[EL] Ravel-Weintraub Petition

[Steve Kolbert]

The petition itself, at 4, notes that Ravel & Weintraub have filed the
petition "as members of the Commission" -- I'm not sure the pair have
"dispense[d] with their formal roles and petition[ed] as private citizens,"
as Bob's post suggests. The absence of letterhead suggests private
capacity, but the use of the FEC's building address suggests official
duties. It seems to me an open question, but I lean towards thinking this
was an official, not private, act.

My cursory skim of the relevant regulations reveal no reason why members of
the Commission, in their official capacity, would be unable to petition the
agency as a whole -- perhaps someone can shed light on that.

Steve Kolbert
(202) 422-2588
steve.kolbert at gmail.com
@Pronounce_the_T

Steve Kolbert
(202) 422-2588
steve.kolbert at gmail.com
@Pronounce_the_T
On Jun 9, 2015 4:32 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  If the commissioners cannot decide bagels or doughnuts do you expect them
> to agree on this?
>
> On 6/9/15 1:27 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
>  Yes, it is and yes he did.  Just wondering if anyone has an answer?  Jim
> Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 6/9/2015 4:12:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> Bob Bauer raised that point in his excellent blog post today
> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/06/desperate-fec/>:
>
> A first point—minor but worth considering– is whether this agency needs
> another quirky procedural controversy. What does it mean for two
> Commissioners, one of whom is agency Chair, to dispense with their formal
> roles and petition as citizens, filing a petition on plain paper without
> their titles and just the Commission’s street address? Will they recuse
> themselves from voting on the petition as Commissioners? Will they testify
> before themselves?
>
>
>
> On 6/9/15 1:07 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
>  Question: Won't Ravel and Weintraub each have to recuse themselves from
> voting on/discussing their own Petition when it is considered by the FEC?
> Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 6/9/2015 11:53:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> Read the Ravel-Weintraub Petition for the FEC to Engage in New Rulemaking
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73279>
> Posted on June 8, 2015 9:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73279> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here.
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/weintraub-ravel-petition.pdf>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150609/1acce4f2/attachment.html>