 |
|
Blog
|
|
Welcome to the Holtzman Vogel Law Blog. We aim to keep you
up to date on important legal developments and other items of interest. On this
blog, we'll track developments in the news and changes to the rules and regulations
affecting political committees, corporate PACs, trade associations, non-profit groups
and advocacy organizations. We'll also keep you updated on the lobbying and ethics
arena. The Law Blog is designed to supplement our regular newsletter.
On behalf of the Holtzman Vogel team, I hope you find this site helpful and interesting.
And we hope you'll become a regular visitor. (If you'd like to receive our newsletter,
please click here to sign up.)
Jill Holtzman Vogel
|
Monday, February 08, 2010
Wash. Post editorial on Montgomery County, MD candidates and the local teachers' union
The Washington Post has this editorial, noting an odd arrangement (or perhaps just an under-reported arrangement) in Montgomery County, Maryland - a suburb of Washington, DC. Writes the Post, "Candidates who receive the union's stamp of approval are also then expected to pay. As far as we know, this arrangement is unique; in elections elsewhere, unions and other special interests contribute to candidates, not vice versa. . . . In the latest elections for the Montgomery County Council, in 2006, most candidates on the union-approved (and trademarked) 'Apple Ballot' coughed up the maximum contribution allowed by state law, $6,000, to a PAC run by the Montgomery County Education Association, as the teachers union is known. Union-backed candidates for the Board of Education also paid handsomely."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
WSJ op-ed: The Bigger Meaning: High Court Lets Companies Lobby Employees, Suppliers
Peter Brown has this column in the Wall Street Journal. According to Brown, "What’s more important is that the court has decided that your employer may spend as much as its top executives want to explain to you and your co-workers why voting for or against a candidate might endanger your job, make it more secure, or increase your retirement nest egg. . . . The decision’s greatest impact might be on local politics in which relatively few voters participate because there is not that much information distributed about those elections. And it is at the local level where a company might have greater influence on its work force."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Del. Online editorial: Del. legislators standing up to high court, corporate ads
From an editorial at DelawareOnline.com: "On Thursday, Delaware's Republican congressman Mike Castle and Rep. David Price, D-N.C., announced plans to introduce the 'Stand By Every Ad Act' to hold corporations, unions and associations accountable for their political advertisements. Of the court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Castle says: 'This bill would simply extend the same transparent disclosures requirement to special-interest groups that candidates are currently required to provide in their campaign advertisements.'"
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Yet Another Alito Head Shake Article
The AP has what will hopefully be the last piece on Justice Alito's head shake at the State of the Union address.
According to the AP, "It seems clear from Alito's questioning when the court heard argument in the case that he was taking issue with the president's assertion that the court reversed 100 years of law, rather than with Obama's reference to foreign influence, which also has generated some legal debate. At the September argument, Alito suggested to attorney Seth Waxman that 20 years was the appropriate time frame, encompassing two high court decisions that upheld limits on corporate spending in campaigns."
The AP did not interview Justice Alito, or even an unnamed source "close to Alito," so this is pure speculation on the AP's part.
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Huffington Post: Pelosi Taps Task Force To Counter Supreme Court's Citizens United Ruling
From Huffington Post: "House Democrats are forming a Citizens United task force to decide on the best set of legislative push back against the Supreme Court decision that upended 100 years of precedent and legalized unlimited corporate involvement in elections, Democratic members and aides told HuffPost. . . . The rump group pulls together all the relevant committee chairmen and selected members of those panels."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 05, 2010
FEC Statement on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United v. FEC
The FEC issued this statement today. According to the Commissioners, "Corporations and labor organizations that intend to finance independent expenditures or electioneering communications should:
* Include disclaimers on their communications, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.11;
* Disclose independent expenditures on FEC Form 5, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 109.10; and
* Disclose electioneering communications on FEC Form 9, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 104.20." The Commissioners intend to undertake a broad rulemaking to address the Court's decision, and various provisions of part 114 of the FEC's regulations will be reviewed.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 05, 2010
NYT editorial: What Price Politics?
