Taking a page out of Orwell’s novel 1984, the Ohio Elections Commission operates as a modern “Ministry of Truth’ — with the power to “determine” and “proclaim” the truth or falsity of every statement made during an Ohio political campaign. Our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the government has no legitimate role whatsoever to play
Representing Alaska Senate candidate Joseph Miller’s campaign committee, Bill Olson appeared before the Federal Election Commission today to answer questions about the facts underlying Advisory Opinion Request No. 13-11 filed by the firm on the campaign’s behalf. After a lengthy discussion, the FEC approved the Advisory Opinion on a 5-1 vote. The Commission ruled that the Committee’s
Incumbent Congressmen must not be allowed to make it extremely difficult to challenge them for re-election, as they have done since 1971 by use of campaign finance laws.
Today we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Free Speech Coalition, Inc., Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc.,
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Shelby County, Alabamav. Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner.
Our amicus brief argues that Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) of 1965, as amended in 2006, exceeds the powers vested in Congress by either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment. Further, Sections 4(b) and 5 of the
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of William P. Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari.
Our brief argues that the petition should be granted because the court below failed to apply the categorical First Amendment right of corporate entities to engage in political speech
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Center for Individual Freedom, et al. v. Chris Van Hollen, et al. in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in support of appellants and reversal.
Our brief argues that the BCRA section 201 provision requiring disclosure of the names and addresses of all contributors who contributed an aggregate of $1,000 or more
Today, we submitted a challenge to the Oklahoma Republican Party’s election of delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention in violation of party rules.
We are representing four individuals, each of whom represents the interests of large groups of other Oklahoma Republicans:
Steve Dickson, as a duly-credentialed delegate to the Oklahoma State Republican Convention held
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC, et al. v. Ken Bennett in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners.
Our brief argues that the Arizona system of public financing of campaigns for election to public office, the Arizona Citizens Clean Election Act, is unconstitutional to its core. Contrary to the analysis of the
Our firm prepared this Analysis of the DISCLOSE Act (S. 3295) on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition to explain the following sections of the DISCLOSE Act that are likely to be of primary concern by member organizations:
Section 103. Treatment of payments for coordinated communications as contributions.
Section 201. Independent expenditures.
Section 202. Electioneering communications.
On May 10, 2010, on behalf of 12 organizations, the firm filed an Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court of New Jersey supporting the efforts of the plaintiff, the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez From the Office of U.S. Senator.
On November 2, 1993, by an overwhelming majority, the people of New Jersey enacted an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution which allows the people to recall their representatives
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of appellant Citizens United on a supplemental question. The amicus brief urges that Citizens United’s challenge to federal regulation of electioneering communications be sustained, and the decisions in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce andMcConnell v. FEC, as applied to BCRA
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
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
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
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