First Amendment

In Maine, Fight Over Foreign Financing Has Only Just Begun

Election Law Society · December 17, 2021 ·

By: Connor Skelly

A fight over an electrical transmission line in the Great North Woods has ignited a firestorm around the ability of foreign government owned corporations to spend money on electioneering in the state of Maine, with implications that could stretch all the way back to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

LD 194 was passed by the Maine Legislature in the wake of Hydro-Quebec, a company that is solely owned by Quebec’s provincial government, spending $10 million dollars on campaigning against a referendum that would have halted the constructed of a 145-mile transmission line that would bring the company’s electricity into Maine. While entities owned by foreign governments are already prohibited by both federal and Maine law from contributing money to candidates, a loophole still exists that allows them to contribute money in Maine’s popular referendums. LD 194 was meant to close this loophole. The bill prohibited companies with 10% or more ownership by foreign governments from contributing money in any Maine election, including referendums.

Ninth Circuit Brings Out-of-State Donors In From The Cold

Election Law Society · November 22, 2021 ·

By: Ellie Halfacre

When Wes Keller ran for re-election to the Alaska House of Representatives in 2015, his brother-in-law David Thompson tried to support his candidacy and donate $500 to the campaign. However, due to §15.13.072(e)(3) of Alaska’s elections statute, he was unable to do so. Under this law, Keller’s campaign had already received the maximum dollar amount it could accept from nonresidents—$3,000—according to the state’s restrictions on campaign contributions. Thompson, a Wisconsin resident, sued, challenging Alaska’s campaign finance laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The law that barred Thompson’s donation, §15.13.072, specified several fundraising limitations on out-of-state donors: candidates could not accept more than $20,000 a year from nonresident donors for gubernatorial campaigns, $5,000 a year for state senate campaigns, and $3,000 a year for campaigns for state representative, or municipal or other office.

What’s in a Name?: Pennsylvania Requires Signatures For Mail-In Ballots To Be Counted And Decides Not To Throw Out Ballots For Signature Verification Issues

vebrankovic · November 16, 2020 ·

By Jessica Washington

Pennsylvania requires a signature for all mail-in ballots. The voter’s signature must match the voter’s permanent registration card. If the signature matches, the voter’s ballot is counted. If the signature does not match, the voter’s ballot is discarded.

Prior to this year, signatures for mail-in ballots have been an issue. They are poised to become an even greater problem as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic taking the world by storm. As a result of the pandemic, many people have begun to work from home, had their groceries delivered to their door, and have limited their need to go out in accordance with health guidelines. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, more people than ever are expected to vote through mail-in ballots. This increases the chance that more ballots than ever will be discounted as a result of rejected signatures.

Money Talks, but Donors’ Voices Don’t Matter

Election Law Society · July 7, 2020 ·

By: Helen L. Brewer

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that spending money on political campaigns is a First Amendment right. Donations to, and expenditures by, campaigns—according to the Court—are political speech. As such, the First Amendment protects this money from government regulation. Laws can only place limits on campaign money if there is a risk the money will cause quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption. Therefore, despite the First Amendment’s protection of campaign funds, individual donations to candidate campaigns can be limited by the government. This prevents an individual from donating mass amounts of money to a campaign in exchange for special treatment when the candidate is elected to office.
[Read more…] about Money Talks, but Donors’ Voices Don’t Matter

Declassifying “the Bunker”

Election Law Society · November 12, 2018 ·

By: Emmalyn McCarthy

Congressional district boundaries are the latest dispute in a string of voting-related cases in the state of Ohio. In May, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court by the Ohio League of Women Voters, Ohio’s chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Initiative, and one democratic voter from each of Ohio’s sixteen congressional districts. The suit pertains to congressional district lines drawn by a Republican-controlled process in 2011 which took place in a closed off hotel room called “the bunker.” Map drawers created a twelve to four, Republican-favored districting scheme, splitting up many counties to create a twelve district Republican voting majority.