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.”

“Calzone v. Missouri ethics commission can a state government fine you simply for talking to state legislators? That is the question at the center of calzone v. Missouri ethics commission. In august 2016, ccp took the case of ron calzone, a citizen activist in the state of missouri. Some legislators and lobbyists in the state are attempting to silence mr. Calzone, who has for many years advocated for individual liberty, free markets, and constitutionally limited government. Unfortunately, as mr. Calzone says, "my activism has made some powerful enemies--maybe high-paid lobbyists don't like having to explain to their clients why average citizens, using nothing more than facts, reason and speech, beat them at their own game time and again." calzone says he has "angered powerful legislators by opposing them when they were trying to advance unconstitutional bills or ignore constitutional limits on their power." mr. Calzone's difficulties with state regulators began on election day in 2014, when the society of government consultants, a lobbyist guild in missouri, filed a complaint with the missouri ethics commission. The complaint claimed that, when mr. Calzone spoke with legislators during his advocacy, he was acting as a paid lobbyist - and that his failure to register as a lobbyist with the state was against the law, subjecting him to fines and possibly even jail time. Ccp's legal team has stepped in to defend mr. Calzone against these charges, representing calzone in september when his case came before the missouri ethics commission. The ethics commission has argued that because mr. Calzone has publicly mentioned his involvement with missouri first - a nonprofit organization with no financial resources - he must register as a lobbyist and list missouri first as the organization for which he is speaking. Registered lobbyists must pay a registration fee and regularly submit reports detailing all of the ways in which they have attempted to influence legislation. Not only does the registration requirement put an impermissible condition on a citizen's constitutionally-protected freedom of speech, it also puts speakers at risk of huge fines - and potential criminal penalties - if the required reports are deemed incomplete. We believe that the missouri ethics commission's claim is thankfully not the law in missouri, and would be unconstitutional if it were. Neither missouri first nor any other organization has ever designated mr. Calzone as a lobbyist, or paid him at all for the communication at issue in this case. We are confident that the courts will vindicate mr. Calzone's clear constitutional right to engage in uncompensated conversation with officials concerning the laws that will govern this state. On april 19, 2016, the nineteenth judicial circuit court of missouri issued a preliminary order of prohibition and ordered the state to cease all action in the matter. Success in this case would protect the first amendment right to petition government for a redress of grievances. 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. 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. On december 11, 2015, the federal election commission (fec) agreed to produce the report to settle the lawsuit. The public benefited from learning more about the fec's views on when organizations must register as a political committee. Center for competitive politics v. Harris as in most other states, charities soliciting contributions in california are required to register with the state. Each year, registered charities are required to file a copy of their irs form 990 tax returns with the california attorney general's office as a cond”

“Citizen outreach v. Miller in february 2014, the center began representing citizen outreach, a 501(c)(4) that allegedly ran afoul of nevada campaign finance law in 2010 when it distributed two fliers critical of a state legislator. The lawsuit against citizen outreach, a small nonprofit engaged in grassroots activism in nevada was financially devastating to the group. After we learned that the group had lost in a lower court, we stepped in and won the appeal to the nevada supreme court, which ruled in favor of the group in february 2015. The ruling was an important victory for free speech. The secretary of state tried to use a law passed after the group spoke in order to impose fines and burdensome government filing and disclosure requirements simply for exercising its first amendment rights. The 5-2 ruling said that "when it comes to the exercise of first amendment rights, any 'tie goes to the speaker, not the censor....' [w]e conclude that basic principles of fundamental fairness require us to construe [the law in effect in 2009] narrowly." at issue in the case was whether citizen outreach's 2010 flyers, critical of a state assemblyman up for re-election, constituted "express advocacy." the meaning of that term was crucial, because a finding that the nonprofit had engaged in express advocacy would trigger an obligation to file with the government, including a list of its supporters, all of whom had no advance knowledge the group would distribute the flyers. Nevada's high court found that the definition of "express advocacy" under state law was unclear at the time that citizen outreach distributed its flyers, but that it would not have covered the mailings. The ruling will help protect the general public's first amendment right to free speech. 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 ruling was affirmed by the tenth circuit court of appeals, but the state has petitioned the u.s. Supreme court for review of the decision. Success in this case will protect the general public's first amendment right to free speech. Delaware strong families v. Denn 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 tha”

“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. On march 1, 2016, the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit ruled that our constitutional challenge to federal electioneering communications disclosure requirements must be heard by a three-judge district court. This decision didn't reach the merits of our case - it ordered the lower court to give our clients the three-judge panel provided for by the law. As such, it was a key procedural victory and it sets an important precedent in the d.c. Circuit, where nearly all federal campaign finance law challenges are brought. In a sign of this case's importance, bob bauer, a former white house counsel who runs an influential blog on campaign finance law, wrote that this lawsuit "could prove to be highly significant . To date, the [supreme] court has not been confronted with well-argued as-applied challenges that force its engagement with the harder questions [on disclosure issues] that a suit like independence institute raises." 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 would have protected the general public's first amendment right to free speech. This provided important protection to donors to causes, which will encourage the public to give generously to support efforts to promote sound public policies. On february 4, 2016 the tenth circuit court of appeals upheld the district court's decision against the plaintiff in independence institute v. Williams. The litigation did obtain an important concession. The state agreed that donor disclosure would, as noted by the tenth circuit, "apply only to donations earmarked for electioneering communications," protecting general donors to such an organization from being disclosed. Lake travis citizens”

“Utah taxpayers association v. Cox on november 17, 2015, the center filed a lawsuit to declare unconstitutional a recent utah law requiring nonprofits that engage in advocacy to report the private information of their supporters to the government. We represented three plaintiffs in the case: the utah taxpayers association, the utah taxpayers legal foundation, and the libertas institute. The lawsuit challenged utah house bill 43, which passed in 2013. Plaintiffs alleged the law suffers many of the same defects contained in the federal election campaign act. That law's reach was limited by the landmark 1976 supreme court case buckley v. Valeo. The key defect in the utah law is that it attempts to regulate any speech "to influence or tend to influence, directly or indirectly" any vote. Many forms of speech on legislative or policy issues may indirectly influence how some person might vote but, under this law, it is far from clear what speech would trigger regulated activity and what would not. Given the breathtaking scope of this provision, it greatly chills speech about any public policy matter and is clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment. The law's impact is worsened as any speech costing more than $750 in a year could trigger burdensome filing requirements similar to those required for candidates for office, mandating detailed disclosure of donors who give just over $50. For example, if the issue of abortion were to become the focus of discussion in utah's upcoming governor's race, or in a future ballot initiative, groups like utah's planned parenthood or right to life chapters could be forced to disclose their donors and register with the state because they disseminate information about abortion policy on their website, even if they don't explicitly seek to engage on the issue in the context of an election or even mention a candidate's name. Utah's house bill 43 has already had a chilling effect on free speech in utah, which is exactly why we represented these organizations in federal court. Utah's law is so overbroad that our clients were concerned that participating in any public debate could destroy the privacy of their donors, many of whom would stop making donations as a result. A federal judge approved a consent decree on july 14, 2016, which settled this lawsuit. His order prevents utah from enforcing a campaign finance law that violated the first amendment. On august 11, 2016, the same judge approved a $125,000 attorney's fee award in the case. Success in this case protected the first amendment rights to free speech and association.”