Today, on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. and the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Jeremiah Morgan of our firm testified before the Federal Election Commission at its Hearings on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Definition of “Electioneering Communications.”
Today, we filed comments with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) on behalf of Free Speech Coalition and Free Speech Defense and Education Fund (“FSC/FSDEF”) regarding the FEC’s proposed rulemaking in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25, 2007 decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL II). That decision upheld WRTL’s unrestricted right to publish issue ads during pre‑election periods, so long as it did not engage in “express advocacy or its functional equivalent.”
Today we filed a Brief Amicus Curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. The brief asks the Court to reconsider its prior holdings in the McConnell and Buckley cases, and to strike down the Congressional ban on “electioneering communications.” (We had previously filed an amicus brief in support of Wisconsin Right to Life when the case came before the Court last year.)
The Free Speech Coalition (“FSC”) and Free Speech Defense and Education Fund (“FSDEF”) filed these Comments with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) on Friday, September 30, 2005, in connection with the FEC’s consideration of regulations with respect to the definition of “electioneering communication.”
On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, we filed comments with the Federal Election Commission opposing the proposed expansion of the definition of political committees to include potentially thousands of nonprofit organizations.
With 12 consolidated cases challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and only four appellant lawyers permitted to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court today, we were not permitted to present our case to the Court except through our written briefs.
We were pleased, however, that three of the issues which we litigated were repeatedly addressed during the oral argument in questions posed by the Justices:
Today we filed our Response of Appellants, Congressman Ron Paul, et al., in Opposition to Allocation of Oral Argument Time Proposed in Motion for Divided Argument of Certain Aligned Appellants. We previously asked the Supreme Court for 20 minutes of the four-hour oral argument time, while certain other appellants asked that we, and a few other appellants including the NRA, be given none of the oral argument time.
On June 11, the Federal Election Commission held hearings on Enforcement Procedures, and Bill Olson testified for both the Free Speech Coalition and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund about needed enforcement reforms.
Link to transcript
Our firm submitted comments on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund relating to proposed changes to Federal Election Commission enforcement procedures.
Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gun Owners of America, Inc., English First, and U.S. Justice Foundation in support of respondents Christine Beaumont, et al. urging the Court to affirm the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that struck down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (FECA’s) ban on contributions by certain incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups in federal elections as unconstitutional.
Today we filed our initial brief on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, RealCampaignReform.org, Citizens United, Citizens United Political Victory Fund, Michael Cloud, and Carla Howell in their challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
Today we filed the following testimony of our fact witnesses inPaul, et al. v. FEC, et al. challenging the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act: