Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It would appear the U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ with U.S. District Court Judge James Teilborg's ruling in an Arizona campaign finance case. Portion of campaign finance law overturned:

In 2011, Galassini sent an e-mail to 23 Fountain Hills residents
making them aware of the road-bond proposal, asking them to write
letters to a local newspaper and naming two street-corner protests where
recipients were encouraged to show up with signs to make passers-by
aware of their opposition.

Galassini then received a letter from Town Clerk Bev Bender saying
Galassini needed to file a statement of organization in the Town Clerk’s
Office before any electioneering takes place “if any additional person
or persons join the effort.” After receiving the letter, Galassini told
Bender she would stop all e-mails and not hold a rally.

Galassini asked the court to declare unconstitutional the portion of
state campaign-finance law that requires groups that speak about ballot
issues and accept or expend less than $500 to file as political
committees.

In his order, [U.S. District Court Judge James] Teilborg said the definition of political committee is
“overbroad because it sweeps in a substantial amount of protected speech
that the state does not have an important interest in regulating.”

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint today against the "Kochtopus" dark money organization Freedom Partners Chambers of Commerce, Inc. Press release from Crew:

CREW Calls on IRS to Clarify Rules for 501(c)(6) Groups and Investigate Freedom

Washington, D.C. — Following up on a
lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for its failure to
properly regulate groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax
code, today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington (CREW) filed a
rulemaking petition (.pdf) asking the agency to
clarify regulations and rein in abuses by 501(c)(6) organizations.

Section 501(c)(6) of the tax code provides tax-exempt status for
organizations such as business leagues, chambers of commerce, and boards
of trade.  Recognizing “business league” to be an ambiguous phrase, in
1919, the IRS defined it as an “association of persons” with a “common
business interest, whose purpose is to promote the common business
interest.”  Taking advantage of the fact that the IRS has never provided
guidance as to what activities serve the common business interests,
501(c)(6)s increasingly are serving as vehicles for wealthy groups and
individuals to funnel anonymous or “dark” money to other tax-exempt
organizations to influence elections.  Section 501(c)(6) groups reported
spending more than $46 million on federal campaigns in 2010, and more
than $55 million in 2012.

“If there’s a loophole in the tax code, it’s a sure thing that
someone will take advantage of it,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie
Sloan.  “If the IRS fails to act, Americans should expect to see an
increase in the number of so-called ‘business leagues’ created to funnel
money into our elections while cloaking the identities of their
donors.”

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against HB2593 (new higher campaign contribution limits) in a ruling in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. v. The Honorable Mark H. Brain, and real parties in interest (.pdf).

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature never tires of pissing away taxpaper dollars on litigation to defend its unconstituional acts, so naturally our Tea-Publican legislature has filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court challenging the preliminary injunction (the Court of Appeals sent the case in chief back to the trial court for a decision on the merits). The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Lawmakers ask state Supreme Court to reinstate new contribution limits:

Senate President Andy Biggs and House
Speaker Andy Tobin asked the Arizona Supreme Court to lift an injunction
against new campaign contribution limits passed by the Legislature.

Attorney Mike Liburdi, who represents Biggs and Tobin, argued that
the Arizona Court of Appeals erred when it determined that voters
intended to fix campaign contribution limits permanently when they
approved the Citizens Clean Elections Act in 1998. He also told the high
court that it should reinstate the higher new contribution limits
contained in HB2593 because the old limits are unconstitutionally low.

The crux of the dispute over HB2593 is a provision in the Clean
Elections Act that reduces the contribution limits from a separate
statute by 20 percent. Opponents of the new limits argue that the voters
intended that reduction to set new contribution limits in perpetuity.

* * *

The Court of Appeals sent part of the
case back to the trial court, where it instructed Maricopa County
Superior Court Judge Mark Brain to hear arguments on whether Arizona’s
contribution limits are unconstitutionally low. Liburdi asked the
Arizona Supreme Court to determine whether the plaintiffs or the
defendants have the burden of proof in those arguments.