The latest from the New York Times editors: "A binge of special interest money seems inevitable unless Congress acts quickly — before this year’s election — to repair the damage from the Supreme Court ruling that ended restraints on campaign spending by corporations and unions."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Fmr. Sen. Rudman: Republicans losing their way on campaign finance reform
Former Senator Warren Rudman writes in this op-ed that the "history of Republican leadership on campaign finance reform should remind Republicans in Congress today that it is not in our true nature to side with the moneyed interests against the interests of the American people. The Supreme Court has taken that stand. It's time to return to our roots and take up Teddy Roosevelt's challenge from over a century ago by enacting the only real and lasting solution I know: citizen-funded elections. Under the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by more than 130 members of Congress, money from special interests would be replaced by small donations from constituents and matching federal funds. Matching funds, raised through a fee on large-scale government contracts, would go to serious, hardworking candidates who demonstrate a broad base of public support and who say no to large donations."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 05, 2010
NewsMax: High Court's Campaign Ruling Gives Unions New Clout
From NewsMax: "The Supreme Court’s recent blockbuster decision on support for political candidates could increase union clout in campaigns, even though most of the arguments about the controversial ruling focuses on the leverage it gives corporations."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Compilation of U.S. Senator Statements on Citizens Unitedq
Rick Hasen provides a very useful link to this website, which is tracking U.S. Senator statements on Citizens United. (The compilation is a Defenders of Wildlife project.)
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Press Release: Lofgren Bill Would Block Harassing Robocalls
According to this press release, "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the bipartisan Robocall Privacy Act of 2010 with co-sponsors Melissa Bean (D-IL), John Campbell (R-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), and Grace Napolitano (D-CA). The bill imposes criminal fines on entities that (1) make political robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. or (2) make more than two political robocalls to the same number in the same day. These sanctions would not apply if a robocall includes the name of its sponsor at the beginning of the call, along with a telephone number for the sponsor of the robocall."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Reform Group Continues Assault on FEC
The self-styled "reform" interest group, Campaign Legal Center, today issued a press release dressed up as a letter to President Obama, urging him to nominate new FEC Commissioners. As their press release indicates, and as they've said many times before (this time, though, the Citizens United decision brings a new immediacy to the "problem"), "the three Republican FEC Commissioners have repeatedly imposed their own ideological agenda rather than enforce laws enacted by Congress, with the result that our nation’s campaign finance laws have been undermined time and again." There are "three lame-duck, holdover Commissioners" that could be replaced at any time. Problem is, two of these "lame-ducks" are Democrats.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
National Journal: Lawmakers: Repower The DNC, RNC
National Journal's blog has this piece, reporting that "House Administration Ranking Member Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said efforts to grant national political parties greater sway in elections may be an area where the parties can work together on campaign finance legislation. . . . [Former Democratic FEC Chairman Robert] Lenhard said that if Congress repeals the limits on how much national political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, the influence balance may shift away from corporations."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Indian Country Today: Campaign finance ruling impacts tribes
From Indian Country Today: "Tribal observers largely said the outcome could negatively impact tribes, as few have the kinds of influence with lawmakers as corporations and unions have. By lessening restrictions on those groups, many said the court has made it all the more difficult for tribes to be heard in the American political system."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Center For American Progress Details Possible Legislative Responses to Citizens United
Alex DeMots of the Center For American Progress explains several possible legislative reponses to the Citizens United decision. (DeMots previously served on Commissioner Lenhard's staff at the FEC.)
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
ABC: White House Prepares for Possibility of 2 Supreme Court Vacancies; SCOTUS Watchers Believe Justices Stevens and Ginsburg Could Decide to Step Aside
ABC News reports "Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring. Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Justice Thomas Speaks About Citizens United
The New York Times reports "In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision. . . . 'I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,' Justice Thomas said. 'These are corporations.'"
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Norm Eisen Defends President's SOTU Remarks Regarding Citizens United Decision
White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen has this posting defending the President's criticism of the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union address.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Sen. Hatch: Obama 'wrong' on campaign finance
Senator Hatch has this op-ed in Politico.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Heritage: Can U.S. Senators Be Recalled?
In short, no. From the Heritage Foundation's website: "Popular Web sites to the contrary, the recall of members of the U.S. Congress has never been permissible according to the Constitution, and no member of the Congress has ever been removed by such means. That’s because the U.S. Constitution sets the qualifications and terms for being a member of the House or Senate; changing those qualifications or terms (as in making them subject to a recall) is unconstitutional and would require a constitutional amendment."
Click here to read the entire post.
|
 |