efile GRAPHIC p rint - DO NOT PROCESS I As Filed Data - I DLN: 93493261005077 Return r%f Or nni72tinn Exam t From Income Tax OMB No 1545-0047 Form 990 W 11- Under section 501(c ), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code ( except private foundations) 2016 Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public Department ► Information about Form 990 and its instructions is at www IRS gov/form990 Internal Revenue Ser.ice ► A For the 2016 calendar y ear, or tax y ear be inn 01-01-2016 . and endina 12-31-2016 C Name of organization B Check if applicable D Employer identification number National Rifle Association of America q Address change 53-0116130 q Name change q Initial return Doing business as Final - I II/ - I n naLeu I eiepnone nurnuer Number and street (or P O box if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite L q Amended return 11250 Waples Mill Road (703) 267-1000 q Application pending City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code Fairfax, VA 220307400 G Gross receipts $ 415, 313,072 F Name and address of principal officer H(a) Is this a group return for Wilson H Phillips Jr 11250 Waples Mill Road subordinates? 2 No Fairfax, VA 22030 H(b) Are all subordinates included? q Yes I Tax-exempt status q 501(c)(3) 0 501(c) ( 4 I (insert no ) q 4947(a)(1) or q 527 If "No," attach a list (see instructions) H(c) Group exemption number J Website : ► www nra org ► q q q L Year of formation 1905 M State of legal domicile NY K Form of organization 9 Corporation Trust Association Other ► NLi^ Summary 1 Briefly describe the organization's mission or most significant activities Firearms safety, education, and training and advocacy on behalf of safe and responsi ble gun owners q p 2 Check this box ► if the organization discontinued its operations or disposed of more than 25% of its net assets :7 3 Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) .
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Wage Coalition Letter Freedomworks
    June 23, 2021 Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned organizations representing millions of Americans nationwide, write in blanket opposition to any increase in the federal minimum wage, especially in such a time when our job market needs maximum flexibility to recover from the havoc wreaked on it by the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers must be compensated for their labor based on the value that said labor adds to their employer. Any deviation from this standard is harmful to workers and threatens jobs and employment opportunities for all workers. Whether it be to $11, $15, or any other dollar amount, increasing the federal minimum wage further takes away the freedom of two parties to agree on the value of one’s labor to the other’s product. As a result, employment options are restricted and jobs are lost. Instead, the free market should be left alone to work in the best interest of employers and employees alike. While proponents of raising the minimum wage often claim to be working in service of low-wage earners, studies have regularly shown that minimum wage increases harm low-skilled workers the most. Higher minimum wages inevitably lead to lay-offs and automation that drives low-skilled workers to unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office projected that raising the minimum wage to $15 would directly result in up to 2.7 million jobs lost by 2026. Raising it to $11 in the same time frame - as some Senators are discussing - could cost up to 490,000 jobs, if such a proposal is paired with eliminating the tip credit as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxpayers Oppose Hike in the Federal Gas Tax
    Illinois Policy Institute August 21, 2007 An Open Letter to the President and Congress: Taxpayers Oppose Hike in the Federal Gas Tax Dear President Bush and Members of Congress: On behalf of the millions of taxpayers represented by our respective organizations, we write in opposition to proposals that would increase the existing 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal excise tax on gasoline. One legislative plan promoted by Representative James Oberstar would temporarily increase the federal gas tax by 5 cents per gallon to fund bridge repair around the country. We are extremely concerned that this “temporary” tax increase would turn into a permanent one. After all, President George H.W. Bush’s “temporary” gas tax increase of 5 cents per gallon in 1990 never went away as promised, while lawmakers “repurposed” President Clinton’s 4.3 cent-per-gallon hike when the budget seemed headed toward a surplus. Proponents of a federal gas tax increase insist that few would even notice the change in their fuel bills. In reality, a 5 cent-per-gallon jump would represent a steep 27 percent tax hike over the current rate and cost American motorists an estimated $25 billion over the next three years. Combined with state gas taxes, many motorists would pay over $7.50 in taxes for the average fill-up. This is a substantial burden on families trying to make ends meet and only makes gas prices harder to stomach. Given high energy costs, now is the time to give taxpayers a lighter – not a heavier – gas tax burden. 1 We also reject the notion that there isn’t enough money available for infrastructure upkeep.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Briefs in This Case
