The ruling, which came 12 days before the New York City election, would allow supporters of Mr. Lhota, a Republican, to pump as much money as they want into an independent-expenditure effort that is backing his campaign.
However, the conservative group that brought the case has not yet reported spending any money on Mr. Lhota’s behalf, and it is not clear how many people would be willing to contribute given the overwhelming lead in the polls held by the Democratic candidate, Bill de Blasio.
The case was brought by New York Progress and Protection PAC, which said that a conservative donor from Alabama, Shaun McCutcheon, pledged to donate at least $ 200,000 to the group, and that other donors were likely to do the same.
“Even though time is quite short, they’ll make as vigorous an effort as possible in the remaining time to raise and spend money for speech in support of Lhota,” said Michael A. Carvin, a lawyer for New York Progress and Protection PAC. He added that he was confident the New York law would ultimately be struck down.
Craig Engle, a Washington lawyer who is treasurer of New York Progress and Protection PAC, declined to discuss the group’s fund-raising plans, but said, “We intend to do what we said we wanted to do.” He added, “This was a very good and clear decision by the court, and it’s consistent with courts all across the United States.”
If the state’s limit on contributions to independent political committees is ultimately struck down, it could open the door for more spending by “super PACs” in the state next year, when Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, will be seeking re-election, and Republicans will be trying to prevent the Democratic Party from regaining control of the State Senate, which is now controlled by a coalition of Republicans and a few breakaway Democrats.
“This could usher in an era where super PACs call the shots in campaigns all over the state, not just in the city,” said David Donnelly, the executive director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, which advocates public financing of elections. Mr. Donnelly said the lawsuit was “part of a concerted effort around the country to shred any campaign finance laws that are still left.”
The de Blasio campaign, which has repeatedly sought to link Mr. Lhota to Republican figures thought to be unpopular in New York, took the opportunity presented by the ruling to continue to press that attack.
“Today’s decision will empower the right-wing billionaires, like the Koch brothers, and Tea Party groups who support Joe Lhota to drown out the voices of New Yorkers,” said Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for the de Blasio campaign. “The stakes are too high to let the same Republican extremists who shut down the government hijack the mayoral election.”
Mr. McCutcheon is also the plaintiff in a case the Supreme Court heard this month that challenges a federal law limiting the overall amount an individual can directly contribute to candidates in an election cycle.
New York State law currently limits individual contributions to independent-expenditure committees to $ 150,000 per year. New York Progress and Protection PAC sued last month to challenge that limit, saying it was unconstitutional after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United campaign finance case.
Last week, Judge Paul A. Crotty of Federal District Court in Manhattan declined to grant a preliminary injunction allowing donors to exceed the $ 150,000 cap, saying it would be too disruptive to change the state’s campaign fund-raising laws weeks before the election.
But the ruling on Thursday, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said the group’s challenge of the contribution limit had a “substantial likelihood of success,” noting that many other courts had struck down similar laws.
The panel added that any disruption caused by allowing the unlimited donations would not “outweigh the irreparable harm that stems from restrictions on political speech.” The panel’s decision was written by Judge Dennis Jacobs and joined by Judges Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and John G. Koeltl.
Terence J. Pell, the president of the Center for Individual Rights, which was co-counsel for New York Progress and Protection PAC, called the ruling “a victory for the citizens of New York.”
“With this decision, New York City voters will now get a more democratic mayoral race, one with an even financial playing field,” Mr. Pell said. “This will result in a campaign where ideas speak rather than money.”
But Lawrence Norden, the deputy director of the Democracy Program of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, which seeks to curb the influence of money in politics, said, “If this decision holds, there should be real concern that what we’re going to end up with in New York State is what we have on the federal level, which is candidates being sponsored like racehorses by very wealthy individuals.”
And Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York, a government watchdog group, said the decision “underlines, yet again, how wrong the Citizens United decision is.”
“Elections should empower the free expression of all voices, and not just act as auctions where office is sold to the highest bidder,” she said.
The office of the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat, defended the law in court, and Mr. Schneiderman said last week that it was “unquestionably constitutional.” A spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman, Damien LaVera, said on Thursday that the attorney general was “deeply disappointed with this decision.”
“Attorney General Schneiderman believes that every voter should have an equal voice in our democracy, and that New York’s campaign finance laws are essential to protecting the integrity and fairness of our elections,” Mr. LaVera said.
Yahoo Local News – New York Times
http://newyork.greatlocalnews.info/?p=16316
via Great Local News: New York http://newyork.greatlocalnews.info
No comments:
Post a Comment