Subject: news of the day 3/3/04 |
From: Rick Hasen |
Date: 3/3/2004, 7:39 AM |
To: election-law |
The Hill offers this report.
Roll Call offers this
editorial,
which begins: "Last July, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold
(D-Wis.) launched their latest salvo in the campaign reform wars in the
form of legislation calling for replacement of the Federal Election
Commission, which Feingold lampooned as “the Failure to Enforce
Commission.” Over the years, we’ve been critical of the FEC, too, but
before replacing it we’d like to see full hearings on the
McCain-Feingold proposal. Not one has been held or even scheduled."
The Dallas Morning News offers this
report
(free registration required), with the following subhead: "Grand jury
investigates; Republicans say use of corporate money legal."
I have now had a chance to give an initial read through the FEC General Counsel's draft proposed rulemaking which will be considered initially by the FEC on Thursday. The FEC's decision on Thursday won't mean much; right now all we are talking about is an initial publication of the proposed rules with an invitation for comments. The real action will come when the FEC holds its April hearings and issues its final rules, scheduled for May.
It may be that there is no majority on the FEC to agree on the appropriate rules. It is certainly possible that the FEC could deadlock 3-3 on some or most of these issues. But it is also possible that a majority will craft some sort of compromise.
The draft raises literally dozens of questions for comment, but
perhaps the most important one appears on page 6:
If the FEC acts and changes the rules of the game in June, there is potential for serious disruption. But I would predict that if the FEC acts, the rules could change yet again in this election season, because the FEC's rules could themselves be struck down as unconstitutional if challenged in court. As I have discussed here and on the blog, there are serious constitutional questions raised by treating 527s that make only independent expenditures as political committees and therefore subject to the FECA's $5,000 individual contribution limit.
These challenges would all have to take place right during the period when the 527 organizations want to engage in the activity, so everything would have to be on an expedited schedule.
It may be that a majority of commissioners believe that it is
important enough on policy grounds that 527 organizations be regulated
this election cycle. But in considering the balance with disruption,
they should also consider the serious possibility that whatever change
they make could become subject to immediate challenge and engender
great uncertainty.
-- Rick Hasen Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow Loyola Law School 919 South Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org