News Archive

Joseph Sandler, Neil Reiff and Elizabeth Howard Named on The Super Lawyers 2014 Annual List of Top Attorneys

The Super Lawyers 2014 Annual List of top attorneys in the Washington, D.C. metro area have just named Joseph Sandler, Neil Reiff and Joesph Birkenstock as three of only twenty-one lawyers for their outstanding work in the field of Legislative and Government Affairs. In addition, Elizabeth Howard was named as one of only five lawyers in the Rising Stars section for Administrative Law.

The 2014 D.C. list, which was distributed with the Sunday Washington Post Magazine on April 27, 2014, can also be found here: http://digital.superlawyers.com/superlawyers/dcslrs14#pg1

Neil Reiff Argues for Fixing McCain-Feingold

Neil Reiff and former Federal Election Commission Chairman Don McGahn argue in Campaigns and Elections that action should be taken to fix the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as McCain-Feingold.

On state parties, Reiff and McGahn argue:

McCain-Feingold created a new concept called “federal election activity,” which includes the traditional party programs to register voters, develop voter lists, provide sample ballots and get voters to the polls on Election Day. The law piled on several restrictive provisions that apply even if those activities also benefitted state and local candidates, and even if not undertaken to assist federal candidates. In addition, McCain-Feingold placed a very complex set of regulations upon state and local committees, which make the law regulating state parties look like a Rube Goldberg contraption.

. . .As spending from candidates, national party committees and outside groups is skyrocketing, state party spending has stayed relatively fat. This may be an indication that state and local party committees are becoming marginalized in the current campaign finance scheme. This is unfortunate.

The two-party system has been a stabilizing force in our democracy for over 200 years. Without that stabilizing force, however, there has been a significant rise in the number of single-issue candidates, nasty primaries pitting the middle against the hard partisan flank, and a general polarization. It is time for Congress to reconsider whether some of the regulations placed upon state party committees should be revisited, especially in light of the rise of Super PACs and other outside spending.

The entire article can be found here.

SRYL News Round-Up McCutcheon Edition

Sandler Reiff Young & Lamb has been one of the go-to sources over the past few days as journalists have reported and analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. Below are just some of the stories where attorneys at SRYL have provided their expertise:

  • David Mitrani told the Center for Public Integrity that since the Supreme Court ruled that aggregate contribution limits are unconsititutional, it is unlikely that similar aggregate limits in twelve states and the District of Columbia will continue to stand.
  • David Mitrani gave a similar statement to WAMU.
  • David Mitrani also helped Mother Jones break down the aforementioned aggregate limits at the state level.
  • Neil Reiff told Campaigns and Elections that party committees are one of the big winners in the aftermath of McCutcheon: “If an individual wants to triple max each year to the three national committees, that is $194,400 for the two-year cycle, way more than the aggregate limit.”
  • Neil Reiff reminded Bloomberg that while someone could theoretically create a “Super-Joint Fundraising Committee,” in order to write one check that is distributed among dozens of candidates, they could likely still get more bang for their buck by contributing to a Super PAC.
  • Late yesterday, David Mitrani told Reuters that campaign officials in Maryland and Massachusetts had already stopped enforcing aggregate contribution limits, a little more than 24-hours after the McCutcheon decision was handed down.
  • Finally, Neil Reiff told the Wall Street Journal that while Democratic lawmakers generally prefer more restrictions on money in elections, party strategists will welcome the loss of federal aggregate contribution limits.

Neil Reiff Quoted by Wall Street Journal

Neil Reiff was quoted in a story today in the Wall Street Journal about the effects that the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC might have on future court challenges to campaign finance laws. While the Court left in place limits on contributions to individual candidates and committees, the Court did not offer a robust endorsement of said limits.

Mr. Reiff pointed out that further loosening of campaign finance restrictions could create a catch-22 for Democrats. On one hand, fewer restrictions would allow Democrats to raise more money. On the other hand, Democrats generally favor tighter restrictions on money in elections.

Mr. Reiff told the Journal “There is always that tension.”

To read, the full article, click here.