    NO. 16-111 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET. AL., Petitioners, v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET. AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 33 FAMILY POLICY ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS DAVID FRENCH Counsel of record Senior Fellow NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE 215 Lexington Avenue 11th Floor New York, New York 10016 (931) 446-7572 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether applying Colorado’s public- accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 6 I. If Freedom of Conscience Can Survive the World’s Worst War, It Should Survive the Sexual Revolution. ............................................... 6 II. Creative Professionals and Corporations Consistently Exercise Their Rights under Barnette to Promote and Disassociate from Specific Values and Messages. .......................... 13 III. To Undermine Barnette Is To Cruelly Impoverish the Marketplace of Ideas. .............. 21 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 25 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 370 P.3d 272 (Colo. App. 2015) .................... 17-18 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) .................................. 12, 26 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) .................................... passim Other Authorities: Accessories: 42mm Pride Edition Woven Nylon, Apple, https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/ product/MQ4G2AM/A/42mm-pride-edition- woven-nylon (last visited Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Message to the 117Th Congress: Don't Draft Our Daughters
    Special Message to the 117th Congress: Don’t Draft Our Daughters August 31, 2021 Dear Senators and Representatives, We write to you united in serious concern about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2022 which the Senate Armed Services Committee approved on July 21. The legislation is unacceptable because it would amend the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) to require young women to register with Selective Service for a possible future draft. Sen. Jack Reed’s deceptively simple language – reportedly to change the MSSA words “male citizens” to “all Americans” – is unnecessary, unwise, and, in our view, outrageous. Imposition of Selective Service obligations, including a possible future draft of our daughters, sisters, and nieces, would not only hurt women, it would compromise our military’s essential function during a time of catastrophic national emergency. A monumental and consequential reversal such as this should not be approved behind closed doors, and the full Senate and House should not rubber-stamp “Draft Our Daughters” language in the NDAA. The only acceptable option is to strike the Reed amendment and seriously, thoroughly, and responsibly consider what the Selective Service law really means. This is a matter of national security – not “women’s rights,” “men’s rights,” or civilian volunteer service. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress the authority to establish and support the armed forces and to ensure that they are prepared to secure our nation and defend our freedom. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the purpose of a draft is not to fill various non- combat billets, it is to quickly provide qualified replacements for combat casualties.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Practice Handbook
    KANSAS APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK 6TH EDITION KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL Subscription Information The Kansas Appellate Practice Handbook is updated on a periodic basis with supplements to reflect important changes in both statutory law and case law. Your purchase of this publication automatically records your subscription for the update service. If you do not wish to receive the supplements, you must inform the Judicial Council. You may contact the Judicial Council by e-mail at [email protected], by telephone at (785) 296-2498 or by mail at: Kansas Judicial Council 301 SW 10th, Ste. 140 Topeka, KS 66612 © 2019 KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION This is the first edition of the Handbook since the advent of electronic filing of appellate cases. All prior editions, while containing some useful suggestions, are obsolete. With clear marching orders from our Supreme Court, all appellate attorneys must enroll and monitor their cases. Paper filing is now relegated to litigants that are unrepresented. Prompted by these massive changes we have consolidated some chapters and subjects and created new sections for electronic filing. But there is more to an appeal than just getting in the door. Scheduling, briefing, and pre- and post-opinion motion practice are dealt with. We sincerely hope that this work will be helpful to all who practice in this important area of the law. It is an attempt to open up the mysteries of electronic filing of appellate cases in Kansas. I must shout from the rooftops my praise for Christy Molzen with the Kansas Judicial Council, who has done all of the heavy lifting in putting this handbook together.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Expenditures for Or Against State Candidates Or Ballot Issues in Iowa
    Independent Expenditures For or Against State Candidates or Ballot Issues in Iowa Organization Name Organization City Organization State Organization Zip Iowa Association for Justice West Des Moines IA 50266 Iowa Citizens for Community Des Moines IA 50311 Improvement Action Fund National Association of REALTORS CHICAGO IL 60611 Fund Taxpayers Protection Alliance Washington DC 20005 National Association of REALTORS CHICAGO IL 60611 Fund Working America Washington DC 20006 Working America Washington DC 20006 Working America Washington DC 20006 Americans For Prosperity Arlington VA 22201 Americans For Prosperity Arlington VA 22201 Americans For Prosperity Arlington VA 22201 AFA Action, Inc. West Des Moines IA 50266 AFA Action, Inc. West Des Moines IA 50266 Page 1 of 2324 09/29/2021 Independent Expenditures For or Against State Candidates or Ballot Issues in Iowa Organization Email Contact First Name Contact Last Name Contact Email [email protected] Andrew Mertens [email protected] Matthew Covington [email protected] MARC GALL [email protected] David Williams [email protected] MARC GALL [email protected] Krissi Jimroglou [email protected] Krissi Jimroglou [email protected] Krissi Jimroglou [email protected] Alex Varban [email protected] Alex Varban [email protected] Alex Varban [email protected] Bob Vander Plaats [email protected] [email protected] Bob Vander Plaats [email protected] Page 2 of 2324 09/29/2021 Independent Expenditures For or Against State Candidates
