[EL] Don McGahn Out at FEC/more news

Tue Sep 17 16:54:22 PDT 2013

The Washington Post has called Don McGahn's tenure at the FEC among the
most consequential in the agency's history from the standpoint of
deregulation.

I worked at the Commission, for a time; on team Bradley A. Smith, a team
familiar with the need for deregulation and its importance to political
freedom and popular sovereignty.

Don McGahn, it must be said, had multiple precedents to enforce that Brad
Smith never had. Those precedents provided McGahn an opportunity to
enshrine deregulation in a way that would not have been possible in Brad's
heyday; in the years preceding McGahn. Brad had a hand in aiding a good
many of those precedents with briefs, fundraising for briefs, and op-eds.
Brad also had a hand in some needed regulatory projects while at the FEC,
like content standards for coordinated communications and a rulemaking on
enforcement procedures.

But it must be said that Don McGahn, to my knowledge, never provided the
fourth vote for regulations that made major court cases necessary, as Brad
Smith did -- specifically, the fourth vote at the FEC for the Political
Committee Regulations surrounding the 2004 election, regulations that
killed the 527s when Congress couldn't, regulations without which there
would have been no need pressing need for SpeechNow.org v. FEC and no need
at all for EMILY's List v. FEC.

Nobody is perfect.

On balance I am inclined to agree with the Post -- without yet having read
the entire Post article -- even as I recognize that Smith was a forerunner
to McGahn, and that McGahn stood on Smith's shoulders, to the extent
shoulders were stood upon.

The truth is, however, that the FEC -- and the country -- need a hundred
Brad Smiths, it needs a hundred Don McGahns. Matt Petersen and Caroline
Hunter are doing their part, and are very much in that mold. May they not
be the last.

Incidentally, I think it is fair to say the biggest compliment paid Don
McGahn is that the intimidation in the 2012 election had no chance of
originating from the 6th floor of 999 E St, NW under McGahn's, Hunter's and
Petersen's tenure, as it had in the past under the tenure of other
Commissioners (Christian Action Network; Christian Coalition; The
Coalition, and so forth). In 2012, intimidation had to migrate to the IRS,
or have no chance at all.

Thank you, Don McGahn. You will be missed, even as you aren't leaving the
fight and aren't really going anywhere,

