Subject: Re: [EL] Question(s) for the listserve
From: Steve Hoersting
Date: 11/15/2010, 7:56 AM
To: Paris Nelson
CC: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

Paris:

It is all the rage to point out how imprecise the Buckley Court was in defining major purpose.  And the point is correct, as far as it goes.  But there is a school of thought, to which I adhere, that the determination should be as objective as possible -- and not turn on intent or the eye of the (regulatory) beholder.  Remember, "major purpose" exists to shield from stringent regulation groups that make politics a minor part of what they do.

Even for those organizations that claim a "electoral" or "campaign" activity as their purpose on organizational documents (think IRS 527; tax law is not First Amendment law) the test should include an established pattern of overall spending on campaign activity before the group can be required to register. 

Categories of campaign activity are express advocacy, GOTV, and the like.

As to where "small" begins and ends in the 10th Circuit, I defer to friends at IJ.

Steve



On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Paris Nelson <Paris.Nelson@sos.state.co.us> wrote:

Rick,

Would you be so kind as to send the following two questions out to the listserve? I would appreciate it!

Thanks. -Paris

 

Two (unrelated) questions:

 

1.       Is anyone aware of a good definition of “major purpose” as applied to political committees, in either in law or simply proposed? Language used in other contexts (in election law or otherwise) is helpful, as well.

 

2.       As many of you are probably aware, the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling last week rendering our definition of “issue committee” unconstitutional as a violation of the freedom of association, but the Court did not provide much guidance to us as to where the line is for “small” groups that are not subject to the law. Do other states have standards for what constitutes a “small” issues committee that is exempt from disclosure laws? Any ideas as to what a federal court might consider tolerable? Our threshold (struck down) is currently $200 raised or spent supporting or opposing an issue, and that is clearly too low.

 

Any guidance would be much appreciated. You may email me directly at paris.nelson@sos.state.co.us, or reply to the list. Thanks in advance!

 

Paris

 

Paris Nelson

Elections Division - Campaign Finance Legal Specialist

Colorado Secretary of State's Office

(303) 894-2200

paris.nelson@sos.state.co.us

 

Please note:  The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto is meant to provide only limited guidance regarding the interpretation of Colorado campaign finance laws and regulations. Nothing in this message shall be considered legal advice. The Colorado Secretary of State's office cannot provide legal advice. If you need legal counsel, please consult an attorney.

 


_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law




--
Steve Hoersting
CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 West Street South
Suite 201
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
SHoersting@campaignfreedom.org
www.campaignfreedom.org
(703) 894-6800 phone