Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Supreme Court Amicus Brief American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock

Supreme Court Amicus Brief American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock

Ratings:

4.0

(1)
|Views: 2,692 |Likes:
Published by Sunlight Foundation
An amicus brief filed by 14 non-profit organizations regarding the petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United II (American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock) case, concerning the ability of independent expenditure entities to raise unlimited amounts of "dark" money.
An amicus brief filed by 14 non-profit organizations regarding the petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United II (American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock) case, concerning the ability of independent expenditure entities to raise unlimited amounts of "dark" money.

More info:

Published by: Sunlight Foundation on May 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/13/2012

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-1179
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
--------------------------------- AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
 et al.
,
 Petitioners,
v.STEVE BULLOCK, Attorney General of Montana,
 et al
.,
 Respondents.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To TheSupreme Court Of The State Of Montana
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
BRIEF
 AMICI CURIAE
OF AARP, CAMPAIGNLEGAL CENTER, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVEPOLITICS, CHICAGO LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FORCIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, CITIZENS FORRESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON,COMMON CAUSE, ILLINOIS CAMPAIGN FORPOLITICAL REFORM, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHIGANCAMPAIGN FINANCE NETWORK, NATIONALINSTITUTE ON MONEY IN STATE POLITICS,PROGRESSIVES UNITED, SUNLIGHTFOUNDATION, U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND AND WISCONSIN DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGNIN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
---------------------------------J
UDD
 
B.
 
G
ROSSMAN
 S
TANLEY
 
M.
 
G
ROSSMAN
 S
HAHEEN
 
R
USHD
 G
ROSSMAN
 
LLP590 Madison Avenue18th FloorNew York, NY 10022(646) 770-7445J. G
ERALD
H
EBERT
P
 AUL
S. R
 YAN
*T
 ARA
M
 ALLOY
 M
EGAN
M
C
 A
LLEN
 T
HE
C
 AMPAIGN
L
EGAL
C
ENTER
215 E Street, NEWashington, DC 20002(202) 736-2200pryan@campaignlegalcenter.org*
Counsel of Record
 ================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
 
iTABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iiiINTEREST OF
 AMICI CURIAE
........................... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 4I. Undisclosed Corporate Money In ElectionsGives Rise To Corruption And The Appear-ance Of Corruption ...................................... 4 A. Current Law’s Accommodation Of CloseRelationships Between Candidates AndSo-Called “Independent” Spenders GivesRise To Corruption And The Appear-ance Of Corruption ................................ 5B. The Absence Of Effective Disclosure OCorporate Money In Elections GivesRise To Corruption And The Appear-ance Of Corruption ................................ 9II. Corporations Spending Money In Candi-date Elections Deny Shareholders AndCitizens The Information Needed To HoldCorporations And Elected Officials Account-able And Make Informed Decisions OnElection Day ................................................ 12 A. Corporations Have Clear Incentives To Avoid Disclosure And Accountability Target As “Exhibit A” ............................ 13B. Federal Tax Laws Accommodate Cor-porate Anonymity .................................. 15
 
iiTABLE OF CONTENTS – ContinuedPageC. Federal Campaign Finance Laws Ac-commodate Corporate Anonymity ........ 18D. States’ Campaign Finance Laws Ac-commodate Corporate Anonymity ........ 20E. More Than $120 Million In AnonymousFunds Was Spent To Influence 2010Elections, With Far Greater SpendingPredicted For 2012 ................................ 24III. Data That Is Disclosed Is Neither TimelyEnough, Nor Accessible Enough, To EnableThe Electorate To Make Informed Deci-sions On Election Day.................................. 29CONCLUSION ....................................................... 31 APPENDIXDescription of 
 Amici Curiae
................................ App. 1

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
John Dickey liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download