The Militant, weekly newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, has this front-page story in its May 13 issue, explaining and celebrating the recent decision of the Federal Elections Commission to continue the party’s exemption from reporting its campaign contributors and how it spends its money.
On May 1, George McDonald, a Republican candidate for Mayor of New York city, lost his lawsuit over whether the amount of money an individual may contribute to a Mayoral candidate is $41,000 or $4,950. McDonald v New York City Campaign Finance Board, 100038/2013, New York County.
New York state law sets the donation limit at $41,000, but the city’s own campaign finance law sets it at $4,950. McDonald argued that it is legitimate for the city to impose the lower limit on candidates who qualify for public funding (a city program), but the lower amount cannot be imposed on candidates not participating in public funding. The city has used public funding for city office since 1988. The city amended its public financing law in 2004 to impose the lower limits on all candidates, not just participating candidates. Here is a more detailed story about the decision, which includes a link to the decision.
On May 3, the Florida legislature passed HB 7013. Here is a copy of the bill. Go to the end of the document to see a summary of all the changes.
The bill moves the presidential primary from January to March. It moves the non-presidential primary from early August to late August. It does not include the provision that would have relaxed the duration of membership requirement for candidates to run in a party primary. Because section 99.021 was not amended in HB 7013, the restriction passed in 2011, saying candidates cannot run in a party primary if they have been members of another party during the preceding year, remains in place.
If any qualified political party passes a bylaw contradicting the state law, and saying candidates can run in that party’s primary even if they were members of another party in the past, the party would probably win the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that states cannot tell parties that may not nominate a non-member. Duration of party membership laws have been struck down in Colorado and New Mexico.
Great Britain held local elections on May 2. Here is an interesting article about the results. The UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) made such substantial gains, it is becoming less and less meaningful to say that Britain just has two major parties. Thanks to Nathan Hetzel for the link.
As noted earlier, on March 19, a U.S. District Court in Arizona had upheld the state’s voter registration forms. Even though Arizona provides mandatory primaries to five political parties, the state’s voter registration forms only have three checkboxes, labeled “Democratic”, “Republican” and “other.” There is a short blank line next to the “other” checkbox, so that voters can either write in “independent” or the name of some other party, qualified or not. The case is Arizona Libertarian Party v Bennett, 4:11cv-856.
The Libertarian and Green Parties had asked for reconsideration on April 15. On April 22, the judge asked the state to respond to the request for reconsideration. On May 3, the state courteously responded that it had no objection to the request for rehearing and the additional evidence that had been submitted with the reconsideration request. The fact that the judge asked the state to respond is encouraging; most requests for reconsideration are simply denied.
