D.C. Circuit Decides Latest Appeal Concerning Third Party Complaints against the Commission on Public Debates

The opinion is here. Once again, the appellate court has rejected the complaints of third parties. Of particular interest to me is the court's discussion of the deference owed the FEC in deciding claims by third party candidates:

At oral argument, counsel for Hagelin explained that what he meant was that because the FEC is dominated by the two major parties, courts cannot trust it to deal fairly with third-party complaints. Assuming Hagelin properly raised this issue—which we doubt given the footnote’s opacity—we see no basis for thinking that third-party complaints warrant more demanding review. To begin with, the FEC’s bipartisan structure is but one of several reasons the Supreme Court cited
in support of deferential review. As the Court explained, the FEC also merits deference because (1) “Congress has vested the Commission with ‘primary and substantial responsibility for administering and enforcing the Act,’” including “‘extensive rulemaking and adjudicative powers,’” (2) the FEC “is authorized to ‘formulate general policy with respect to the administration of this Act,’” and (3) the FEC has “‘sole discretionary power’ to determine in the first instance whether or not a civil violation of the Act has occurred.” DSCC, 454 U.S. at 37 (citations omitted). Moreover, the arbitrary and capricious and substantial evidence standards seem to us fully adequate to capture partisan or discriminatory FEC behavior. If the FEC engages in “unjustifiably disparate treatment” of third parties as compared to major parties, those actions would “work[] a violation of the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.” See FEC v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

"Federal Panel Backs Texas Redistricting"

A.P. offers this report. See also this report in the Dallas Morning News.

"Idea to tax nonvoters is floated"

The Boston Globe offers this report. As I see it, what is proposed is functionally equivalent to compulsory voting with a fine for non-voting. The proponent of this measure needs some public relations advice. Compulsory voting is a hard enough sell without calling it a "tax."

"Liberals May Put Mayor Bloomberg on Ballot in November"

The New York Sun offers this report, which begins: "Because of a quirk in New York election law, the words 'liberal' and 'Republican' could both appear next to the name 'Michael Bloomberg' on ballots in November."

"Backers in Conn. lament failed campaign-finance bills"

The Philadelphia Inquirer offers this report. Thanks to Duane Dow for the pointer.

National Journal Q&A with Bob Bauer on McCain-Feingold

You can find it here (paid subscription required).

"Donor Woes"

Newsweek offers this report, with the subhead: "The White House refunds money to a contributor who may have violated campaign-finance laws." Thanks to Michael McDonald for the pointer.

"Lawmaker may return donation by Love"

The Chattanooga Times Free Press has run the following story, reprinted here with permission:

Lawmaker may return donation by Love

By Ian Berry Staff Writer
A state representative who is considering running for a vacant Tennessee
Senate seat said Wednesday she wasn't sure if she would return a $150
campaign donation from Chattanoogan Charles Love.
Rep. Barbara Cooper, D-Memphis, said she wasn't aware that Mr. Love had
made a contribution to her campaign until after federal authorities made
arrests in Operation Tennessee Waltz on May 26. She said she didn't know the
intent of Mr. Love, a Hamilton County Board of Education member indicted in
the sting.
"I never talked to him," Rep. Cooper said.
She said she would have to speak with House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh,
D-Covington, and others about the matter.
Several legislators not charged in the federal sting received legal
campaign donations from people associated with E-Cycle Management, the
company operating as a front for the FBI sting. Drew Rawlins, executive
director of the state Registry of Election Finance, said there is no state
regulation requiring return of the money.
Daniel Lowenstein, a UCLA law professor specializing in election law, said
there likely is no requirement that the donations be returned, though they
often are in such circumstances.
"My impression is that the recipients of contributions almost invariably
return them when scandalous intimations arise," he stated in an e-mail.
State Rep. Ulysses Armstrong, D-Memphis, received a $1,000 campaign
contribution from an FBI informant and said earlier this week he has
contacted authorities about returning it. The state Democratic caucus said
it will return its $200 donation, and the Republican caucus said it will
donate to charity the $1,000 it received.
Other legislators who received contributions, including Rep. Joe
Armstrong, D-Knoxville, Rep. Larry Miller, D-Memphis, and Sen. Jeff Miller,
R-Cleveland, could not be reached for comment.
Rep. Cooper said she didn't know why Mr. Love would have given her
campaign a $150 check, but she speculated it stemmed from her position on
the House Education Committee.
"I don't think they were trying to snag someone with $150," she said.
She also said she had picked up the paperwork necessary to qualify for the
special election to fill the seat of indicted former state Sen. John Ford,
who resigned two days after the scandal broke.
Candidates must get 25 signatures from registered voters to qualify for
the Aug. 5 primary and Sept. 15 general election. The qualifying deadline is
June 23. E-mail Ian Berry at iberry@timesfreepress.com

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 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