Showing posts with label Federal Election Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Election Commission. Show all posts

Republican FEC Commissioners Issue Statement About Enforcement

Seal of the United States Federal Election Com...
Seal of the United States Federal Election Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For nearly forty years, votes to defend the Commission in cases challenging dismissals of
administrative complaints have been routine, pro forma acts. Even when the Commission has
split on whether to proceed in an enforcement matter, the decision to defend has been
uncontroversial. In recent days, however, our colleague Commissioner Ann Ravel has
announced her desire to upend this consensus. Not only does this effort derail longstanding
Commission practice, but more troublingly, it contravenes well-established legal precedents and evinces a flippant disregard for judicial review. 

Source: FEC

Legal Experts React to Supreme Court’s Campaign-Finance Ruling

Wednesday’s 5-4 ruling on political contributions in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission is considered by some legal experts to be a companion to the court’s 2010 ruling, called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Bradley Smith, former Federal Election Commissioner, law professor at Capital University:
I think that there’s an obvious common sense to the court’s opinion. If 18 individual $2,600 dollar contributions don’t have a corrupting effect, it’s hard to see how the 19th one will.  The dissent tries to get around this by putting out wildly misleading hypotheticals that do little than to underscore, once again, how little Justice Breyer really understands about campaign finance.
Nate Persily, election-law expert, law professor at Stanford University: 
This is what we expected. The Court seems a little naive when it discards the argument that individuals and parties will find a way to redirect money once these aggregate limits are lifted. Indeed, that is the whole experience of strategic decision-making by actors in the campaign finance system since [passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971].
. . .
[T]he big question is whether this portends knocking out the individual contribution limits at some point soon.  My guess is that there are 5 votes to do this if you searched their heart of hearts, but that would truly convert the system to the wild west.
. . .
Also, the discussion in the first few pages deifining corruption is a big deal.  Many of us wondered whether [language in Citizens United] on this would eventually become a holding. I think it is fair to say it is now clearly part of the law here.  Quid pro quo corruption is almost impossible to demonstrate.  Political scientists have been trying to do so for 30 years.
Rick Pildes, election law expert, law professor at NYU:
The inevitable sky-is-falling reactions that will surely greet this 5-4 decision in many quarters are likely to be wrong.  First, the decision is likely to have less real-world consequence than envisioned in the various fantasy scenarios being conjured up about new floodgates that will now suddenly open.  Even if we assume all the players in the financing system (parties, donors, candidates) are self-interested actors, their self-interest runs counter to many of these scenarios; they are unlikely to do many of the things on the parade-of-horribles lists being drawn up.  Whatever one thinks of the decision as a legal matter, I am not convinced it will make a dramatic difference on the ground.
Even more importantly, to the extent any changes do occur, they will likely be in directions that make democratic governance work better, rather than less well.  That’s because such changes are most likely to empower the most centralizing forces in our political system – in particular, the political parties.   That is much better than empowering all the forces of political fragmentation that have become so powerful in recent decades, such as SuperPacs and other “outside” groups.  As much as Americans have a “plague on both their houses” attitude toward the political parties, strong parties – and strong party leaders who care about the party brand and have the leverage to press members of their caucuses to agree to compromises – are necessary to make the legislative process function effectively.  Our campaign-finance laws for too long have encouraged the centripetal, fragmenting forces in American democracy.  As long as we have privately financed elections, the best the law can do is to encourage the flow of money in one direction rather than another.  To the extent the decision encourages more money to flow to the parties, that would enhance the power of the single entities that have the strongest incentive to appeal to the broadest electorate.
Bob Bauer, leading election lawyer, Partner at Perkins Coie LLP, former White House counsel to President Obama:
One of the more remarkable features of the Roberts opinion is the strong defense of the role of political parties. As it relates to campaign finance, this position is expressed in the view that party leaders, when acting for the party and its candidates,  do not engage in conduct that gives rise presumptively to actual quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. The chief and those joining him in his opinion would limit that form of corruption to fundraising by candidates for their own personal benefit. This is a significant portion of the opinion with potential implications for other provisions of the federal campaign finance laws.
Rick Hasen, election law expert, law professor at the University of California, Irvine, writing at Slate:
Today, once again, the government lost a campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC. And while it could have lost in somewhat worse ways, this opinion is pretty awful, portending a raft of new First Amendment attacks on soft money and even on the basic rules limiting how much individuals can give candidates for office.
Source: Legal Experts React to Supreme Court’s Campaign-Finance Ruling
Enhanced by Zemanta

