On September 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, had struck down federal campaign rules that tell non-profit groups that they cannot receive more than $5,000 from an individual, if the money is to be used for that non-profit’s own ad, commenting on a candidate for federal office. The case was Emily’s List v Federal Election Commission.

On December 17, the Solicitor General of the United States said that he will not appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.

The government hopes to vitiate the Emily’s List precedent, by winning a very similar lawsuit called Speechnow.org v FEC. That case has an en banc hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, on January 27, 2010. Speechnow.org is a group that wants to make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates for federal office who uphold free speech. As in the case of Emily’s List, Speechnow.org wants to raise unlimited funds from individuals to help pay for its ads. The U.S. District Court had ruled against Speechnow.org on July 1, 2008. The case is going directly from U.S. District Court to the entire panel of full-time judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals. If the FEC wins in the U.S. Court of Appeals en banc, that precedent will overshadow the Emily’s List precedent, because the Emily’s List precedent is an ordinary appellate decision from a normal 3-judge panel.

By the time all the judges of the D.C. circuit hear Speechnow.org on January 27, chances are that the U.S. Supreme Court will have put out a decision in yet another campaign finance case, called Citizens United v FEC.

On December 16, the last brief was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v Reed, 09-559, the case over whether governments should release the names and addresses of people who sign petitions. The Court will consider whether the hear this case at its January 8, 2010 conference, although it won’t tell the public what it decided until January 11, 2010.

Here is the Washington state government’s brief, which argues that the names and addresses should be released because they aren’t really private anyway, since some sheets are circulated in public places, so that some people see some of the names in any event. Also it argues that it is necessary to let the names and addresses be public for the benefit of people who wish to contest the Secretary of State’s decision that the petition has enough valid names.

Here is the brief of Washington Families Standing Together, which intervened in the case on the side of the Secretary of State. It argues that the Court shouldn’t take the case because of procedural problems with taking it now.

Here is the response brief of the petition-signers who don’t want their names and addresses released to the public. It belittles the state’s argument that because there is inevitably some exposure of the names and addresses in limited situations, that therefore privacy is not a factor. It points out that when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1950’s that states may not force the NAACP to reveal its donor list and its members, in that situation there were already a relatively small number of people (mostly within the NAACP) who would see the list in any event.

Here is the first brief, filed by the proponents of privacy, back on November 7, 2009. This is the brief that opened this round of briefs, set forth what the case is about, and made the initial argument as to why the Court should hear the case. If the Court refuses to hear the case, then the Secretary of State will be free to release the 136,000 names and addresses of the people who signed the Referendum Petition to force a vote on the Washington state civil-unions law.