Liz Howard Honored by The College of William & Mary

The Election Law Society at the College of William and Mary Law School awarded Liz Howard (J.D. ’09) with the ELS Alumnus of the Year Award. In addition to her regular outstanding practice advising candidates, committees, non-profits, and lobbyists on election law matters, Ms. Howard was also recognized for her tireless work last November serving on the recount team for the Mark Herring for Attorney General [of Virginia]. She was also recognized for her work as lead counsel of the victorious recount team for Lynwood Lewis, whose state Senate special election decided control of the Virginia State Senate.

Ms. Howard was honored on March 21st at the second annual D.C. Friends of ELS Reception.

Mitrani to Reuters: States Already Adapting to McCutcheon

David Mitrani told Reuters today that the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC are already being felt at the state level, even a few days after the ruling. At issue in the case was aggregate contribution limits, which limited the total amount of money that individuals could give to all federal candidates ($48,600) and political committees ($74,600) per election cycle. While the Supreme Court left base limits intact, they struck down the aggregate limits on First Amendment grounds.

However, in addition to the federal government, twelve states plus the District of Columbia had similar aggregate contribution limits. Mr. Mitrani that campaign finance officials in Maryland and Massachusetts had already begun changing state regulations:

In Maryland, which has limited donations to party committees in state elections to $10,000 every four-year election cycle, state regulators already have told election lawyers that they will stop enforcing the limit, said David Mitrani, a lawyer who specializes in campaign finances cases.

Massachusetts officials also said they would stop enforcing the state’s limit on candidate donations, but are reviewing a limit on contributions to political parties.

Other states with such limits almost certainly will face lawsuits challenging the limits, Mitrani said.

To read the full article, click here.

Joseph Sandler Defends MoveOn Billboard

Joseph Sandler defended MoveOn.org in a court appearance before a US District Judge in Baton Rouge, Lousiana yesterday. At issue was a billboard that MoveOn.org critical of Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s rejection of Medicaid expansion. MoveOn.org parodied the state’s tourism slogan “Pick Your Passion” in the billboard, which then said “But hope you don’t love your health. Gov Jindal’s denying Medicaid to 242,000 people.”

In response, Louisiana sued MoveOn.org claiming trademark infringement. However, Mr. Sandler defended MoveOn.org, claiming that the billboard was clearly a parody, which is protected speech. He told the (Baton Rouge) Advocate that the billboard “an appropriate and constitutional use of parody. The idea of the billboard is here the state promotes itself as a great place to live and visit yet we … want to make a point that it’s not such a good place to live and visit because of health care policy decisions of the governor. … This is a noncommercial use of the mark.”

To read the full article, click here.

Neil Reiff Quoted by Bloomberg

Neil Reiff was quoted today in a story in Bloomberg on the effect that the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC will have on campaign fundraising in the coming months and years. With aggregate contribution limit declared unconstitutional, it is possible that super-Joint Fundraising Committees  could come into existence that support dozens of candidates. With a super-JFC, an individual could write one massive check that would then be distributed among many candidates.

However, Mr. Reiff tampered expectations of such a rise:

Whether the McCutcheon ruling will lead to “a groundswell of money in the system, I don’t know,” Neil Reiff, a Democratic campaign-finance lawyer with Sandler, Reiff, Young & Lamb, said in an interview. Writing a big check to a super-JFC is “still not as efficient as writing a check to a super-PAC, so I can’t necessarily compare this to the revolution of super-PACs in Citizens United. But obviously it’s something,” Reiff said.

To read the full article, click here.

Mitrani Quoted in Mother Jones

David Mitrani was quoted today in a story in Mother Jones about the far-reaching impact of McCutcheon v. FEC. He told the magazine that although the case dealt only with federal aggregate contributions, it will ultimately apply at the state and local level as well.

“The McCutcheon opinion is right from the Supreme Court and what the Supreme Court said is state aggregate limits on top of the federal limit are unconstitutional today, unconstitutional yesterday, unconstitutional 20 years ago,” said Mr. Mitrani. And in the case of states with low aggregate contribution limits, Mr. Mitrani added that “There are going to be pretty big changes in how money flows into those states.”

The article further detailed the aggregate limits that exist in the twelve states (plus the District of Columbia) who have such limits.

To read the full article, click here.