    [Show full text]
  • Letter from Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage and the Ouster of Three Justices
    PETTYS FINAL 5/14/2011 12:44:21 PM Letter from Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage and the Ouster of Three Justices Todd E. Pettys∗ I. INTRODUCTION On November 2, 2010, voters in Iowa fired three of the Iowa Supreme Court’s seven justices.1 Under constitutional reforms that Iowans had adopted nearly half a century earlier, each of those justices had been appointed by the state’s governor from a list of names supplied by the state’s judicial nominating commission,2 but then was required to stand for a retention vote after a short initial period of service and every eight years thereafter.3 Chief Justice Marsha Ternus had been appointed to the state’s high court by Republican Governor Terry Branstad in 1993 and was on the November 2010 ballot seeking her third eight-year term; Justice Michael Streit had been appointed by Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack in 2001 and was seeking his second eight-year term; and Justice David Baker had been appointed by Democratic Governor Chet Culver in 2008 and was seeking his first eight-year term.4 Under ordinary circumstances, each of those justices would have been virtually guaranteed success on Election Day. Since Iowa moved from an ∗ H. Blair and Joan V. White Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law. I wish to thank Justice Randy Holland, Steve McAllister, and the editors of the Kansas Law Review for inviting me to participate in this symposium; Michelle Falkoff, Linda McGuire, Caroline Sheerin, and John Whiston for their helpful comments on earlier drafts; and Karen Anderson for her helpful comments and research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal No. 11-106870-S in the SUPREME COURT of KANSAS IN
    Appeal No. 11-106870-S IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS IN THE MATTER OF : : DA 10088 and DA 10598 : PHILLIP D. KLINE, : : Respondent. : _________________________________________________________ MOTION OF RESPONDENT PHILLIP D. KLINE FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE KAREN ARNOLD-BURGER _________________________________________________________ Respondent Phillip D. Kline, former Attorney General the State of Kansas, hereby moves for the recusal of Judge Karen Arnold-Burger from any further participation in this appeal. Per the Order of Presiding Justice Daniel Biles on June 4, 2012, Judge Arnold-Burger is one of five Kansas judges assigned to hear this appeal in the aftermath of the May 18, 2012 recusal of five sitting justices of this Court. I. Introduction. As editor of The Verdict, the official quarterly publication of the Kansas Municipal Judges Association (“KMJA”), Judge Karen Arnold-Burger was instrumental in publishing numerous false statements regarding Mr. Kline’s investigation of Kansas abortion clinics. These false statements about facts at issue in this proceeding provide a reasonable basis to question Judge Arnold-Burger’s impartiality, thereby requiring recusal. See Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1) (1995). Specifically, a synopsis of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood v. Kline, 287 Kan. 372, 433, 197 P.3d 370 (2008) (hereinafter CHPP v. Kline) in the Winter 2009 edition of The Verdict made numerous false assertions supported neither by the CHPP v. Kline opinion itself nor the underlying facts.1 Most of these gratuitous and untrue statements improperly cast Mr. Kline’s conduct in a false negative light and uniformly tended to disparage him before the Kansas judiciary.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley Endorse
    Fred Karger 3699 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1290 O- Los Angeles> CA 90010 j > r' < c \ June 13, 2013 Office of the General Counsel _ , ^ ^ Federal Election Commission ^ f ^ 999 E Street, N:W. MUR # f OJ Washington, DC 20463 I want to bring to your attention possible violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act by former United States Senator Rick Santorum, the National Organization for Marriage and Mr. Bob V/ander Plaats. I respectfully ask the Federal Election Commission to conduct a full investigation into the likelihood that the National Organization for Marriage, its officers and major supporters paid the Family Leader and its president Mr. Bob Vander Plaats up to $1 million to secure its ' endorsement of then presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Mr. Vander Plaats' endorsement ? of Mr. Santorum occurred just two weeks before the Iowa Caucus and enabled Mr. Santorum to , beat former Governor Mitt Rornney in the first contest of the 2012 Presidential Campaign. i Additionally, it appears that there was coordination between the Santorum for President Campaign, Mr. Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage and Mr. Bob Vander Plaats, President of the Family Leader for the purpose of funding the Vander Plaats created Super PAC, Families for Leaders. The Familiesfor Leaders Super PAC was established to , support Mr. Santorum in Iowa. | I Complainant and Respondents Complainant: Fred Karger 3699 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1290 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Respondents: Siehator Rick Santorum P.O. Box 37 Verona, PA 15147 National Organization for Marriage, Inc. Mr. Brian Brown, President 2029 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Mr.
    [Show full text]