Robin joined Kozloff Stoudt in July of 2010 as the Firm Administrator. As the administrator Robin will be responsible for coordinating and leading daily operations of the firm which will include; HR issues, Staff development as well a property and financial management. Robin’s career highlights include; Chief Operating officer for a local credit union. Most recently she was the Operations Manager for UHS, servicing Hershey Medical Center.

Robin was the chairperson for the Berks County Red Cross Hero’s Breakfast as well as volunteered for Habitat for Humanity and Meals on Wheels.

Robin has traveled extensively though out the world as a child with her military family and as an adult. Born in New Jersey she planted her roots in Berks County in 1979.

Education: Albright College (B.S. Business Administration)

Jeff Elliott was nominated by the Adjutant General of Pennsylvania Major General Jessica Wright and Governor Ed Rendell for the position of Brigadier General in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. This is a uniquely “state militia” or National Guard position without federal recognition (he does not wear the rank on his uniform without federal recognition); but is nonetheless an honor and distinction for Jeff to be so recognized by state military officials, and the Commonwealth’s “Commander-in-Chief.” Managing Directors Jestyn Payne and Daniel Becker, Jeff’s Assistant Kristi Kindig and partner Rick Long attended the Pennsylvania Senate confirmation hearing in April of this year, before which Jeff Elliott and his State Senator, Senator Michael Folmer appeared prior to the Senate’s unanimous confirmation of Jeff for the new National Guard rank. The Governor subsequently “commissioned” Jeff as a Brigadier General in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. He is currently a reservist and Colonel in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, and the State Judge Advocate for the PA Army National Guard, the most senior Army National Guard lawyer in the state.

Emboldened by the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, ideological and interest group opponents of campaign finance regulation have brought an unprecedented number of cases in the past year to challenge campaign finance laws at the federal, state and municipal levels.  The challenges are being brought by national party committees, trade associations, ideological groups and so-called “527” organizations.  These opponents are often represented by attorneys working for tax-exempt organizations whose public filings reveal little about their funding sources and whose primary mission is to overturn existing campaign finance laws.

What is most striking about these groups’ litigation effort is that it challenges longstanding campaign finance laws that have already been upheld and declared constitutional.  For this reason, their challenges often fail in the lower courts as these courts simply uphold preexisting Supreme Court precedent that is supportive of campaign finance regulation.  The problem is that under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court is quickly undermining that very precedent.

The Roberts Court, however, is not overturning earlier Supreme Court rulings openly.  In their current offensive, anti-reform groups rarely challenge the general constitutionality of campaign finance law “on its face,” but instead frame their cases as challenges to the law “as applied” to specific situations.  These kind of “as applied” challenges have given the Roberts Court the opportunity to significantly erode existing precedent without having to reverse such precedent explicitly.  Effectively, however, the Roberts Court has begun to overturn a variety of campaign laws previously upheld by the High Court.

At the federal level, recent challenges are attempting to tear down many decades’ worth of election law, including the principles behind restrictions on corporations that extend as far back as the Tillman Act of 1907.  That Act banned political contributions by corporations and was shepherded through Congress by President Teddy Roosevelt in an era when corporations wielded staggering power in Washington as the main sources of funding for political parties.   Challenges to other long-standing provisions of the election laws, such as coordinated party spending limits, demonstrate that the mission of anti-reform advocates is far more ambitious than merely rolling back the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold.  Instead, their apparent goal is to go back nearly a century and dismantle many of the campaign finance reforms enacted in the wake of the Watergate era scandals and to revert to an era of unregulated, undisclosed spending in federal elections that fueled public outrage at the turn of the 20th Century.