 |
| English: Karl Rove Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Something big happened in Richmond last week -- and a couple millionaires and billionaires are hoping you didn't notice.
The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed last week that groups like the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS should have to disclose exactly who's behind the millions of dollars they're spending to influence this election.
They're going to try to avoid this for as long as they can. After all, they have a vested interest in being able to spend millions anonymously to influence our elections -- many of the corporations and individuals funding their organizations don't want their agendas to receive scrutiny from the press or the public.
We can make sure they don't get away with hiding these donors -- or their agendas. But it's going to take a lot of us standing up, putting our foot down, and saying "Hell no."
We've put together a petition demanding that these secret front groups disclose for the country exactly who their donors are. Do what these guys won't do: Let the country know exactly what you stand for by adding your name today.
Ask yourself: Don't we all have a right to know exactly which corporations and individuals are spending millions in attack ads to influence elections -- and what their agendas are?
If you agree, add your name today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Disclose-Your-Donors
More soon,
Messina
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
The Decision:
THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION, INC., f/k/a The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; United States Department of Justice, Defendants–Appellees.
Democracy 21; The Campaign Legal Center, Amici Supporting Appellees.
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; United States Department of Justice, Defendants–Appellees.
Democracy 21; The Campaign Legal Center, Amici Supporting Appellees.
Decided: June 12, 2012.
Background: Political advocacy organization commenced action against Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging that FEC regulations and enforcement policy chilled its rights, under First and Fifth Amendments, to disseminate information about presidential candidate's position on abortion. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, James R. Spencer, Chief Judge, 2008 WL 4416282, denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff appealed. The United States Court of Appeals, Niemeyer, Circuit Judge, 575 F.3d 342, affirmed. The Supreme Court, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2371, 176 L.Ed.2d 764, granted certiorari, vacated and remanded. The United States Court of Appeals, Niemeyer, Circuit Judge, 607 F.3d 355, remanded. On remand, the District Court, James R. Spencer, Chief Judge, 796 F.Supp.2d 736, found the regulations constitutional Organization appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Niemeyer, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) FEC regulation defining statutory term “expressly advocating” was not unconstitutionally vague;
(2) FEC regulation defining statutory term “expressly advocating” did not violate First Amendment; and
(3) FEC's multi-factored approach to deciding political committee status was not unconstitutionally overbroad.
Affirmed.
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
*1 The Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. (formerly known as The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.), a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under § 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide “accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama,” commenced this action against the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, contending that it was “chilled” from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation and a Commission policy relating to whether Real Truth has to make disclosures or is a “political committee” (commonly referred to as a political action committee or PAC). Real Truth asserts that it is not subject to regulation but fears the Commission could take steps to regulate it because of the vagueness of 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) and the policy of the Commission to determine whether an organization is a PAC by applying the “major purpose” test on a case-by-case basis, as published at 72 Fed.Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007). It alleges that the regulation and policy are unconstitutionally broad and vague, both facially and as applied to it, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
No comments:
Post a Comment