Steve Hoersting

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  ** ** ** “Former FEC chairman Donald McGahn resigns from panel”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55341>
> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 3:44 pm**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55341> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> WaPo<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-fec-chairman-donald-mcgahn-resigns-from-panel/2013/09/17/84ff1a88-1fca-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html>:
> “Donald F. McGahn, the controversial former chairman of the Federal
> Election Commission, resigned from the panel on Tuesday to return to
> private practice, ending what campaign-finance reform advocates and
> political practitioners called one of the most consequential tenures in the
> commission’s 38-year history.”
>
> It is fair to say he has done more in the cause of campaign finance
> deregulation than anyone else on the Commission. To some that is something
> to cheer; my review of McGahn’s tenure was not favorable<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/the_fec_is_as_good_as_dead.html>
> .
>
> He resigns as it looks like his replacement (and filling of a Democratic
> FEC seat) will soon happen in the Senate.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55341&title=%E2%80%9CFormer%20FEC%20chairman%20Donald%20McGahn%20resigns%20from%20panel%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> ** ** ** ** ** “A call for a right-to-vote amendment on Constitution Day”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55339>
> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 3:25 pm**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55339> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> Janai Nelson<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/17/a-call-for-a-right-to-vote-amendment-on-constitution-day/>Reuters oped.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55339&title=%E2%80%9CA%20call%20for%20a%20right-to-vote%20amendment%20on%20Constitution%20Day%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
> ** ** ** ** ** “Fourth DCA Reverses Earlier Opinion, Holds Pre-Election
> Challenges Are Subject to Anti-SLAPP Statute”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55337>
> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 3:21 pm**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55337> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> Nielsen Merksamer<http://web.nmgovlaw.com/news/2/78/Fourth-DCA-Reverses-Earlier-Opinion-Holds-Pre-Election-Challenges-Are-Subject-to-Anti-SLAPP-Statute/>:
> “Ballot measure opponents have new reason to be cautious about filing
> pre-election litigation challenging a proposed measure, because the Court
> of Appeal for the Fourth District recently reversed its own 2007 decision
> in *City of Riverside v. Stansbury*, which had held that where a
> pre-election lawsuit does not limit an initiative proponent’s actions to *
> qualify* a measure for the ballot, California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code
> of Civil Procedure § 425.16) does not apply.  The new case is *Mission
> Springs Water Dist. v. Verjil, 218 Cal. App. 4th 892 (2013)<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001wZXDMCELQC7F_MWGTKoAi-GrpIU71cnRuL6tMUYBZW7Y7ZFRCGo0-6Rb6uBBOxcsjMufugR9joyFh4c1pYdi3CfbQhGsyONmtpbTER0_M371OuWqMzIYjWb5yCpMSXQpzfu0Bf8JzSPr7HE6Wg0ElP-HRIaIrltuGFu8ci7FZowU90lFY0SB9ZrccyyM5w4fmHm8R0TwBBqgDI-4uCpfH9Dq7V89vqyiHbSsDxAl1rZybXUxYFrnM71MnaFt--T935_SuKvUQkPfu1X1R3kNGltIedWoa2oqnj98ZwYiWn3J_-ihRwkUFiozGXyrIjG4>
> *.  It holds that pre-election challenges, regardless of timing or the
> remedy sought, are subject to an anti-SLAPP motion.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55337&title=%E2%80%9CFourth%20DCA%20Reverses%20Earlier%20Opinion%2C%20Holds%20Pre-Election%20Challenges%20Are%20Subject%20to%20Anti-SLAPP%20Statute%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
> ** ** ** ** ** “Texas Voter ID Violates Voting Rights Act and the
> Constitution, Groups Challenge Law in Federal Court”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55330>
> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 2:04 pm**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55330> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> Brennan Center<http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/texas-voter-id-law-violates-voting-rights-act-and-constitution-groups-challenge>:
> “Today, the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and the Mexican American
> Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC) filed suit<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Texas_voterID_091713.pdf>in federal court to block the state’s new voter ID law because it erects
> discriminatory barriers to voting in violation of the Voting Rights Act and
> the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55330&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Voter%20ID%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20and%20the%20Constitution%2C%20Groups%20Challenge%20Law%20in%20Federal%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,
> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> ** ** ** ** ** “Plaintiffs propose trial schedule in Texas redistricting
> case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55325> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 10:58 am**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55325> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> The latest.<http://txredistricting.org/post/61511389675/plaintiffs-propose-trial-schedule-in-texas>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55325&title=%E2%80%9CPlaintiffs%20propose%20trial%20schedule%20in%20Texas%20redistricting%20case%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> ** ** ** ** ** “CCP’s Response to Sen. Durbin’s Request for Information”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55323>
> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 10:56 am**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55323> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> David Keating:
> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2013/09/16/ccps-response-to-sen-durbins-request-for-information/>
>
> On behalf of the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) , I am writing in
> response to your August 6 letter inquiring as to the Center’s involvement
> with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and our position on
> “stand your ground” laws.
>
> According to news accounts, you have sent similar or identical letters to
> more than 300 groups and you are quoted in an article as saying, “My
> concern is with the lack of transparency. As a public official, when I take
> a position, I stand up to explain and defend it. I file annual financial
> disclosures, campaign finance reports and have to face the scrutiny of
> public opinion.”
>
> MORE<http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-dick-durbins-senate-hearing-aims-to-suppress-alec-donors/article/2535843>from Keating.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55323&title=%E2%80%9CCCP%E2%80%99s%20Response%20to%20Sen.%20Durbin%E2%80%99s%20Request%20for%20Information%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> ** ** ** ** ** “New Timeline Outlines History of the IRS Scandal”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55321>
> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 10:54 am**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55321> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> CCP<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2013/09/17/new-timeline-outlines-history-of-the-irs-scandal/>:
> “The Center for Competitive Politics released a timeline today<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/external-relations/irs-and-the-tea-party/irs-scandal-timeline/>about the events leading up to and surrounding the IRS targeting scandal,
> in which the Agency targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny in
> its review of tax exemption applications. The timeline examines a wide
> variety of actions by elected officials, IRS executives, and outside
> organizations.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55321&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Timeline%20Outlines%20History%20of%20the%20IRS%20Scandal%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
> ** ** ** ** ** Ravel and Goodman Get Unanimous Rules Committee Approval
> for FEC Spots <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55319> **
>  Posted on **September 17, 2013 10:50 am**<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55319> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  **
>
> Does this mean<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/fec-nominees-win-rules-co_b_3942343.html>it will be smooth sailing on the Senate floor?
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55319&title=Ravel%20and%20Goodman%20Get%20Unanimous%20Rules%20Committee%20Approval%20for%20FEC%20Spots&description=>
>  **
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> ** **
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130917/3307baae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130917/3307baae/attachment.png>