The difference between the “politically motivated objection,” which is an abuse of process, and bona fide legal claims may be distinguished by the character of the complaint. Is the complaint about “voter fraud”? Are signatures invalid? Or, does it involve a scheme to deprive a verifiable minority, or candidacy, of its equal protection to assured ballot rights?
Furthermore, “to the extent that they [campaign finance laws] prohibit a corporation from making expenditures expressly advocating the election, or defeat, of a candidate, except through political committee, such laws are unconstitutional as applied.” Beaumont v. FEC, 395 Federal Supplement 2nd1001 ( Dist Ct of Colo, 2005) So, bearing this ruling in mind, how can the use of private practice firms for preparing and executing a complaint be valid or legal? And does that fit in with the letter and spirit of campaign finance reform?
The state has the power under the United States Constitution (Art 1 SS 4 cl 1) to regulate the time, place and manner of holding elections. That power is matched by state control over the election process for state offices. “Without additional protections for candidates in parties other than the Democrats and the Republicans, there is no justice in the current laws regarding the fundamental right to vote.” Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut (479 US 208, 107 S.Ct. 544)
Governments must play an active role in structuring elections as a practical matter, because it is unavoidable that there must be substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest. Election laws should protect everyone if the democratic process is going to be successful. The right to vote is the right to participate. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 US 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059
“A state has legitimate interests in preventing corruption.” Nixon v. Shrink Mo Gov't PAC, 528 US 377, 120 S Ct 897
End Part 1
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
