Campaign Finance Litigation
The jurisprudence developed by a five-justice majority on the Roberts Court is doing major damage to efforts to rein in the influence of moneyed interests in our politics. Five times in five years, the Roberts Court has considered policies designed to address money in politics—and five times, the Court’s majority has struck down laws designed to promote and protect political participation and democratic values. The cumulative effect of these piecemeal attacks on campaign finance regulation has included powerful special interest groups, including for-profit corporations, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the electoral process. Voters and grassroots groups have been marginalized in the process. Alarmingly, many of these big spenders successfully shielded their identities by seizing on gaping loopholes in campaign finance disclosure laws. Meanwhile, political stalemate in Congress means a federal legislative response to these issues is not coming soon.
Through litigation, the Brennan Center is committed to reversing these trends, and reorienting case law toward a democratically sound, voter-centric shift in campaign reform jurisprudence and policies.
The Brennan Center played an active role as defending campaign finance law at the state and federal levels in the recent cases listed below. For a complete docket of active campaign finance litigation, click here.
Public Financing
Arizona Free Enterise Club v. Bennett
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield
Wisconsin Right to Life PAC v. Brennan
Disclosure
Center for Individual Freedom v. Tennant
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson
National Organization for Marriage v. Walsh
Wisconsin Prosperity Network, Inc. v. Myse
Pay-to-Play
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield
Corporate Electioneering
American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock
Direct Corporate Contributions