Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-13 City Attorney DietrickMejia, Anthony Jrom: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:32 AM To: Dietrick, Christine; Goodwin, Heather, Mejia, Anthony Subject: Election Campaign Review Committee Attachments: Election Campaign Committee 2013 10 23.pdf Attached is a memorandum from City Attorney Dietrick providing an update on the U.S. Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Hard copies will be available at the meeting. If you have any questions, please let me know. See you tomorrow. Bcc: Election Campaign Review Committee Members Anthony J. Melia I City Clerk city or min LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 8o5.781.7102 MEMORANDUM From the Office of the City Attorney October 23, 2013 TO: Election Regulations Committee Anthony Mejia, City Clerk FROM: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission on October 8, 2013 and a decision is pending, but not expected for several months. Links to the FEC's brief background summary of the case and all party and amici briefs filed are at: http: / /www.fec.jzov/ law /litigation /McCutcheon.shtmi The issues before the Court have been presented as follows: Issue: (1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non - candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 44 1 a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national party committees; and (2) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non - candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest; and (3) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non - candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially; and (4) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 44la(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest. The current limits restrict people from donating more than $123,200 to federal candidates, parties and political action committees. No more than $74,600 may be donated to parties and PACs, while no more than $48,600 may be given to candidates. This case is essentially the follow up to the Citizens United case and a June 2012, SCOTUS decision that overturned the decision of that State's Supreme Court and invalidated a 100 -year old Montana law that prohibited corporate spending in the state's election based on the application of Citizen's United. The central holding of Citizens United was that states and the federal government may restrict the amount of money corporations may contribute to an individual political candidate, they may not limit the amount of money a corporation spends on its own — independent of any candidate — to express political ideas in advertisements or other forms of political expression. There, the Court declared, "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption... The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Following on that sentiment, McCutcheon seeks to Page 2 extend the holding to invalidate the aggregate limits on contributions to party committees and candidate committees. The Supreme Court is reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals decision, which upheld the limits after D.C. Circuit Courts dismissed the case. A succinct summary and video wrap up of the issues to be decided in McCutcheon can be found at: 1ittp: / /www.washingtonpost.com /blogs /the- lix /wp/2013/1 0/08 /supreme- court - takes -up -the- sequel -to- citizens - united /. Despite the Court's recent activity to limit campaign finance regulation, limits on individual candidate contributions currently remain permissible.