Challenges
to State Campaign Finance Laws Heat Up
With
lawsuits over federal campaign finance legislation brewing, suits
involving state campaign laws are boiling over, with two recent
decisions being handed down, one involving a Massachusetts law and
the other a Mississippi statute.
In
Massachusetts, the fracas began when the state legislature refused
to appropriate additional funds necessary to implement the voter-approved
public financing scheme for state election campaigns, referred to
as the Clean Elections Law (see Massachusetts
Campaign Finance Reform Melee). Advocates of the referendum
subsequently sued the state in an attempt to force the legislature
to set aside the money. The court has issued a few intermediary
rulings in an apparent attempt to force the legislative branch to
either repeal the law or fund it. The legislature has done neither.
Although a fund to make the payments has more than $23 million available,
lawmakers have refused to release the money because of a feared
budget deficit of $2 billion next year.
Taking
the matter back into its own hands, on April 5, 2002, the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that state property must be auctioned
to provide public funding for candidates who qualify under the law,
which goes into effect for the first time this election cycle.
As
stated in the decision penned by Judge Martha B. Sosman, "The
Legislature has, for whatever reason, chosen to respond to this
constitutional crisis with brinkmanship rather than
statesmanship."
In
a bizarre twist, the court has given the power to the plaintiffs
(which include several groups such as Massachusetts Voters for Clean
Elections) to decide precisely what state properties should be sold.
The attorney general has provided a list of suitable parcels, including
abandoned state hospitals, an old clock tower, and state office
buildings.
However,
the plaintiffs have chosen a list of property calculated to embarrass
their foes. According to the Boston Globe, they want to start
selling the office furniture and equipment out from under the legislators
who opposed funding the law, including the house speaker and majority
leader. In addition, the next items on their list to be sold include
the lawmakers state-owned vehicles and parking spaces. The
attorney general must first approve their crafty plan and it is
unclear whether it will pass legal muster.
The
other court decision on campaign finance, not as colorful, but even
more important, was issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
and involves a Mississippi statute governing financial disclosures
during elections.
In
Chamber of Commerce v. Moore, a unanimous three-judge panel
of the Court of Appeals struck down a lower courts ruling
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not exempt from state reporting
requirements for campaign expenditures. Holding that the reporting
requirements violated the groups First Amendment free speech
rights, the court ruled that, "The government may regulate
only those communications containing explicit words advocating the
election or defeat of a particular candidate." The decision
closely mirrors the Supreme Courts 1976 landmark decision,
Buckley v. Valeo, and opinions from five other circuit courts.
The
appellate court decision means that the Chamber does not have to
report how much it spent running several issue ads during Mississippis
judicial elections because the ads did not expressly advocate for
or against specific candidates.
The Center and others challenging the federal campaign finance law
are hopeful that this ruling is a sign of things to come. Part of
the legal challenge to the federal law relates to Congress
attempt to ban issue ads, much like those run by the Chamber, 60
days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
To
read the Fifth Circuits ruling, please click
here.
[Posted
April 11, 2002]
Return
to Campaign Reform Index
|