Election Law Enforcement Commission E EC L 1973 Newsletter ELECtronic AN ELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION NEWSLETTER “Furthering the Interest of an Informed Citizenry” Comments from the 3. Sworn statements made by the Commission in N.J.A.C. 19:25-10.15 and minor and by the minor’s parent or the campaign finance compliance Chairman legal guardian must be submitted manual. Eric H. Jaso with the contribution attesting that the decision to contribute is solely While these regulations are known to American youth attributes that of the minor and that the funds many organizational treasurers, much more importance to used to make the contribution campaign participants should keep up- arriving at driver’s-license derive solely from the minor’s to-date on the rules by consulting ELEC’s age than at voting age. – earned income. compliance manual, especially in Marshall McLuhan relatively obscure areas of campaign ELEC promulgated these regulations to finance such as child contributions. In Though not widely known, children are ensure that contributions attributed to addition, organizational treasurers and allowed to make political contributions minors are not used by their parents or campaign operatives should take a under New Jersey’s campaign finance others to circumvent contribution limits. moment to view ELEC’s interactive laws. If a child is under the age of 14 By requiring that donations come from training video on our website at any contribution by the child is to be the minor’s earned income and that www.elec.state.nj.us. attributed to the child’s legal guardian. contributions be accompanied by a With the end of many COVID However, if the minor is 14 years or sworn affidavit, the Commission has restrictions, organizational treasurers, older and has not reached his/her made compliance with the law as air- campaign staff, as well as candidates for majority age, contributions are subject tight as possible. On the other hand, by office, may want to take advantage of to the following guidelines. permitting contributions from minors, the Commission’s regulations do not run ELEC’s in-person training, which is due 1. The individual must be 14 years or afoul of the First Amendment. to resume soon as restrictions in State older; offices are lifted. As in the past, the 2. The contribution must be made When a contribution is received from a Commission plans to resume in-person from funds derived from the minor, the committee and organizational training for candidates and treasurers as minor’s earned income; and treasurer have the responsibility to well as for political party treasurers, identify the donor by following the lobbying, and pay-to-play. guidelines as set forth by the IN THIS ISSUE COMMISSIONERS Comments from the Chairman P. 1 Eric H. Jaso, Chairman Executive Director’s Thoughts P. 2 Stephen M. Holden, Commissioner ELEC Selects Sponsors for 2021 Gubernatorial General Election Debates P. 4 Marguerite T. Simon, Commissioner Alleged $60 million- plus “Dark Money” Bribery Scheme in Ohio Serves P. 5 Edwin R. Matthews, Legal Counsel as a Warning for New Jersey and Other States County Parties Have $3.1 Million Socked Away Heading Into General Elections P. 7 Big Six Coffers Continue to Recover From Pandemic Year Lull P.11 Training Seminars P. 13 ELEC-Tronic Newsletter Issue 146 Page 2 Executive Director’s more challenges against schedule B, which disclosed charitable Thoughts “unreasonable” campaign finance donors. rules. Jeff Brindle A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court “It definitely makes it easier for us to of Appeals, 9th Circuit then disagreed Recent Supreme persuade courts that certain disclosure with the District Court and said it was Court Case Limiting laws are unconstitutional,” he told The legal for the Attorney General to Hill on July 5, 2021. obtain schedule B as long as the Disclosure by information was not disclosed publicly. Charitable Donors However, he added: “With that said, laws that require disclosure of large After the case was remanded, the Should Have Little campaign contributions to politicians, district judge reheard the case without Impact on Campaign political parties, PACs…I don’t think a jury. Finance Law they are in any danger from this ruling.” Even after taking a second look, Reprinted from insidernj.com however, he still was convinced the Under the California law, charitable state failed to prove its requirement In Americans for Prosperity organizations, when renewing annual was substantially tied to its Foundation (AFP) v. Bonta, the U.S. registrations, were required to file government interest and permanently Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on July 1, copies of IRS Form 990. It contains prohibited the Attorney General from 2021 that a California law requiring schedule B, a filing that discloses the collecting schedule B. charitable organizations to disclose names and addresses of donors. major donors to the state’s Attorney He held that disclosure of schedule B is General is unconstitutional. California argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to the state’s necessary in terms of its oversight of interest in investigating charitable Three dissenting Supreme Court charities and fraud investigations, misconduct and represents an judges, scholars and others warn that stating that “the state’s upfront unwarranted burden on associational the ruling threatens the very collection of schedule B is substantially rights of donors. Further, the court foundation of campaign finance law. related to important oversight and law maintained that California is unable to They suggest that the First Amendment enforcement interests.” ensure confidentiality. holding makes it difficult for most campaign finance requirements to New Jersey was among 16 states and The Ninth Circuit, in a split decision, survive, particularly those involving the District of Columbia that had filed again ruled that California’s disclosure disclosure. an amicus brief defending the requirement was constitutional constitutionality of California’s because it was “substantially related to With due respect, I disagree the Bonta charitable rule. an important state interest in policing ruling jeopardizes election-related charitable fraud.” This balancing of campaign finance disclosure AFP and Thomas More Law Center, interests is required under the requirements. another non-profit group that filed a “exacting scrutiny” test for similar suit, maintained that compelled infringements of First Amendment Opponents of such rules may try to use disclosure violated its First Amendment rights. the Bonta case to strike down rights and rights of donors. They campaign finance laws. That often argued that their donors would be less A majority of the appeals court judges happens after the Supreme Court inclined to contribute for fear of said the District Court erred by issues a new ruling. reprisal. imposing a “narrow tailoring” requirement. That restriction has Indeed, David Keating, president of the A District Court judge in California normally applied only when a law Institute for Free Speech, which had initially ruled in favor of AFP. He issued imposes heavier burdens on free filed its own lawsuit against California’s a preliminary injunction prohibiting the speech. non-profit disclosure law, said the Attorney General from collecting ruling could mean his group will launch ELEC-Tronic Newsletter Issue 146 Page 3 Laws infringing on First Amendment ruled that the Act’s reporting and sufficiently important state interest of rights that are subject to this more disclosure provisions were justified by an informed electorate and any demanding “strict scrutiny” test must governmental interest in (1) helping burdens on political speech that they be narrowly tailored to further a voters to evaluate candidates by may cause are substantially related to compelling government interest. informing them about the sources and that state interest” states the ruling, uses of campaign funds, (2) deterring which has been appealed. As noted above, the U.S. Supreme corruption and the appearance of it by Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, making public the names of major What set the California case apart, at stating that the California requirement contributors, and (3) providing least to the majority in Bonta, was that burdens First Amendment rights and is information necessary to detect “California’s regulation lacks any not narrowly tailored to an important violations of the law.” Federal Election tailoring to the State’s investigative government interest. Commission analysis of Buckley: goals and the State’s interest in https://www.fec.gov/legal- administrative convenience is weak.” A dissenting opinion authored by resources/court-cases/buckley-v- Thus, the Court deemed that Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it is the valeo/ California’s law does not meet the first time the Supreme Court has held standard of a “sufficiently important” that the exacting scrutiny test, just like More recent Supreme Court rulings, government interest. the strict scrutiny test, must always particularly Citizens United V. FEC require that government-mandated (2010), have strongly upheld election- Disclosure limits in the context of disclosure be narrowly tailored to related disclosure laws. elections usually have been viewed as government interest. She also having a substantial relation to an expressed strong concern that the high “Disclosure is the less-restrictive important government interest under court required no proof that the alternative to more comprehensive the exacting scrutiny test. California’s