Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption Contest!
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* From the Tribune…
An abortion rights group filed a federal lawsuit today seeking to strike down a portion of the state’s campaign finance law that limits how much donors can give to political action committees.
Personal PAC argues that the limits are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Courtcase that found expenditures independent of political candidates can’t be regulated.
“The Supreme Court changed the rules of the game,” said Juliet Berger-White, an attorney representing Personal PAC. […]
Terry Cosgrove, president and CEO of Personal PAC, said the $10,000 donation limit has meant the organization has lost out on more than $100,000 in donations it would use to support candidates who support abortion rights in Illinois.
* Before the state’s new campaign finance laws were enacted, PACs could accept limitless amounts of cash from their contributors. Those contributions to the PACs are now capped, which I told subscribers long ago seemed aimed directly at Personal PAC and a few other groups. But a US Supreme Court ruling may provide the impetus for change…
But since then, in the Citizens United case in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “independent expenditures” — those made not by a candidate themselves, but by an outside party acting on their own, in support of the candidate — cannot be limited under Constitutional free speech rights.
In the suit, Personal PAC makes a similar argument.
“With so much at stake, we cannot win elections with one arm tied behind our back,” Personal PAC President Terry Cosgrove said in a statement. “The unconstitutional restrictions on contributions in the Illinois law prevented us from collecting tens of thousands of dollars in donations that we were legally entitled to last year.”
Says the suit itself: “Without being able to raise money for the purpose of independent expenditures in excess of the current statutory limits, Personal PAC cannot effectively accomplish its mission of preserving reproductive rights.”
The lawsuit is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 2:11 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption Contest!
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Hope we all enjoyed any sort of giving limits in Illinois while they lasted…
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 2:42 pm
But I thought this was meaningless, watered down reform that didn’t do anything. At least that’s what I’ve read up and until this lawsuit was covered.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 2:44 pm
Can’t Cosgrove get some like minded buddies not currently involved in his PAC to front another two or three or forty PACS?
I thought that was how GOP groups handled it.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 3:11 pm
The Citizens United case was one of the worse decisions in Supreme Court history. To suggest groups have the same standing as individuals to free speech rights through expenditures on campaigns is the most assinine logic ever developed by the Supreme Court.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 5:25 pm
So PP won’t have as much cash for its notorious hit pieces.
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 7:39 pm
I am a pro-choice, strong D voter who is utterly disgusted with Cosgrove and Personal PAC. Cosgrove has a propensity for chumming the waters with less than accurate “facts” and his all-or-nothing posturing precludes a more refined, mature public discussion on choice. As for this suit, I don’t believe for a moment that this is anything but a reach to restore the easy spigot of money that used to flow to Cosgrove from a few large-dollar donors. Take a look at Personal PACs fundraising costs compared to dollars raised. Then look at the PACs election year expenditures. And then tell me with a straight face that Cosgrove interest here is constitutional or that pro-choice candidates have been hobbled by Cosgrove’s lack of $100K.
Comment by Indeedy Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 7:46 pm
This headline is pretty disingenuous. Under state law, even if the limits were struck down we wouldn’t have super PACs because we have mandatory disclosure and A-1s for large contributions. The super element of the super PACs is about the anonymity of their donors as much as it is their ability to raise unlimited funds. So your research, RM.
Comment by Wrong Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:29 pm