<x-charset UTF-8>
Given the debate about how campaign finance reformers should view Brad Smith. I thought it might be illuminating to post the actual words of Senator John McCain in his Senate speech on the FEC and 527s. He does a better job than anyone of explaining why, from the reform perspective, Brad Smith's actions are inappropriate for an FEC Commissioner:
"The Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith, claims apparently some moral superiority on the issue of 527s because as a Republican he stands in opposition to the Republican Party's effort to ensure 527 groups comply with the law. While some may look upon his views as principles, I can only conclude that they again illustrate the same unfitness to serve on the Federal Election Commission he has shown since he was appointed 5 years ago.
Despite claims that his contempt for the Federal elections laws was merely that of an academic commentator and that he would uphold the laws as passed by Congress if confirmed, Mr. Smith has made no secret since arriving at the FEC of his disdain for the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, as well as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. He has done so once again in the pending rulemaking.
Even after the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC, Mr. Smith has gone out of his way to criticize the Court's decision and the law he is supposed to enforce. In one public speech he said:
Now and then the Supreme Court issues a decision that cries out to the public, ``We do not know what we are doing.'' McConnell is such a decision.
Further evidence of Mr. Smith's predilection can be found in an article in the May 3 edition of National Review in which he writes:
Campaign reform passed Congress and was upheld by the Supreme Court because groups hostile to freedom spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create an intellectual climate in which free political participation was viewed as a threat to democracy.
This is perhaps the most inflammatory and inappropriate comment I have ever seen by an individual who is supposed to be enforcing existing law, affirmed in its constitutionality by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. To assert that proreform groups had somehow brainwashed Congress and the Supreme Court is simply pathetic and solidifies my belief that Mr. Smith cannot administer our campaign finance laws in good faith because he is incapable of putting his sworn duties above his personal opinion.
By the way, his treatment of Mr. Nobel, a witness before the FEC, was as bullying and as cowardly as I have ever seen anyone conduct themselves in our Nation's Capital and clearly was an abuse of his authority as Chairman of the Commission.
Mr. Smith's views on the constitutionality of the Nation's campaign finance laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court. Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that the Federal Election Campaign Act and its restrictions on contributions were unconstitutional, and Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that BCRA was unconstitutional. Mr. Smith seems to be incapable of accepting the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States, not Mr. Smith, is the last word on the constitutionality of campaign laws and that it is his job as an FEC Commissioner to carry out, not thwart, the Supreme Court's mandate.
I do not deny that Mr. Smith is entitled to his personal views on the issue of regulating 527s. I am saying, however, that he is failing to fulfill his duties as the chairman of a Federal agency and one who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. Just as we would not tolerate the appointment of a pacifist to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Director of the FBI who believes the whole Penal Code should be null and void, so we should not accept a Chairman of the FEC who opposes campaign laws upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Knowing of his opposition to the laws he was sworn to uphold, I cannot fathom why Mr. Smith would have even accepted his current position in the first place, certainly now that the Supreme Court has proven him wrong and upheld the constitutionality of a law that he stated was ``clearly unconstitutional.'' It makes no sense. It makes no sense for him to be charged with enforcing a law he so publicly opposes on policy and legal grounds.
I know if I were in Mr. Smith's shoes, I would do the honorable thing and resign if I was so determined to carry on a crusade against Federal regulation of campaign finance. I would leave the FEC position to be filled by someone who believed in the job.
Once in a while, we have a public debate in Washington that serves as a perfect metaphor for the cynical way in which business is sometimes done here. The argument over whether and when the Federal Election Commission should regulate new soft money fundraising groups provides us with one of those moments. In it, we can see how badly our election watchdog has served the public and the urgent need to fix it.
The Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith, claims apparently some moral superiority on the issue of 527s because as a Republican he stands in opposition to the Republican Party's effort to ensure 527 groups comply with the law. While some may look upon his views as principles, I can only conclude that they again illustrate the same unfitness to serve on the Federal Election Commission he has shown since he was appointed 5 years ago.
Despite claims that his contempt for the Federal elections laws was merely that of an academic commentator and that he would uphold the laws as passed by Congress if confirmed, Mr. Smith has made no secret since arriving at the FEC of his disdain for the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, as well as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. He has done so once again in the pending rulemaking.
Even after the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC, Mr. Smith has gone out of his way to criticize the Court's decision and the law he is supposed to enforce. In one public speech he said:
Now and then the Supreme Court issues a decision that cries out to the public, ``We do not know what we are doing.'' McConnell is such a decision.
Further evidence of Mr. Smith's predilection can be found in an article in the May 3 edition of National Review in which he writes:
Campaign reform passed Congress and was upheld by the Supreme Court because groups hostile to freedom spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create an intellectual climate in which free political participation was viewed as a threat to democracy.
This is perhaps the most inflammatory and inappropriate comment I have ever seen by an individual who is supposed to be enforcing existing law, affirmed in its constitutionality by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. To assert that proreform groups had somehow brainwashed Congress and the Supreme Court is simply pathetic and solidifies my belief that Mr. Smith cannot administer our campaign finance laws in good faith because he is incapable of putting his sworn duties above his personal opinion.
By the way, his treatment of Mr. Nobel, a witness before the FEC, was as bullying and as cowardly as I have ever seen anyone conduct themselves in our Nation's Capital and clearly was an abuse of his authority as Chairman of the Commission.
Mr. Smith's views on the constitutionality of the Nation's campaign finance laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court. Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that the Federal Election Campaign Act and its restrictions on contributions were unconstitutional, and Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that BCRA was unconstitutional. Mr. Smith seems to be incapable of accepting the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States, not Mr. Smith, is the last word on the constitutionality of campaign laws and that it is his job as an FEC Commissioner to carry out, not thwart, the Supreme Court's mandate.
I do not deny that Mr. Smith is entitled to his personal views on the issue of regulating 527s. I am saying, however, that he is failing to fulfill his duties as the chairman of a Federal agency and one who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. Just as we would not tolerate the appointment of a pacifist to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Director of the FBI who believes the whole Penal Code should be null and void, so we should not accept a Chairman of the FEC who opposes campaign laws upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Knowing of his opposition to the laws he was sworn to uphold, I cannot fathom why Mr. Smith would have even accepted his current position in the first place, certainly now that the Supreme Court has proven him wrong and upheld the constitutionality of a law that he stated was ``clearly unconstitutional.'' It makes no sense. It makes no sense for him to be charged with enforcing a law he so publicly opposes on policy and legal grounds.
I know if I were in Mr. Smith's shoes, I would do the honorable thing and resign if I was so determined to carry on a crusade against Federal regulation of campaign finance. I would leave the FEC position to be filled by someone who believed in the job."
THUS, the distinction made by Fred Wertheimer in the NY Times letter pages was in keeping with Sen. McCain's views that what is distictinctive about Chairman Smith's views is not just their consistency, but the fact that they consistently indicate contempt for the law he is supposed to be enforcing.
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
</x-charset>