The Skeptic was on assignment at a small federal agency today, when she stumbled upon the Present Chairman of the Federal Election Commission Scott Thomas.
“Great blog!” said Chairman Thomas as he dashed down a hallway.
I’ll take that as an endorsement . . .
CLARIFICATION: The “endorsement” was made in his personal capacity, not as an agent of the Federal Government, of course.
UPDATE: Rumor has it that we also have the endorsement of the Immediate Former Chairman of the FEC.
The following bit of casual verse was written by Commissioner Ellen Weintraub and delivered on Brad Smith’s last day as an FEC Commissioner. Or so sources tell me.
Enjoy!
Gather round, friends, to say farewell to Brad,
Scholar, commissioner, husband, and Dad.
He’s often provoking, but he’s never boring,
Whether with D’s or with R’s he is warring.
His writing is pithy and never pedestrian,
A wit, bon vivant, and an able equestrian.
To reformers his service remains an outrage.
The Federalist Society thinks him a sage.
He’s a hero to those who opine in a blog,
But he was only confirmed on account of his dog.
So here’s to you, Brad, Free Speech absolutist,
At the FEC, you represented a new twist.
Your departure will leave libertarians sad,
But you’ll no doubt find new ways to drive McCain mad.
And Bob Bauer makes the case.
Light skepticism today and tomorrow (and honestly probably extending into Wednesday) as the family trades lotus-eating for Lincoln Town Cars and returns to the greater Washington DC area.
Robbin Stewart at Soapbox has lots to say about the Voter’s Education Committee v. PDC decision discussed below, here, and here and some notes about how the law might properly be applied here.
Kings County, Washington, Superior Court has concluded in this decision (transcript in pdf) that express advocacy does not control whether placing an advertisement critical of an officeholder (who was also a candidate) makes the advertiser a political committee subject to reporting requirements.
The Campaign Legal Center is pleased, see here. They note that the trial court concluded that under the Supreme Court’s McConnell v. FEC decision, the express advocacy standard no longer controlled what messages could constitutionally be regulated as a political expenditure.
To be fair, if you read the linked transcription, the trial court also concluded that, even were that wrong (and I think it is), the advertisements amounted to “express advocacy” under controlling state precedent.
What was the substance of the advertisement? That the candidate, involved in a matter the group didn’t like, “tried to cover up the deal from the legislature.” Says the court (on p. 6): “It is clear to this court that an assertion that a public official was involved in a cover-up is not a discussion of issues; it is a clear attack on the character of the candidate.” So, listen up, boys and girls, potential investigative reporters, and people of Washington State - impinge the character of an officeholder and be subject to the restrictions and reporting requirements of campaign finance law.
Does it seem like Washington State is a bad place to talk politics these days?
Adam Bonin shares his summary of the FiredUp AO Request here.
Adam notes correctly that the FEC has 60 days to answer an advisory opinion request (or punt, which occasionally happens). But that 60 days is counted from the date the FEC accepts the request, not the date the request is sent in. From time to time, the Commission’s Counsel will ask a requestor to provide additional detail so that the advice is based on complete and non-hypothetical information.
The FiredUp request is not yet listed on the FEC’s page of pending advisory opinion requests. So - for you keeping a calendar of such things - the request may still be on hold and the 60-day period would not be running.
John Samples’s farewell to Brad Smith is here. An excerpt:
Smith’s experience mirrors the struggles of conservatism in general. He went up against an entrenched establishment with money and a sympathetic media. His reflections on his time at the FEC may tell us something about the future of the conservative cause.
Years in Washington have sharpened Smith’s awareness of a few key facts. With particular opprobrium reserved for the New York Times, he charges that reporters come to the issue of campaign finance with overriding biases, and those biases are shared by their editors. Many reporters are willing to fire off preconceived pro-campaign finance reform stories, he says, even if they know the story is wrong, or absurdly oversimplified.
The ink-stained retches are naive in Smith’s opinion. They refuse to consider the possibility that campaign finance laws might suppress political activity in favor of the interests of incumbent members of Congress. Though deeply cynical about politics, journalists are somehow never cynical about the motivations behind the latest proposals to restrict money in politics.
The people who work in Washington, he says, have little idea of the consequences of the rules they make. In particular, campaign finance regulators do not worry much if complex rules make it harder for average Americans to engage in politics.
I tend to avoid overt political blogging - don’t get me wrong, I’m very political, but horserace punditry is not my relative strength. But Michael Barone’s numbers on how the Bush vote has moved among certain demographics are pretty interesting.
