Practice Areas


Practice Area Details


Campaign Finance

As distinctions between regulated and unregulated activity become more blurred and the overlap between federal, state, and local regulation increases, campaign finance has become more complex.

The attorneys at Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP cut through this confusion to provide clients with sound advice regarding the legal implications of various political activities.

We also represent clients in litigation before state and federal courts and assist clients with audit and enforcement matters before campaign finance regulatory agencies.

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP is available to provide assistance in the following areas:

  • Federal campaign activity, including independent expenditures, electioneering communications and the formation of candidate committees, leadership PACs, and other political action committees;
  • State and local campaign activity involving candidates, ballot measures, independent expenditure committees, and major donors;
  • Corporate and union involvement in federal, state, and local campaigns;
  • Nonprofit formation and advocacy;
  • Tax implications for political advocacy;
  • Charitable and nonprofit participation in ballot measure campaigns;
  • Get-out-the-vote and voter registration activities implicating federal, state, or local campaign finance laws;
  • Campaign reporting and advertising disclosures;
  • Distinctions between issue and express advocacy; and
  • Political party activity.

Representative highlights of this work include:

  • Migden v. Fair Political Practices Commission, No. 2:08-CV-00486-EFB (E.D. Cal. 2008).
    Won an injunction prohibiting the FPPC from enforcing Government Code section 89519 on the grounds that the provision unconstitutionally restricts individuals from spending campaign funds left over from prior elections.
  • Successfully defended The American Leadership Project, a 527 advocacy group, before the Federal Elections Commission and in a federal lawsuit challenging the group’s electioneering communications during the 2008 Presidential election.
  • Franklin v. Correa, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 03CC11220 (2004).
    Successfully brought anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss complaint challenging former legislator’s transfer of campaign funds to his campaign committee for county supervisor.
  • San Franciscans for Sensible Government v. Renne, No. 4:99-cv-02456-CW (N.D. Cal. 1999).
    Participated in a successful federal court challenge to San Francisco campaign contribution limits.
  • California ProLife Council Political Action Committee v. Scully, 164 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1999).
    Successfully challenged Proposition 208, a campaign finance initiative.
  • Service Employees International Union v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 747 F. Supp. 580 (E.D. Cal. 1990).
    Successfully challenged the constitutionality of California’s previous campaign finance laws.
* The results described above were dependent on the facts of that particular case.  Prior results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes.