Jim Bopp, Jr. of Terre Haute, Indiana is an amazing constitutional lawyer.  He was the lead counsel in the Supreme Court case of Wisconsin Right to Life, the biggest Federal campaign reform case since the landmark Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.  Bopp’s arguments in Wisconsin Right to Life literally killed-off major portions of the largely senseless McCain-Feingold Federal campaign finance law "reform"  as an unconstitutional invasion of First Amendment rights.  I have had the brief opportunity to work first-hand with him in a couple Federal courtrooms, when I joined him and other California election law attorneys in arguing against and successfully enjoining Proposition 208, and later portions of the Proposition 34 election "reforms" as unconstitutional.  Jim represented California ProLife Council in those cases.

   Now Jim has done it again, here in California, representing California ProLife Council again.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion usurping significant aspects of FPPC regulation of legitimate nonprofit organizations that also seek to weigh-in on ballot measure campaigns.

   According to the Court’s ruling in California ProLife Council v. Randolph, (ruling on appeal from District Court CV-00-01698-FCD), multipurpose nonprofit organizations, such as those exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4), [but presumably also including trade associations exempt under 501(c)(6), and even charities that are exempt under Section 501(c)(3) but have taken the 501(h) election (I am showing off here)] are exempt on constitutional grounds from having to file any FPPC campaign reports as a "recipient" committee, including donor disclosures.  The groups now only have to disclose activity where they actually spend funds in express advocacy of a ballot measure.  In addition, donors to the organization that are unaware of the use of their donation for ballot measure advocacy now need not be disclosed on reports filed by the organization.  Donors who are aware of the use of their donation must be disclosed.

   The FPPC argued strenuously against the "nondisclosure" of donors to an organization that then turns around and uses their money for ballot advocacy.  They told the court that California already has a recipient committee "PAC" apparatus available for these nonprofits to segregate contributions to engage in ballot advocacy.  But the Court of Appeals didn’t buy that argument.  They firmly stated that nonprofit groups that don’t wish to assume the burden of PAC requirements should not have do so when they just occasionally wish to engage in ballot advocacy.

   The case has now been remanded to the District Court to implement the Opinion.  The FPPC will certainly consider issuing "clarifying" rules to implement the new law.  Regardless, Jim Bopp, Jr. has struck another blow in favor of Free Speech and deregulation of the massive campaign finance bureaucracy, and he and California ProLife Council deserve huge "Kudos" for his latest accomplishment.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.