Press Releases
In the News
About the Firm
Attorney and Staff Profiles
Links
Contact Us
Return to the Newsroom Home Page
Press Releases
Contact: Lance Olson
916/718-7161
Statement from California Democratic Party Attorney Lance Olson Regarding Federal District Court's Ruling on McCain Feingold
May 2, 2003 (SACRAMENTO) -- The following statement was released today by Lance Olson regarding the Federal District Court's ruling on the McCain Feingold Act. Olson is general counsel to the California Democratic Party, which sued to overturn the law.
Today's decision by the Federal District Court affirms the California Democratic Party's contention that the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain Feingold) impermissibly interferes with the rights of state and local political parties to engage in speech and association activities long-protected by the First Amendment.
The fundamental flaw of this law is that it imposes federal regulation on local political activities, which may have only a remote relationship to federal elections. The law interferes with the ability of state and local political parties to support local candidates and ballot measures for no other reason than federal candidates appear on the same ballot.
The law prohibits political parties from engaging in the kinds of protected associational activities that are available to all groups in our society. It isolates each branch of a political party organization from the others, limits or prohibits certain communications, and prohibits their right to join together with each other or other like-minded groups to support candidates, ballot measures or projects of common interest.
Congress has the clear authority to regulate federal elections, but McCain Feingold spills over into regulating the day-to-day communications and activities of the state and local political parties and makes it virtually impossible for them to function or to support state or local candidates in accordance with state law.
When California voters passed Proposition 34 two years ago, they decided what rules should apply to California campaigns, including limits on contributions to candidates and voluntary spending limits. No limits were imposed on political parties for get-out- the-vote and voter registration programs because, in the view of California voters, these activities are not harmful. Proposition 34 gives the state and political parties a greater role to play in these activities; McCain Feingold takes that role away.
We are confident the United States Supreme Court will agree that the ultimate result of this law -- intended or not -- is an unconstitutional interference with the rights of the political parties and their members to engage in the most basic associational conduct and activities, and federalization of local political activity, which has, and should continue to be, regulated at the local level.
Social Security | Political/Government Law | Newsroom | Home