Watchdog Groups File FEC Complaints Against National Republican Congressional Committee and Democratic Senate Majority PAC

Seal of the United States Federal Election Com...
Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed two separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the National Republican Congressional Committee, a party committee that supports Republican candidates, and Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC that supports Dem

Source: Watchdog Groups File FEC Complaints Against National Republican Congressional Committee and Democratic Senate Majority PAC

Related articles

Super-PACs and Dark Money: A Guide

ProPublica:
"The chief umpire in this game—the Federal Election Commission—is still struggling to write the rules for the hodgepodge of strange-sounding groups feeding the system. 527s? Super-PACs? Even Super-Duper PACs? ProPublica decided a guide is in order."

Colbert Super PAC - Trevor Potter Preps Stephen for His FEC Hearing

Comedy Central:
"Colbert Super PAC - Trevor Potter Preps Stephen for His FEC Hearing
Trevor Potter prepares Stephen for his FEC Super PAC hearing, which will not require him to fight in the sarlacc pit in sudden-death overtime. (03:51)"
Video here.


Related articles

Citizens United Rules Stall at FEC

Roll Call News:
"After almost 18 months of discussions, memorandums and regulatory debates, the Federal Election Commission failed Wednesday to begin its process for updating regulations in light of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United.
The commission’s agenda included drawing up a set of questions to frame future discussions about bringing regulations in line with the ruling, which found that corporations, unions and nonprofits may spend their own funds on political ads. It was only the second time this year that the commission tried to tackle the project, and frustrated commissioners were unable to reach an agreement.
It’s unknown when the commissioners may try again, and campaign finance experts say the deadlock means that millions of dollars could be raised and spent on the 2012 cycle under outdated regulations."

Judge: Super PACs May Donate to Candidates

Roll Call Politics:
"Super PACs may have an added special power following a federal court ruling this week.
Super PACs can already collect unlimited funds to spend on campaign ads in support of a candidate. A preliminary injunction issued Tuesday lets them also act like conventional political action committees and donate up to $5,000 to the same candidate’s campaign, so long as the funds are kept separate.
Under U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer’s decision in the case Carey v. Federal Election Commission, a PAC may use soft money for independent expenditures and donate hard money to federal candidates as long as the funds are kept in different accounts."
Related articles

Facebook Gets No Decision from FEC on Ad Disclaimers

ClickZ:
"Facebook hoped today was the day it would get a decision from the Federal Election Commission regarding disclaimers in political ads on the site. Alas, the six commissioners could not muster the four-vote majority required to hand down an advisory opinion on the matter.
At stake is whether political candidates or groups running Facebook ads must include disclaimers regarding who paid for the ads within the ads themselves.
'Zero percent' of ads on Facebook currently include such disclaimers, said a Facebook representative during today's public FEC meeting, suggesting that the commission simply approve what is already occurring in political Facebook ads. 'If you were to adopt [an advisory opinion requiring disclaimers], you will cause an enormous amount of disruption in the campaign world, probably greater disruption than this agency has done' in several years, he said."
Related articles

Three Courts in Last Eight Days Have Enjoined, or Declared Unconstitutional, Certain Campaign Spending Laws

Ballot Access News:
"The extensive constitutional protection for independent expenditures for or against candidates, and the continuing restrictive rules on direct donations to candidates and political parties, has created a strange political culture in the United States. A large and growing proportion of speech about candidates comes not from the candidates themselves, and not from political parties, but from other individuals and groups, all of whom are required not to coordinate their speech with the candidate."
Related articles

Edwards Case May Test Bounds of Law

Roll Call Politics:
"But legal experts say securing a conviction could be a bumpy road.
There are significant roadblocks prosecutors must overcome to make the case that the former Senator knowingly and willfully violated campaign finance law — the standard of proof required in a criminal case — given that the Federal Election Commission has issued conflicting opinions about in which situations money given to candidates is a personal gift or a campaign contribution, legal experts said last week.
“This is an unprecedented prosecution ... no one would have known, or should have known, or could have been expected to know, that these payments would be treated or should be considered as campaign contributions. And there was no way Sen. Edwards knew that fact either,” Edwards’ lead counsel, Gregory Craig, said outside the Winston-Salem courthouse following the indictment. Edwards pleaded not guilty."

