[EL] Another great day for disclosure.

[Bill Maurer]

I add that, so far as I am aware, the PDC has pursued campaigns for failing to report pro bono legal representation in a civil rights case twice since 1972: this time regarding IJ's representation and once for a case involving a client of Jim Bopp's in 2012.  Both complaints were instituted after the PDC lost the case in federal court.

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of John White
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:36 PM
To: Mark Schmitt; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Another great day for disclosure.

The principal case was Farris v. Seabrook, 667 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012).

Here is the overview from Lexis:

OVERVIEW: Wash. Rev Code § 42.17A.405(3)<https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=cce0c265ae2aa3212058d7db652a4ba9&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b667%20F.3d%201051%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=8&_butInline=1&_butinfo=WASH.%20REV.%20CODE%2042.17A.405&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=3&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=c5743e00486deb8c2f11d9c66e6d2800> limited contributions to political committees supporting a recall. Although plaintiffs' recall efforts died before the election, their challenge fit the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness. Plaintiffs satisfied all four prongs of the standard for a preliminary injunction. In particular, plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on the merits. Like independent expenditure committees, recall committees in Washington had at most a tenuous relationship with candidates. The contribution limit was thus materially indistinguishable from the limit the court invalidated in its Long Beach decision. Recall committees did not coordinate their spending with candidates for office, and if the recall was successful, the successor was appointed by a governmental entity designated by state law. Because recall committees did not have the sort of close relationship with candidates that supported a threat of actual or apparent corruption, the State failed to identify a sufficiently important interest to justify the $800 limit on contributions to recall committees. The remaining factors also supported issuance of the injunction.

The State, by limiting the contributions to the recall committee violated its First Amendment rights, and therefore 42 U.S.C. 1983.  The permanent injunction was granted at  Farris v. Seabrook, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159220.  The committee then sought its fees under Section 1988.  The District Court denied the motion because it was untimely.

John J. White, Jr.
white at lfa-law.com<mailto:white at lfa-law.com>
(425) 822-9281 ext. 321
The contents of this message and any attachments may contain confidential information and be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protection.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message.  Thank you for your assistance.

Tax Advice Notice: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. A taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements. Please contact us if you have any questions about Circular 230 or would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these IRS rules.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]<mailto:[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]> On Behalf Of Mark Schmitt
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:18 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Another great day for disclosure.

Could one of you please provide a link to something that explains this, and why it is a civil-rights claim. I've clicked on all the links in Steve Klein's post and find nothing.
And a little googling has convinced me that Dale Warsham is a very bad guy and should be recalled, but I'm no closer to understanding the dispute as described here, or why an ordinary legal case constitutes "harassment" or "intimidation."

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
Adam, I don't understand your point.  The campaign did not receive in-kind legal services as a political contribution.  They received legal services to which they are entitled under the federal civil rights laws.  One of those laws, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988, manifests Congress's desire to have people and associations restore their federal civil rights at no cost to themselves-that is, put them (and their attorneys) back in the same position as they would have been had a state or local government not interfered with their federal civil rights in the first place.  They would not have needed to have any legal representation on the issue except a state government was depriving them of rights guaranteed to them under federal law.  I don't see how vindicating a federal right under the procedure that Congress created to vindicate federal rights to restore them to the position they were in prior to the violation of those rights can constitute an in-kind contribution to a political campaign.

In other words, it doesn't complicate the story.  It makes it simpler-it is exactly what the federal civil rights laws were designed to do.  Treating them otherwise complicates things because it creates a serious barrier to free legal representation to those whose federal civil rights have been violated just because they were exercising their fundamental First Amendment rights by participating in an election.

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Adam Bonin
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:20 AM
To: 'Steve Hoersting'; 'Steve Klein'

Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Another great day for disclosure.

I want to make sure I understand the claim here, because I guess in this case the (c)(3) is serving as counsel to a political entity, and not merely as an independent amicus?

It also seems, based on the complaint (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/Home/enforcement/status/pdfs/2013/13028.CUI.pdf), that the gravamen of the complaint is that the recall committee was seeking reimbursement for the in-kind legal services it had received, but hadn't previously disclosed those services as contributions. So that complicates the story you're trying to tell, at a minimum.

Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8002<tel:%28215%29%20864-8002> (w)
(215) 701-2321<tel:%28215%29%20701-2321> (f)
(267) 242-5014<tel:%28267%29%20242-5014> (c)
adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>
http://www.boninlaw.com<http://www.boninlaw.com/>


From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]<mailto:[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]> On Behalf Of Steve Hoersting
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:30 AM
To: Steve Klein
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Another great day for disclosure.

Shocking. Wish I could say the tactic is surprising.

Well, if this policy sticks and proliferates, I can think of nothing that will better bolster the Socialist Workers exemption in administrative agencies and district courts across America. Green Party candidates pushing constitutional questions will qualify, of course; Tea Party candidates will not...

And we will all profess to be shocked again.

Steve

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com<mailto:stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>> wrote:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Apparently the Washington Public Disclosure Commission<http://wyliberty.org/feature/another-chilling-step-in-campaign-finance-disclosure/> never heard that one before<http://wyliberty.org/feature/another-chilling-step-in-campaign-finance-disclosure/>.

I heard about this yesterday, but I remain shocked. If you can't shut up the grassroots, shut down their lawyers. It's somewhat brilliant, but don't call it "reform."

--
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org<http://www.wyliberty.org>

*Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



--
Stephen M. Hoersting

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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/20130412/2ad3bfc6/attachment.html>