JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, September 19, 2009

[JURIST] UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe [official profile] on Saturday urged the Sri Lankan government to conduct an independent inquiry into allegations of war crimes during the civil war against the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST archive]. After a visit to camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) [IDMC backgrounder], Pascoe also said [UN News Centre report] that the Sri Lankan government must make quicker progress in shutting down such camps and working toward political reconciliation among the country's warring ethnic factions. Speaking a press conference in Colombo, Pascoe said:

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in Government-run camps in Sri Lanka lack basic rights of freedom of movement, and the country is not making the expected progress towards a lasting peace in the wake of the end earlier this year to fighting between military forces and Tamil rebels.

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa [BBC profile] said that the government plans to resettle 265,000 displaced persons [BBC report] by January. In separate interviews, Rajapaksa pledged more development [press release] in the country to work toward a lasting peace, while accusing Western nations of hypocrisy [Indian Express report] for criticizing his plans.

In May, as the country's decades-long civil war was coming to an end, Rajapaksa denied [JURIST report] humanitarian groups full access to refugee camps, saying the camps still needed to be screened for rebel fighters. The UN and other organizations have accused [JURIST report] both the Sri Lankan military and LTTE of human rights violations during the conflict. The Sri Lankan government finished its internal investigation of human rights violations in June while refusing to permit [JURIST reports] an external probe to conduct a full investigation.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] regulations restricting the political spending of nonprofit groups violates the First Amendment. The suit was brought by pro-choice group EMILY'S List [advocacy website], which challenged recent FEC rules limiting the spending of nonprofits on election-related activities, including advertising and voter registration efforts. Finding the regulations to be in violation of the First Amendment rights to political expression and association, the majority reversed the lower court's ruling. The court relied on the US Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo [opinion text], which held that "contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities." Although the court recognized an established government interest in combating corruption, which can often justify campaign finance regulation, they found the interest to only apply to contributions to candidates and parties. The majority relied on precedent, finding that:

The Supreme Court's case law establishes that those nonprofit entities, like individual citizens, are constitutionally entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected office – with the narrow exception that, under Austin, the Government may restrict to some degree how non-profits spend donations received from the general treasuries of for-profit corporations or unions.

In addition to First Amendment violations, the court found that certain provisions exceeded the FEC's regulatory authority under the Federal Election Campaign Act [text, PDF]. Under the statute, the court argued, the FEC cannot require nonprofits to use "hard money" for exclusively state and local election activities.

Campaign reform legislation has raised First Amendment concerns in the past. Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court heard re-arguments [JURIST report] in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder] to decide whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission [Oyez backgrounders] should be overturned in deciding the case. The case originally sought to decide if the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) [text, PDF] permits the Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] to regulate the release and advertising of a 90-minute documentary questioning then-Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) qualifications to serve as US president. In August, a federal court held that a Connecticut campaign finance law [text] violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments [JURIST report]. The court held that the law, which provided public funding to candidates in elections for state offices, was a "severe burden on the political opportunity of minor party candidates."

[JURIST] Argentina's Chamber of Deputies [official website, in Spanish] approved a bill Thursday that would create new media ownership rules and a new regulatory body to interpret those laws. Argentine President Christina Fernandez De Kirchner [official website; BBC profile] said the proposed law, which would limit how many licenses a media company could own as well as its market share, will create a more competitive media. Critics, including the country's biggest media group, Clarin [media website, in Spanish], said the move is directed at suppressing dissent in the country. The bill passed by a wide margin of 147-7, but more than 100 lawmakers walked out [Reuters report] in protest before the vote could be taken. The bill will now go before the Argentine Senate [official website, in Spanish].

According to news reports, Kirchner blames her 20 percent approval rating and a mid-term election loss on Clarin, which controls 46 percent of the Argentina cable market, and wants to pass the law before losing [VOA report] her Congressional majority in December. Last week, tax agents raided [BBC report] the Clarin newspaper office, and currently, Argentine judges are holding a hearing [AP report] to determine whether the children of a Clarin director are illegally adopted orphans from Argentina's so-called "Dirty War" [JURIST news archive].

[JURIST] A federal judge on Friday delayed the execution of Ohio death row inmate Romell Broom, following several failed attempts at administering a lethal injection on Tuesday. Judge Gregory Frost of the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio [official website] issued the order [AP report] following claims that the multiple attempts to find a vein during the two-hour procedure constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment [text]. Ohio law [ORC 2949.22 text] requires lethal injections to "quickly and painlessly cause death." The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio [advocacy website] is launching an investigation [press release] into the failed execution and is calling for increased transparency in the lethal injection process.

Broom was convicted of the 1984 rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected [opinion, PDF] Broom's deprivation of rights [42 USC § 1983 text] challenge to the method of execution on timeliness grounds. The same court denied [opinion text] Broom's request for habeas relief in 2006. In July, Ohio completed the 1000th lethal injection [JURIST report] in the US since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. In June, the state introduced a new lethal injection procedure that requires officials to shake and call out [JURIST report] to the prisoner after a sedative has been administered.