Former Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards Charged for Alleged Role in Scheme to Violate Federal Campaign Finance Laws

The DOJ press release in the Edwards case/indictiment. Sorry to be so slow to post this!

Former Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards Charged for Alleged Role in Scheme to Violate Federal Campaign Finance Laws:
"The indictment, returned in the Middle District of North Carolina, charges Johnny Reid Edwards, 57, of Chapel Hill, N.C., with one count of conspiracy to violate the federal campaign finance laws and to make false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC); four counts of accepting and receiving illegal campaign contributions from two donors in 2007 and 2008; and one count of concealing those illegal donations from the FEC. Edwards is scheduled to make his initial appearance in federal court in Winston-Salem, N.C., at 2:30 p.m. EDT before U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick Auld."

Edwards Indictment

FEC Urged to Deny Stephen Colbert’s FEC Request by CLC and Democracy 21

Stephen Colbert Stephen Colbert
CLC President and Colbert personal lawyer Trevor Potter rescued himself from this issue, of course.





campaignlegalcenter.org:
"The Campaign Legal Center[1], together with Democracy 21, today urged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to deny a request by comedian Stephen Colbert to significantly expand the so-called “press-exemption” to a number of federal election laws. The two organizations filed comments with the FEC in response to an advisory opinion request by Mr. Colbert seeking the FEC’s opinion as to whether the Viacom corporation, which owns, produces and distributes his television show, The Colbert Report, may pay for a variety of expenses of his Colbert Super PAC without disclosing any of the expenses as in-kind contributions to the PAC under the “press exemption.”"
And here is a Wall Street Journal editorial on the possible *serious* unintended consequences of Colbert's gag:
Campaign-finance laws are so complicated that few can navigate them successfully and speak during elections—which is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, federal laws have created "71 distinct entities" that "are subject to different rules for 33 different types of political speech." The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of explanations and opinions on what the laws mean. "Legalese" doesn't begin to describe this mess.
How's that for a punch line? Rich and successful television personality needs powerful corporate lawyers to convince the FEC to allow him to continue making fun of the Supreme Court. Hilarious.
Of course, there's nothing new about the argument Mr. Colbert's lawyers are making to the FEC. Media companies' exemption from campaign-finance laws has existed for decades. That was part of the Supreme Court's point in Citizens United: Media corporations are allowed to spend lots of money on campaign speech, so why not other corporations?
Whether Mr. Colbert understands that he has made the Supreme Court's point is anyone's guess. But there's nothing funny about what he has had to go through to set up a PAC, because real people who want to speak out during elections face these confounding laws all the time. And as his attempt at humor ironically demonstrates, the laws remain byzantine and often impossible to navigate, even after Citizens United.

Related articles

FEC Falls Short on Enforcement, Commish Weintraub says... worse than "feckless"?

Maybe instead of feckless the FEC is now cool as a result of the Colbert Bump?

FEC Falls Short on Enforcement, Commissioner Says : Roll Call Politics:
From fiscal 2006 to 2010, the average fine levied against campaigns, parties and political action committees for violating campaign finance law dropped from $180,000 to $42,000, Weintraub said. Similarly, the number of conciliation agreements, deals on penalties hammered out between the FEC and those under investigation, fell from 91 in fiscal 2007 to 29 in fiscal 2010, which Weintraub called a “pretty sharp drop.”
“Back in ’06 and ’07, they said we were ‘feckless’ and ‘toothless,’” she said. “I am not sure what the adjective would be today.”
Related articles

The Republicans’ ChutzPAC

NYTimes.com:
"The PAC founders blithely and cynically contend that the restriction really only applies to how funds are spent, not how they are solicited. This means that once a donor has given a candidate the maximum $5,000 allowed under law, the candidate could ask for thousands more to be donated to an “independent” Super PAC that everyone knows to be an aggressively partisan election weapon.

