Center for Competitive Politics

“No such committees existed.”

“The center's audit committee reviews a draft of the 990 prior to filing. A copy of the form 990 is also provided to the center's governing body before it is filed.”

“Every year both the board of directors and every employee reviews the conflict of interest policy and must disclose any conflicts. The board of directors reviews the policy at or around its final meeting of the year and each member provides written acknowledgment. Every employee also receives an electronic copy of the policy. Any conflicts or potential conflicts are resolved by the president or otherwise reported by the president and reviewed and resolved by the board of directors. In reviewing any conflict or potential conflict, any member of the board of directors who may have a conflict is recused from resolving the conflict or potential conflict.”

“The president's compensation is negotiated with the chairman, and approved by the board. Compensation for employees is approved by the president.”

“The center's form 990 is available on its website and is available to the public upon request. The audited financial statements are available on its website.”

“The process did not change from the prior year. The board of directors is responsible for the selection of the independent auditors and oversight of the independent audit.”

“Patriotic veterans v. Indiana this case poses an as-applied first amendment challenge to an indiana statute prohibiting pre-recorded telephone messages bearing political content. Pre-recorded phone calls are one of the most cost-effective ways a low-budget campaign can reach voters. This case is not about reasonable restrictions on the hours that such calls may be made or the ability of citizens to opt out. Placing an outright ban on political speech deprives indiana residents of political information that many want to receive. Indiana's law does not limit phone calls, or even the hours they may be made - it merely makes them more expensive. The law allows other messages not containing political content. Success in this case will protect the public's first amendment right to free political speech. Keeping such a means of communications available is especially important for small organizations that do not have the resources to buy television and radio advertising. Coalition for secular government v. Williams this case asks for declaratory and injunctive relief under the first and fourteenth amendments concerning colorado's regulation of a nonprofit organization and its distribution of a public policy paper. Colorado resident diana hsieh, a doctor of philosophy, organized the nonprofit coalition for secular government (csg) with her friend ari armstrong in order to promote a secular understanding of individual rights, including freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. Because of unconstitutionally vague state laws, confusion as to what constitutes political speech and what is covered under a press exemption, and a refusal by the state to abide by a federal court order, hsieh and csg have found it nearly impossible to carry out the activities of a small nonprofit group without fear of running afoul of complex colorado campaign finance laws. This litigation seeks to protect small issue-focused organizations like csg from being laden with the burdens of campaign finance disclosure that serves no legitimate purpose, and challenges the constitutionality of colorado's "issue committee" definition and regulations. The coalition won their challenge in district court, with the judge writing that "any 'informational interest' the government has in mandating contribution and expenditure disclosures [is] so minimal as to be nonexistent [in this case], and certainly insufficient to justify the burdens compliance imposes on members' constitutional free speech and association rights." the ruling provisionally awarded attorney's fees as the prevailing party under 42 u.s.c. 1983 and 1988. The merits, and consequently the fee award, are on appeal before the tenth circuit court of appeals. Success in this case will protect the general public's first amendment right to free speech. Delaware strong families v. Attorney general of the state of delaware this case presents a first amendment challenge to delaware state registration and reporting requirements as applied to a nonprofit organization's nonpartisan voter guide that was prepared according to the guidelines required under irs rules. Should the state have the power to regulate groups that publish nonpartisan voter guides in the same way that it regulates candidate committees, political parties, and pacs? That's the issue at stake in delaware strong families v. Attorney general of delaware, a case challenging a recently passed state law (the delaware elections disclosure act) that violates the first amendment by placing unconstitutional burdens on groups that publish nonpartisan voter guides. On april 8, 2014, a federal judge granted our motion for a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the law against delaware strong families (dsf). In her ruling, the judge wrote that "there is no case that purports to address disclosure requirements with the breadth" of the delaware law. The court concluded that "the relation between the personal information collected and the prima”

“Center for competitive politics v. Federal election commission this case concerns a freedom of information act (foia) challenge to a federal agency's refusal to release an unredacted copy of the federal election commission (fec) general counsel's report pertaining to a closed enforcement proceeding. The case is currently pending before the u.s. District court for the district of columbia. This case seeks to inform the public of the fec's policy on important questions of campaign finance law and the fec's foia policy. If successful, the general public will benefit from a case upholding the foia law. The public will also benefit from learning more about the fec's views on when organizations must register as a political committee. Independence institute v. Federal election commission the independence institute wished to run an ad asking colorado senators mark udall and michael bennet to support a federal sentencing reform bill. The mccain-feingold law effectively prevents the group from raising money for the ads. Federal law treats speech about public issues as campaign speech whenever a candidate is mentioned in a broadcast ad within 60 days of the general election. Groups must either file public reports with personal details about donors who have provided funds for the ads, or refrain from speaking. The result is what first amendment advocates call a "chilling" effect on advocacy, depriving the public of important speech about issues of public importance. Donors and speakers have many reasons to protect their privacy. Some fear retaliation from government officials who disagree with them. Others fear physical harm or threats to themselves and their families, vandalism to their property, loss of employment, or boycotts of their business if they support unpopular views. Some just value their privacy, or don't want their contributions to spur numerous requests for assistance from other groups discussing other issues. Nonetheless, federal law transforms issue speech into campaign speech whenever a candidate for office is mentioned within two months of the general election. As a result, many groups choose silence over advocacy. This case presents an as-applied first and fifth amendment challenge to the bipartisan campaign reform act's provisions requiring a nonprofit airing an advertisement mentioning a candidate before an election, but neither supporting nor opposing that candidate, to register with the federal government and report its donors. The institute seeks to vindicate the public's right to seek official government action from officeholders without opening its books to public disclosure. Success in this case will protect the public's first amendment right to free speech. It will also protect the privacy of donors to causes, which will encourage the public to give generously to support efforts to promote sound public policies. Independence institute v. Williams this case raises similar questions as the independence institute v. Federal election commission case listed above , but challenges a similar state law. Success in this case will protect the general public's first amendment right to free speech. It will also protect the privacy of donors to causes, which will encourage the public to give generously to support efforts to promote sound public policies. Holmes et al. V. Federal election commission this case raises an as-applied first and fifth amendment challenge to a law that often allows congressional incumbents to raise twice as much from contributors to spend on their general election campaigns as compared to challengers. Federal campaign finance laws limit campaign contributions to candidates to $2,700 for the primary election and $2,700 for the general election. However, donations of $5,400 are permitted through the day of the primary, though only half that amount can be spent on the primary race. Incumbents, who rarely face a competitive primary, can raise up to $5,400 in a single contribution over a much longer ti”