On March 26, two important campaign finance decisions were handed down by federal courts in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, ruled that committees which wish to make independent expenditures, commenting on candidates for federal office, are free to raise as much money as they wish from individuals. SpeechNow.Org v Federal Election Commission, 08-5223. The decision is from the entire panel of full-time judges on the D.C. circuit. The vote was 9-0. The decision strikes down federal laws that limit political committees to receiving no more than $5,000 from any one individual in any year. However, the decision is limited to groups that make independent expenditures. “Independent expenditures” means that the group writes and publicizes its own opinions, and does not coordinate with any particular candidate.

The decision is 21 pages. The decision upholds federal laws that require such groups to register as a political committee, set up a separate bank account for its independent expenditures about candidates, and disclose its contributors and expenditures.

The other decision of March 26 is Republican National Committee v FEC, U.S. District Court, D.C., 08-1953. It is 20 pages long. It upholds federal campaign laws that prevent anyone from giving more than a specified amount of money to political parties. The decision acknowledges that political parties are now the only groups that cannot receive unlimited amounts of contributions from individuals, for the purpose of making independent expenditures. But the judges say that the U.S. Supreme Court already upheld limits on donations to political parties in 2003, in McConnell v FEC, and that if the parties want relief, only the U.S. Supreme Court can give them any relief. The three judges in this case are Brett Kavanaugh, Richard Leon, and Rosemary Collyer, all three appointees of President George Bush, Jr.

California is the only state that prints occupations of candidates on the ballot. On March 25, John Eastman, a Republican running for Attorney General, filed a lawsuit to have “Assistant Attorney General” next to his name on the primary ballot. He is a California resident and an Assistant Attorney General in South Dakota. California’s Secretary of State refused to let Eastman have “Assistant Attorney General” as his ballot occupation. See this story.

On March 25, a California Superior Court Judge in Fairfield, Solano County, made a tentative procedural ruling in King v Robinson, the case involving the internal dispute inside the American Independent Party. The tentative ruling says the the Defendants (the Alan Keyes faction of the party) were properly served by a process server. Therefore, assuming the tentative ruling is made permanent tomorrow, the case can proceed to the merits of the dispute. UPDATE: the tentative decision was made permanent on March 26.

The tentative wording says, “Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is denied. The court finds that proper service has been carried out pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 415.20. The evidence indicates that the process server attempted to serve Defendant by calling out his name and alerting him that he had legal documents to serve him and Defendant attempted to evade service by running into the house and slamming the door. Because service has been accomplished, the court has acquired personal jurisdiction over Defendant.”