This hearkens to the million-dollar donations harvested by the Nixon campaign. The scheme should be shunned and denounced by lawmakers and candidates in both parties. Unfortunately, Democratic fund-raisers say that if the inept Federal Election Commission allows the Super PAC to go forward, they will join the new arms race."
Related articles

Huffington Post: IRS To Take On Karl Rove? Tax Laws Could Take A Bite Out Of Secret Political Spending

Democracy 21 :
"Republican political strategist Karl Rove's method of secretly funneling unlimited contributions from big donors was so hugely successful in the 2010 campaign that Democrats are now trying to copy it. But his model may yet end up backfiring spectacularly.

In one scenario, groups like Rove's Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategies could find themselves subject to massive fines, ranging as high as 35 to 70 percent of the money they received in secret donations.

In another scenario, their deep-pocket donors could be hit by a 35 percent tax on their contributions."
Related articles

Dem groups ask FEC to rule on Super PACs

POLITICO.com:
"'We're pretty sure that is not legal,' Lapp told POLITICO about the proposal to allow members of Congress and other officeholders to get involved in PAC fundraising -- but if the committee rules it legal, she said Democratic groups will also follow suit to ensure a fair playing field.

UPDATE: Fred Wertheimer, whose Democracy 21 advocacy group protested about the practice, raised similar concerns about the Democratic proposal.

“This would blatantly violate the law,” he told POLITICO, expressing concern that the six-member FEC, which has become increasingly prone to deadlock, would not block the practice."
Related articles

Ensign Report Raises Questions About Federal Election Commission

Official photo of United States Senator John E...Image via Wikipedia
Swampland:
"The Senate Ethics Committee’s report accusing John Ensign of violating federal and campaign-finance laws doesn’t just reflect poorly on the former Nevada senator. It also highlights lingering questions about the Federal Election Commission’s ability to do its job.

Among the investigation’s findings was the revelation that Ensign, who resigned last month, lied to the FEC by claiming that a $96,000 payment his affluent parents made to Cynthia and Doug Hampton–the former aide with whom he had an affair, and her husband, also an Ensign staffer–was a “gift” rather than a severance package. The Ethics Committee, citing “substantial credible evidence” that Ensign had violated campaign-finance regulations, referred the matter back to the FEC for future inquiry."
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

New Federal Contribution Limits for 2011-2012 (And a Few Traps for the Unwary)

Seal of the United States Federal Election Com...Image via WikipediaPolitical GPS: Womble Carlyle Political Law:
"Likewise, contributions to “joint fundraising committees” can cause contributors to unexpectedly “max out” on their biennial limit or inadvertently make an excessive contribution to a specific candidate. How can this happen? Joint fundraising committees can raise tens of thousands of dollars from a single contributor – money that is distributed among multiple candidates, or among candidates and party committees. A contributor who overlooks the small print may believe that he or she has made a contribution to a single committee, when in fact the contributor has made multiple contributions, each of which is reflected in FEC records as a contribution to the ultimate recipient."
Related articles

"FEC Seems Headed for Continued Deadlock On Rule Following Citizens United Decision"

Election Law: "
A 143-page draft expected to be supported by the FEC's three Democratic commissioners includes provisions that could require disclosure of all contributors above a threshold level to groups spending money on federal campaigns. The Democratic draft also includes a proposal to restrict campaign spending by companies that have more than a minimum level of ownership or control by foreign nationals.

A rival 91-page draft believed to be backed by the three Republican commissioners excludes the proposals on disclosure and foreign nationals and concentrates more narrowly on eliminating existing regulatory provisions that restrict campaign spending by corporations and unions."

Canadians file lawsuit to be able to make contributions to US political campaigns

Courthouse News Service:
"Two Canadian citizens living in the U.S. will have a three-judge court hear their challenge to the so-called Alien Gag Law, a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that blocks foreign nationals from giving money to political candidates, a federal judge ruled.
Benjamin Bluman and Dr. Asenath Steiman, both New Yorkers, filed a federal lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission in October, claiming that the law wrongfully blocks them from contributing money in the last election, though they live, work and pay taxes in America."
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)