The Federal Election Commission recently ruled that separate campaign contribution limits apply to candidates who seek the nomination of two different parties, if the two nomination contests are held on different days. The issue arose in 2010 in Oregon, when Arthur Robinson sought both the Republican nomination for U.S. House, and the Independent Party nomination for the same U.S. House seat.

Campaign finance laws did not permit individuals to give more than $2,400 during primary season to any particular candidate. Robinson accepted contributions from some individuals of $2,400 to help in his fight to win the Republican nomination, and additional contributions from the same donors to help Robinson with the Independent Party nomination.

The FEC ruled that Robinson was entitled to receive such contributions, because the Republican primary was not simultaneous with the Independent Party private on-line primary. The Republican Party primary was on May 18, 2010, whereas the Independent Party private-on-line primary was conducted on July 30, 2010.

In 1994, the FEC had determined that a candidate for Congress in New York who was seeking both the Republican nomination and the Conservative nomination was not entitled to receive “double” contributions. The recent FEC opinion differentiates the New York situation from 1994, and the Oregon incident in 2010, on the grounds that in New York the two parties were nominating on the same day, whereas in Oregon the two primary elections are “different elections” because they were on different days. Here is the General Counsel’s recommendation in the Oregon case, made back on June 29, 2012. The FEC has accepted that recommendation. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for this news.

Here is a copy of an executive order issued by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. It allows residents of New York city, and four particular nearby suburban counties, to vote in any precinct. However, the voter will be better off finding a precinct near his or her home, because the ballots for such displaced voters can only include offices for which that voter would have been eligible to vote, if the voter had voted in the home precinct. Thanks to Kimberly Wilder for this news.

On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily reversed both the 4th circuit, and a U.S. District Court in South Carolina, and ruled that Steve Lefemine is entitled to collect attorneys’ fees from the county government of Greenwood County, South Carolina. Here is the 4-page decision in Lefemine v Wideman, 12-168. In 2008, Lefemine had filed a lawsuit, alleging that his freedom of speech was being violated because the sheriff of Greenwood County had told him that he could not demonstrate on public sidewalks with signs showing pictures of aborted fetuses. He won the case, and the U.S. District Court issued declaratory relief, preventing him from being arrested in the future. But the U.S. District Court refused to award attorneys fees to Lefemine.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th circuit, also refused to award attorneys fees to Lefemine, but on November 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts on the attorneys fees matter and said the county must pay attorneys’ fees to Lefemine, under the federal law passed in 1976 that permits plaintiffs to recover attorneys’ fees from governments, when governments violate Civil Rights, including First Amendment rights.

Lefemine was a Constitution Party nominee for Congress or state legislature in 2000, 2001 (a special election), 2002, and 2004. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.