[EL] HuffPost: FEC enforcement "gag" order

Tue Jul 23 19:15:47 PDT 2013

The FEC could not issue Advisory Opinions during the period that there were only two Commissioners. It is true that the two met in public, but I believe they could only act for themselves, not "the Commission."
Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:50 PM, "David Keating" <dkeating at campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

> That’s not correct.  When the SpeechNow.org AOR came up for a vote there were four vacancies on the Commission, so no more than two could show up.  They still convened meetings and voted.
>  
> David
> _________________________________________________
> David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
> 124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
> 703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
> www.campaignfreedom.org
> From: Craig Holman [holman at aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:28 PM
> To: Smith, Brad; dkeating at campaignfreedom.org
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: Re: [EL] HuffPost: FEC enforcement "gag" order
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fec must begin business with a quorum. What likely happened in 
> the speechnow situation, David, is that quorum was lost in the course 
> of the meeting and no one made a quorum call. That is why in the 
> scenario I prescribe the two democratic commissioners must not show up 
> in the beginning of a meeting to avoid quorum. If they showed in the 
> beginning, making quorum for business to start, then left in the middle 
> of the meeting, there would be no one left to make a quorum call, 
> allowing business to be settled by whoever remains.
> 
> Nationals are losing 5-1, and we are now in the 8th inning. But the weather cooled off, so we are all keeping quorum here.
> 
> Craig Holman, Ph.D.
> Government Affairs Lobbyist
> Public Citizen
> 215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
> Washington, D.C. 20003
> T-(202) 454-5182
> C-(202) 905-7413
> F-(202) 547-7392
> Holman at aol.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> To: David Keating <dkeating at campaignfreedom.org>
> Cc: law-election <law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: 23-Jul-2013 21:11:22 +0000
> Subject: Re: [EL] HuffPost: FEC enforcement "gag" order
> 
> Actually, 2 USC 437 (c) states "All decisions of the Commission with respect to the exercise of its duties and powers under the provisions of this Act shall be made by a majority vote of the members of the Commission... except that the affirmative vote of 4 members of the Commission shall be required in order for the Commission to take any action in accordance with paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of section 437d(a)."
>  
> There is no quorum requirement in the statute, and it wouldn't make sense that a quorum had to be more than a majority of the Commission, since the majority can take action on anything that doesn't fall within 437d(a) (6)-(9). I do not recall if there is an internal directive that includes a quorum requirement, but I don't think so. For those interested, paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of 437d(a) are, respectively (6) initiate, defend, or appeal lawsuit;
> (7) render advisory opinions
> (8) develop forms and issue regulations
> (9) "to conduct investigations and hearings expeditiously, to encourage voluntary compliance, and to report apparent violations to the appropriate law enforcement authorities."
>  
> I find it ironic that "reformers" are always criticizing Commissioner McGahn (as they once did me, and as they did before me Commissioners Sandstrom and Mason and several others) for "refusing to enforce the law," when Commissioner McGahn seems much more interested in enforcing the law than they do.
>  
> Bradley A. Smith
> 
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
> 
>    Professor of Law
> 
> Capital University Law School
> 
> 303 E. Broad St.
> 
> Columbus, OH 43215
> 
> 614.236.6317
> 
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of David Keating [dkeating at campaignfreedom.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:20 PM
> To: Rick Hasen; Craig Holman
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] HuffPost: FEC enforcement "gag" order
> 
> As far as I know and from a quick search of the FEC regulations for the word quorum, there is no quorum requirement for a meeting.  In my SpeechNow.org AOR, the commission met when there were only two members and they voted on the AO drafts.  Needless to say, none of the drafts got 4 votes.
> 
>  
> 
> David
> 
> _________________________________________________
> 
> David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
> 
> 124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
> 
> 703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
> 
> www.campaignfreedom.org
> 
>  
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:36 PM
> To: Craig Holman
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] HuffPost: FEC enforcement "gag" order
> 
>  
> 
> I found your suggestion that the Democratic Commissioners boycott tomorrow's meeting to be especially intriguing:
> 
> One Democratic commissioner left in February, leaving three Republicans and two Democrats on the Commission. McGahn is hoping to take advantage of the partisan imbalance by proposing a "gag" order in new enforcement guidelines, to be approved by a 3-2 majority, that would: (i) prevent FEC staff from viewing public resources in conducting their investigations, such as candidate and government Web pages, news reports, business databases and social media sites; and (ii) prohibit FEC staff from sharing information with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which handles criminal investigations of campaign finance scandals.
> 
> If the ability of FEC staff even to conduct an investigation can be hamstrung from the onset, then the Commission need not face many more embarrassing obstructionist votes. Just as importantly for those seeking to block enforcement of the campaign finance laws, the DOJ will also be hobbled in its criminal investigations.
> 
> Prior to announcement of McGahn's proposal, FEC General Counsel Anthony Herman unexpectedly resigned from the agency last month. After the announcement, Herman felt compelled to warn the FEC and the public of the pending danger to campaign finance enforcement and submitted public testimony to the Commission.
> 
> If the Republican commissioners continue to vote as a bloc on this proposal, they will effectively neuter the enforcement ability of FEC staff and hinder Justice investigations of egregious violations.
> 
> Though it is a big ask of the remaining two Democratic commissioners, they could take a page from McGahn's playbook and not show up at the next FEC meeting, thereby denying quorum and any agency decision on the gag order.
> 
>  
> 
> On 7/23/13 1:25 PM, Craig Holman wrote:
> 
> Colleagues:
> 
>  
> 
> On Thursday, July 25, the Federal Election Commission will vote on a proposal by departing Commissioner Don McGahn that would hamper the ability of the FEC staff to conduct investigations of violations of campaign finance law. As is widely known, the agency has been beleaguered by Commission deadlocked votes since 2008, preventing many an enforcement action. Among the proposals: unless the Commission approves ahead of time – (1) Prohibit FEC staff from looking at certain public resources in the conduct of investigations, such as candidate web pages; and (2) Prohibit FEC staff from sharing information with the Department of Justice, which handles criminal complaints of egregious violations of the campaign finance law. Lisa Gilbert and I have published an op-ed about this maneuver in today’s Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-holman/a-parting-shot-to-neuter_b_3641120.html
> 
>  
> 
> Craig Holman, Ph.D.
> Government Affairs Lobbyist
> Public Citizen
> 215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
> Washington, D.C. 20003
> T-(202) 454-5182
> C-(202) 905-7413
> F-(202) 547-7392
> Holman at aol.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>  
> 
> -- 
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> 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
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/a1f1f2a6/attachment.html>