| Advisory opinion request regarding the application of La. R.S. 18:1505.2K following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. |
|
The Fund for Louisiana Future (FLF) is a registered Louisiana political committee. FLF seeks to raise unlimited donations and make unlimited independent expenditures to support and oppose Louisiana state candidates in the 2014 elections. The organization seeks to raise contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other business entities, all in unlimited amounts.
FLF does not make contributions to, or coordinated expenditures with, candidates, political party committees, or other political committees, nor will its expenditures be made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of any candidates, their political committees or agents in connection with Louisiana state elections.
There is discussion of several federal cases and specifically the case of Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), where the Courts has reasoned that it is a violation of First Amendment rights to limit independent expenditures made by corporations. Citizens United was a non-profit corporation who received money through donations by individuals and for-profit corporations. Citizens wanted to distribute a free movie on Hillary Clinton to cable subscribers. The video was to be available 30 days before the primary election.
Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make expenditures for speech identified as an electioneering communication or speech expressly advocating for the defeat of a candidate. It is a felony for a corporation to to expressly advocate the defeat or support for a candidate within 30 days of the primary. Under Federal law, televised electioneering communications funded by anyone other than the candidate must include a disclaimer. It must state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee and display the name of the group who funded the advertisement. Any person who spends more than $10,000 must file disclosure reports.
United Citizens argued that the federal law was unconstitutional where it limited the quantity and effectiveness of the group's speech.
It argued that the disclosure requirements must be confined to speech that is express advocacy. Citizens United also asks the Court to carve out an exception to the federal law's expenditure ban for nonprofit corporate political speech funded overwhelmingly by individuals.
FEC argued that corporate independent expenditures can be limited because they can be shown to cause corruption.
FEC argued that donations by for-profit corporation were de minimis as to render them negligible. The FEC also argued that corporate independent expenditures can be limited because of the interest in protecting dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate political speech.
The Supreme Court reasoned that independent expenditure have a "substantially diminished potential for abuse".Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption and the government lacked a compelling basis to bar particular speakers from sponsoring corporations.
The Pac listed several Circuit cases where the Courts have stated that not only independent expenditures made by corporations should not be limited but also contributions to independent expenditure-only committees do not pose a threat or present matters of corruption, a recent Fifth Circuit case that struck down a Texas law limiting contributions to IE -only entities on October 16, 2013.
In Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission, Texans for Free Enterprise( "TFE"), an IE -only political committee, challenged a Texas law which bans corporate contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures. In adopting the same rationale as other Circuits, the Fifth Circuit stated that it agrees with the other Circuits and finds that no apparent or actual corruption exist by banning an organization from engaging in advocacy and banning it from seeking funds to engage in advocacy (or in giving funds to either an organization to allow them to engage in advocacy on its behalf). The Court held that the challenged law were incompatible with the First Circuit.
|
|
18:1483(14)(a)(i) provides that political committee" means two or more persons, other than a husband or wife, and any corporation organized for the primary purpose of supporting or opposing one or more candidates, propositions, recalls of a public officer, or political parties which accepts contributions in the name of the committee, or makes expenditures from committee funds or in the name of the committee, or receives or makes loans in an aggregate amount in excess of fine hundred dollars within a calendar year.
18:1501.1 provides that any person who makes an expenditure in excess of $500 during the aggregating period shall file campaign finance reports.
18:1505.2k(1) provides that during a four year calendar period, no person shall contribute more than $100,000 to any political committee or any subsidiary committee of a political committee. Such limitation on a contribution shall not apply to any contribution from a national political committee to an affiliated regional or state political committee. (2) no political committee shall accept more than 100,000 from any person. (3) provisions do not apply to political parties or committee thereof.
18:1491.1 provides that each political committee which knows or anticipates that it will make expenditures in the aggregate amount exceeding five hundred dollars shall file a statement of organization with the supervisory committee annually.
18:1483(13) defines person as any individual, partnership, limited liability company or corporation, association, labor union, political committee, corporation, or other legal entity, including subsidiaries.
|
|
|
Adopt the proposed advisory opinion.
|
|
| Assigned Attorney: |
Aneatra Boykin |
|
|