According to this story, well-known Texan Matthew Dowd is mulling over whether to run as an independent candidate for U.S. Senate from Texas in 2018. He would need 47,086 valid signatures due June 28, 2018. He could not start petitioning until March 6, 2018. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
In 2015, an individual named Joseph Shaber died and left the Libertarian Party $235,575 in his will. The party was not permitted to receive the money all at once, however, because federal campaign finance law forbids an individual from giving more than $33,400 to a national committee of a political party in any one year. The purpose of the law is to prevent anyone from giving so much money to a political party as to then receive special treatment by that party’s elected officials in government, i.e., the president or members of Congress.
On January 3, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the Libertarian Party has standing to challenge the FEC decision that the party can’t accept the money all at once. The case, Libertarian National Committee v FEC, 1:16cv-121, had been filed almost a year ago. The FEC tried to argue that the party didn’t have standing because the law would have allowed it to receive the money all at once if it put it in segregated bank accounts to be used only for particular purposes. But the judge was not persuaded by this argument, and said the case can proceed.
It will be difficult for the FEC to show that there is any danger of corruption to allow a deceased individual to leave money to a party, especially a party that has never elected anyone to federal office. This is especially true in this case, because Shaber had not told the party he planned to leave a large bequest. One might theoretically argue that an individual, intent on winning special favors for himself or herself, might conceivably tell a political party that he would leave a large bequest if that party’s powerful office-holders did him or her a special favor. But when the donor doesn’t even tell the party about the will, that argument fails. Here is the 13-page order.
On January 4, Emidio Soltysik filed his brief in the Ninth Circuit in Soltysik v Padilla, 16-55758. The issue is the California law that lets some candidates for Congress and partisan state office have their party listed on the ballot, but others may not. The brief was written for the ACLU by a team of attorneys who are specialists in the First Amendment. The 59-page brief is very scholarly and should be of interest to anyone who is interested in the free speech portion of the U.S. Constitution.
California Assembly Member Kevin Mullin has introduced AB 84, to move the California primary for all office to March, in presidential years. See this story. The bill, if enacted, would have consequences for the top-two system. A system in presidential years in which all candidates for Congress and partisan state office would need to file in the year before the election would very likely be unconstitutional.
Mullin is Speaker Pro Tempore, which is the second-highest position in the California Assembly, after the Speaker.
Maine Representative Kevin Battle of South Portland has told the press that he is changing his enrollment from “Republican” to “independent.” See this story. Thanks to Tom MacMillan for the link.
