[EL] more FEC/blogging break

Thu Jun 30 15:31:55 PDT 2011

I am very pleased with the FEC's decision today  making it clear that it is 
legal for candidates and political party officials,  in their official 
capacity, can solicit contributions for Super PAC.  Just  a few weeks ago, the 
"reformers" were screaming that such solicitations were  illegal and you go 
to jail.  The first draft of the FEC advisory opinion  also said it was 
illegal.  Now they have approved the solicitation as long  as there is a 
disclaimer at the bottom saying that the candidate is only asking  for contributions 
up to 5K.  It does not limit what a donor can give a  Super PAC and I 
guarantee you that the donor will know that he can give all he  wants as a result 
of the candidate's solicitation.  I endorsed this result  in comments to 
the FEC yesterday.  This enables the Republican Super PAC to  do exactly what 
it wants to do.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 6/30/2011 1:56:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

_Happy 4th_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20003)  
Posted  on _June 30, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20003)  by _Rick 
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

With plans for a _major  research outing_ 
(http://www.mammothmountain.com/MountainActivities/SummerActivities/BikePark/)  this weekend, blogging will 
resume on July 5. 
Happy 4th! 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20003&title=Happy%204th&description=) 

Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1)   | Comments 
Off 

_The Bigger Story at  Today’s FEC: No New Soft Money Loophole; Jim Bopp, 
Like Stephen Colbert,  Brings Some Unanimity to the FEC_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19997)  
Posted  on _June 30, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19997)  by _Rick 
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

While Stephen Colbert got _all  the attention_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fec-allows-colbert-to-form-super-pac-for-2012-elections/2011/06/3
0/AGxVGBsH_story.html)  at the FEC today (link to _commission audio_ 
(http://fec.gov/audio/2011/2011063001.mp3) ), the  more important substantive 
decision was the unanimous vote of the FEC to  prevent the reopening of a_ soft 
money loophole_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19632)  in  campaign finance 
law.  It’s not every day (in fact, it’s usually not  any day) that the FEC’
s actions _get praise_ (http://bit.ly/lm9Xwc)  from Fred Wertheimer. 
What happened and why? 
Here’s the back story: Jim Bopp announced the formation of a Republican  “
super PAC”–a political committee which does not make any contributions  
directly to federal candidates, and which, thanks to recent court and FEC  
rulings may take unlimited contributions (from individuals, corporations, and  
labor unions) to be spent on independent ads supporting or opposing federal  
candidates. What made Bopp’s proposal unique is that he would use Republican 
 officeholders to raise unlimited sums for the Super PAC.  It would not  
only create a “shadow” Republican party—it would get elected officials back 
in  the business of raising unlimited sums from corporate, union, and wealthy 
 contributors, effectively reversing the “soft money ban” put in place by  
McCain-Feingold.  Not only did the Supreme Court uphold that ban in 
_McConnell v.  FEC_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html)  (in a 
portion of the opinion not touched by Citizens  United), even _Justice  
Kennedy_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZX2.html)  voted to 
uphold key parts of the ban on elected officials  soliciting unlimited funds to 
benefit their political parties. 
Democratic lawyers, including Marc Elias, in a savvy move, then filed an  
Advisory Opinion request, asking the FEC to rule on whether such unlimited  
fundraising is legal, or whether such solicitations need to be within the  
$5,000 limit for PACs which are not “super-PACs.”  So Elias got the FEC  to 
rule on whether Bopp’s plan is legal. 
Today the FEC voted on that advisory opinion request, saying that elected  
officials may not raise unlimited funds for super-PACs. I have not  seen any 
news reports yet, but Sean Parnell _tweets_ 
(https://twitter.com/#!/seanparnellCCP/status/86454867312381952)   that the Commission, on a 6-0 vote, 
approved a _revised version_ (http://fec.gov/agenda/2011/mtgdoc_1137b.pdf)  of  
Draft A to AO request 2011-12. It’s a good thing too, because it really 
would  have eviscerated the soft money limits. 
Why was the FEC vote 6-0, when we’ve been seeing lots of 3-3 FEC 
_deadlocks_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?s=deadlock)  _recently_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19927) , with the Republican  Commissioners refusing, in my view, 
to fairly enforce the law? 
I think Jim Bopp’s proposal was a bridge too far, even for the three FEC  
Commissioners.  Not only would there have been a public outcry, but I  
imagine the issue would have ended up in the courts, and created great  
uncertainty as the 2012 election season gets into full swing.  It reminds  me of when 
Judge Kavanaugh _rejected_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=14454)  a lawsuit 
by Bopp  seeking to end the soft money limits.  Judge Kavanaugh, no friend 
of  campaign finance regulation, said that the time may come when the Supreme 
 Court would overturn McConnell and hold the soft money limits clearly 
imposed  by Congress as unconstitutional.  But until then he was bound by 
Congress  and the Court. 
So the three Republican commissioners deserve great praise today for their  
vote in this case, but I have low expectations going forward, given the  
Commissioners’ recent votes in coordination and disclosure cases, as well as  
their position on the post-Citizens United rulemaking. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19997&title=The%20Bigger%20Story%20at%20Today’
s%20FEC:%20No%20New%20Soft%20Money%20Loophole;%20Jim%20Bopp,%20Like%20Stephen%20Colbert,%20Brings%20Some%20Unan
imity%20to%20the%20FEC&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,  
_federal election  commission_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24)  | Comments 
Off 

_Was I Right After All  About Democrats’ Support for Colbert Draft 
A?/Majority Super PAC Ruling_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19991)   
Posted  on _June 30, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19991)  by _Rick 
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

Following up on _this _ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19978) and _this_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19981) , someone at the hearing  just emailed 
me to say that the Democratic Commissioners supported Colbert  Draft A as it 
was, and that the Republican Commissioners were the ones who  needed the 
changes that came in the draft last night. 
The revised draft _passed_ 
(https://twitter.com/#!/DanEggenWPost/status/86446859857567744) .   Sean Parnell further reports a 6-0 vote on the Majority 
PAC superpac  issue.  The soft money loophole sought by Bopp defeated. 
More to come. 
UPDATE: A source tells me the following about the Colbert draft:  Draft A 
always had the support of 5 commissioners, but there were continuing  
negotiations over some minor language changes in the final document, including  
those proposed as part of the amendments that were voted on at the table.  
Draft A was never a “Democratic” or “Republican” draft. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19991&title=Was%20I%20Right%20After%20All%20About%20Democrats’
%20Support%20for%20Colbert%20Draft%20A?/Majority%20Super%20PAC%20Ruling&description=) 

Posted in _federal election  commission_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24)  | Comments Off 
-- 
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine  School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA  92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 

William  H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110630/d9561d92/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110630/d9561d92/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110630/d9561d92/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110630/d9561d92/attachment-0002.bin>