[EL] Citizens-U, prospectively

Wed Feb 29 16:35:16 PST 2012

The now GOP-controlled Alabama Legislature amended the Fair Campaign
Practices Act last year to add the following definition and regulations:

§ 17-5-2

(4) ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION. Any communication disseminated through
any federally regulated broadcast media, any mailing, or other
distribution, electronic communication, phone bank, or publication which
(i) contains the name or image of a candidate; (ii) is made within 120 days
of an election in which the candidate will appear on the ballot; (iii) the
only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the presentation and content of
the communication is that it is intended to influence the outcome of an
election; and (iv) entails an expenditure in excess of one thousand dollars
($1,000).

§ 17-5-8

(h) In connection with any electioneering communication paid for by a
person, nonprofit corporation, entity, principal campaign committee, or
other political committee or entity, the payor shall disclose its
contributions and expenditures in accordance with this section. The
disclosure shall be made in the same form and at the same time as is
required of political action committees in this section; provided, however,
no duplicate reporting shall be required by a political committee.

(i) Notwithstanding any disclosure requirements of subsection (h), churches
are exempt from the requirements of this section unless the church's
expenditures are used to influence the outcome of an election. Nothing
herein shall require a church to disclose the identities, donations, or
contributions of members of the church. As used in this section, the term
church is defined in accordance with and recognized by Internal Revenue
Service guidelines and regulations.

(j) Notwithstanding the disclosure requirements of this section, the
provisions of this section shall not be interpreted to nor shall they
require any disclosure for expenses incurred for any electioneering
communication used by any membership or trade organization to communicate
with or inform its members, its members' families, or its members'
employees.

(k) The corporate contribution limits contained in Sections 10A-21-1.02,
10A-21-1.03, and 10A-21-1.04 shall not apply in any respect to an
electioneering communication; provided, however, the corporate contribution
limits contained in Sections 10A-21-1.02, 10A-21-1.03, and 10A-21-1.04
shall continue in force and effect for contributions by corporations to
principal campaign committees, political committees, and to political
parties.

§ 17-5-12

(a) Any paid political advertisement or electioneering communication
appearing in any print media or broadcast on any electronic media shall
clearly and distinctly identify the entity responsible for paying for the
advertisement or electioneering communication. ...

Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108, PMB 304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
  still at votelaw.com
  www.votelaw.com/blog
  www.edwardstill.com
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Roy Schotland
<schotlan at law.georgetown.edu>wrote:

>  Interesting exchanges were here recently about media treatment of CU,
> which some would say over-demonized it, bad as the opinion is.
>      Today, only a few sentences at the end below about what's behind us--
> but first about Disclosure.
>
> The pending new "DISCLOSE" bill, now free of the fatal flaws in the
> version tried when the House was Democratic, faces a tough turf in
> Congress.  But aren't the odds for fine *state *statutes favorable in at
> least a notable number of significant States?  Most State law is obsolete,
> requiring disclosure only for funds sponsoring Magic Words ads.  When I ask
> "What State has an effective statute?", I'm sent to ones that turn out to
> be limited to Magic Words or are otherwise ineffective.  So far as I've
> been able to find, Maryland adopted the best recent statute-- but it was
> amended right after enactment, restoring the Magic Words requirement.
>      Of course state law can't do what the Feds can do, but disclosure in
> several significant States would be huge on its own and have powerful
> ripples.
>      Question 1:  which State(s) if any has a statute that requires
> disclosure of fudning sources for independent spending?  At very least for
> all broadcast but hopefully also mass mailings, robocalls, etrc.  ...?
>      Question 2:  in which if any States are efforts pending to get such a
> statute?
>
> Last, to look back briefly at the "reception" of Citizens-U:  It hasn't
> been only the media that, to use Justin Levitt's perfect words, were
> “disproportionately
>
> rabid[,] . . . over-overwrought."
> No less a scholar than Ronald Dworkin wrote of  *The Decision That
> Threatens Democracy *(ignoring that half our 50 States allowed corporate
> spending --were those States not democracies?).
>
>       Adam Liptak, almost immediately after CU came down, wrote in the
> Columbia Law School Magazine, quoting several Columbia profs, that "the
> central holding ... was neither as revolutionary nor as consequential as
> some critics claimed....  The floodgates ... [had been] already open."
> Later Rick Hasen put it so well:  "[CU] makes 'the ask' so much easier."
> (For excerpts, see 20 Corn.J.L.&P.P. 753.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120229/3bc4c246/attachment.html>