[EL] "Take A Hike"

[bzall at aol.com]

Tyler:

Point well taken. I did, in fact, have another paragraph in my original note but deleted it before sending. And "incompetence" was too strong a word when directed at FEC employees who have "little discretion" about mindlessly asking committees if they are "authorized" by the candidates they unambiguously oppose.

"Inability" would have been a better term, showing, as it does, that the FEC system is set up so that its highly-trained and diligent senior regulators cannot comply with its own rules without imposing meaningless paperwork and legal burdens on those who are clearly entitled to speak. 102.14(b)(3) is unambiguous (if you pardon the pun) in permitting the use of a candidate's name in opposition to the candidate. The purpose of the name authorization rule is to avoid fraud on donors who think they are supporting a candidate when they're not, a problem that continues today. Yet the 1993 E&J noted accurately that there is no possibility of fraud or abuse when the name clearly shows opposition. These were not close calls.

So why does the RAD manual require that particular meaningless question to be asked? 

Having said that, my real concern was over the headline and excerpt used, which seemed to inappropriately blame those who faced the meaningless burden for "effectively" telling the FEC to "take a hike" rather than highlighting the ridiculous request and the appropriate responses. The original CPI report at least included the substance of the response and the regulation that made the request inappropriate. The headline and lede made it sound, in an era when some decry Republican opposition to useless FEC burdens, as "blame the victim."

Barnaby Zall
_________________________

> On Jun 2, 2015, at 10:48 PM, Tyler Culberson <tylerculberson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Barnaby,
> As a former Senior Analyst with the FEC, your ire is misdirected. Analysts at the FEC are given little discretion in what and how reporting issues are questioned. This fact has been clearly inumerated in the redacted RAD policy manual which was made public upon the threat of subpoena by the House Administration Committee in 2011 (I think the redacted manual became available 2012). The RAD policy manual is approved by the Commissioners every election cycle establishing the scope of reports review within RAD.  As one of the more embarrassing and shameful public memos released by a former Commissioner on the FEC's website made clear, (paraphrasing) the judgement and opinion of the FEC's staff does not matter as the staff serves at the behest of the Commission and it's Comissioners.
> 
> Therefore, it's quite clear that any judgment of incompetence should be directed toward the Commissioners who make determinations on not only how the laws are enforced, but which ones.
> 
> FEC Analysts perform to an extemely high standard, processing and reviewing thousands of reports and millions of transactions, each election-cycle, for their legality and reporting errors in the walls of a heavily scrutinized agency with extremely poor leadership - all to the specifications of the Commissioners.
> 
> On Jun 2, 2015 7:58 AM, <BZall at aol.com> wrote:
> It would have been nice if you had included some portion of the CPI report which quotes the REST of the "federal law" as saying that you certainly can include a candidate's name if the name unambiguously indicates opposition to the candidate. 102.14(b)(3); http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/1994/1994-5.pdf [Disclosure: I filed the 1993 Petition for Rulemaking on behalf of "Citizens Against David Duke" to protect the right of "anti-"candidate groups to use a candidate's name in opposition. ]
>  
> That would have focused the issue less on the "anti-Hillary" Republicans and more on the incompetence of two "Sr. Campaign Finance & Reviewing Analyst[s]" in the FEC who can't even bother looking at the actual names of the organizations before concluding whether the obvious regulatory interpretation applies. If there were any question, perhaps the FEC RAD could have noted that Stop Hillary PAC has sued the FEC for not ... stopping Hillary and Ready for Hillary.
>  
> Barnaby Zall
> Of Counsel
> Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
> 10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500
> Bethesda, MD 20817
> 301-231-6943 (direct dial)
> bzall at aol.com
>  
>  
> “Anti-Hillary groups to FEC: Take a hike”
> Posted on June 1, 2015 4:23 pm by Rick Hasen
> CPI:
> 
> A pair of anti-Hillary Clinton political committees are effectively telling the Federal Election Commission
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150603/2a0e8392/attachment.html>