RE: 527 lawsuit was filed after McConnell v FEC ruling

http://www.fec.gov/members/toner/sor/sormur5024.pdf

Here is a link to the Statement of Reasons for the three Republican
commissioners in the case.  They use a straight magic words/GOPAC
analysis with a disclaimer that the case was voted upon before
McConnell.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Trevor
Potter
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 2:59 PM
To: ldanetz@nvri.org; ban@richardwinger.com; Rick Hasen; election-law
Subject: RE: 527 lawsuit was filed after McConnell v FEC ruling


The administrative complaint in the Kean case was filed in the Spring of
2000. An A-8 suit was filed after apparent FEC inaction, but that was
withdrawn once the FEC proceeded. The 3-3 FEC deadlock, and the
resulting decision not to proceed (contrary to the General Counsel's
recommendations) was in December of 2003.
Trevor Potter
Campaign Legal Center

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Lisa
Danetz (NVRI)
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 2:28 PM
To: ban@richardwinger.com; 'Rick Hasen'; 'election-law'
Subject: RE: 527 lawsuit was filed after McConnell v FEC ruling


The case may have been filed after McConnell was decided but, given that
there was only a month between the decision and the lawsuit, the
underlying administrative complaint must have been filed much earlier
than the McConnell decision.  In addition, a quick review of the summary
judgment brief (attached to Campaign Legal Center's press release)
indicates that there is a related case within the district court.  I
assume that must be a "failure to act" lawsuit under 2 usc s437g(a)(8)
-- which means the administrative complaint has probably been around for
a while.

Lisa J. Danetz, Staff Attorney
National Voting Rights Institute
27 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA  02108
Phone  617-624-3900
Fax    617-624-3911
www.nvri.org

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of
ban@richardwinger.com
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 11:59 AM
To: Rick Hasen; election-law
Subject: 527 lawsuit was filed after McConnell v FEC ruling


Keane for Congress v FEC was filed in January 2004,
after the December 2003 ruling of the US Supreme Court
in McConnell v FEC.  In the US Dist Ct in Washington,
DC, it is 1:04-cv-0007.

--- Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu> wrote:

---------------------------------
    Finding a Way to Get the FEC's 527 Inaction
beforethe CourtsForsome time I have wondered what
strategy Republicans or that segment ofthe reform
community that wishes greater regulation of 527s
mightpursue to get review of the FEC's inaction on the
527 issue. AlthoughRepublicans have now done an
about-face on the 527 issue and are urgingthat 527s
(formerly declared illegal) be set up in earnest to benefitRepublicans,
at least one reform group continues the fight. See thisCampaign Legal
Center press release. It appears that the CLC hasintervened in an
existing lawsuit over an earlierFEC action on 527s. I have not had a
chance to look at the papers, butthis looks like a suit based on FEC
inaction before the McConnellcase issued.
-- Rick HasenProfessor of Law and William M. Rains
FellowLoyola Law School919 South Albany StreetLos
Angeles, CA  90015-1211(213)736-1466(213)380-3769 -
faxrick.hasen@lls.eduhttp://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.htmlhttp
://e
lectionlawblog.org






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains  Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer




<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.