Libertarian Party Sues Federal Election Commission over Contribution Limits as Applied to Bequests

On March 17, the Libertarian National Committee filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia against the part of the McCain-Feingold law that limits how much money a political party may receive in any one calendar year from a bequest from a deceased individual. Here is the complaint. The case is Libertarian National Committee v Federal Election Commission, cv11-562.

Raymond Burrington, a resident of Tennessee, died on April 26, 2007. His will left $217,734 to the Libertarian Party. The McCain-Feingold law limits contributions to national committees of political parties to $30,800 per year, and no exception is made for bequests. The party cannot receive its bequest now, but can only receive the allowed annual amount in any given year. In the meantime most of the bequest sits in a trust account. The justification for limits on how much money anyone can give to a party is that if there were no limit, a wealthy individual might bribe a member of Congress, or the President, by promising to give a very large amount of money to that office-holder’s political party. The U.S. Supreme Court has not recognized any other legal justification for such limits. The lawsuit argues that the justification for limits makes no sense when the donor is deceased.

The lawsuit also challenges the part of the McCain-Feingold law that has been interpreted to make it illegal for political parties to ask for large bequests. The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an Obama appointee.

U.S. District Court Holds Hearing in California Case on Party Label Discrimination

On March 21, U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright heard Chamness v Bowen, 2:11-cv-1479, in Los Angeles. This is the federal lawsuit that challenges the part of California’s top-two system that doesn’t permit members of unqualified parties to list their party preference on any ballot. The law also forbids any candidate to describe himself or herself as an independent. The plaintiff, Michael Chamness, is a candidate in an upcoming special congressional election. He is a registered member of the Coffee Party but he is being forced to have “no party preference” on the ballot. He is seeking injunctive relief, so an opinion should be out in a few days.

The judge seemed uncomfortable with this case, and suggested that party labels on the ballot are not important, because candidates can describe themselves in the Voters Pamphlet. He also suggested that party labels are not important because perhaps most voters vote according to whether they recognize the name of the candidate. However, many federal and state precedents suggest that ballot labels are very important when voters choose whom to vote for.

Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that express this idea are Cook v Gralike, and Anderson v Martin. Cook v Gralike struck down a Missouri law that placed on the ballot, next to the name of all candidates for Congress and state legislature, a label telling that candidate’s position on amending the U.S. Constitution to impose congressional term limits. Anderson v Martin struck down a Louisiana law that said the race of each candidate should be printed on the ballot. Both laws were unconstitutional, because they were designed to injure certain candidates, relative to other candidates. Both decisions were unanimous.

Former Democratic Congressional Nominee Files Petitions to Run in Special Election as Tea Party Nominee

Jack Davis, a former Democratic candidate for the U.S. House in New York, is running in the May 24 special election to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 26th district. He has just filed an independent candidate petition, with the party label “Tea Party.” He submitted over 12,000 signatures to meet the requirement of 3,500 signatures. New York ballots contain a party logo for each party. The Davis logo is the Liberty Bell, which was also the old logo of the Liberal Party when it was on the ballot 1944 through 2002.

His campaign web page is http://jackdavis.org. He is a wealthy person who won the U.S. Supreme Court case Davis v F.E.C., which struck down the “millionaires’ amendment”. The law that was declared unconstitutional in that case said that when any candidate for Congress spends at least $350,000 of his or her own money, then the ceiling on how much money can be contributed to the opponents in the race is substantially relaxed.

Indiana Legislature Shut Down by Boycott of All House Democrats

The Indiana legislature is unable to pass bills this session, because all the Democrats in the House have boycotted the session for the last month. A similar Democratic boycott in Wisconsin got much more national publicity, and is now over. See this story about the Indiana legislature. The deadline for bills to have passed their house of origin has passed. If the Democrats come back, though, that deadline might be altered.

Election law bills that are technically dead this year include a bill to require birth certificates for presidential candidates, a bill to eliminate the straight-ticket device, and a bill to provide that the open primary should become a secret open primary (currently, any voter can choose any party’s primary ballot, but the voter on primary day must publicly disclose which ballot he or she is requesting; the bill would make that decision private).