This story ran on Wednesday, and I would have blogged about it earlier had it not been for yesterday’s technical difficulties. The thrust of the story is that FEC attorneys are questioning donors about what they were told their 527 contributions would go toward. Donors are complaining that they are being intimidated so they won’t participate in this cycle.
But there’s a deeper problem. Under revised FEC regulations, if the solicitation indicates the money will be going to federal campaigns, then the “hard money” federal rules apply - limits, prohibitions, reporting requirements, and the $1,000 political committee threshold.
But, this regulation is effective AFTER the 2004 cycle, and the solicitation under review occurred during that cycle. Would the FEC be attempting to apply a regulation retroactively? Naah. That would be wrong. Here’s the explanation of what might be going on, courtesy of Scott Thomas:
Citing the newly enacted Section 100.57, Thomas said commissioners agreed in 2004 that 527s could be policed most effectively case by case by looking at how they solicited donors.
(snip)
Thomas said the regulation change in January 2005 could be used to prosecute groups for activity in 2004. He said it would not apply retroactively in the technical sense but could be held up as a point of consensus among the FEC commissioners about how the laws on the books before 2004 should be interpreted. “It’s going to be arguing that the same analytical concept can be applied for figuring out what happened in ’04 cycle,” Thomas said in response to claims that the general counsel is focusing on conversations with donors. “That’s probably why the FEC was digging for this information, because four commissioners agreed that concept was the best way to analyze these political-committee cases.”
So the FEC is using an “analytical concept” instead of a rule of general applicability (since apparently there wasn’t one) — and thus getting around the whole notice-and-comment thing, not to mention the retroactivity problem? O-Kay.
Smith is challenging the Arizona Clean Elections law, reportedly basing his argument on Randall v. Sorrell.
A reasonably thorough story about the verdict is here. (HT Ed Still). The jury deliberated for eleven days.
The jury convicted Siegelman on seven of the 32 charges against him - bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and four counts of honest services mail fraud. Scrushy was convicted on all six charges against him - bribery, conspiracy and four counts of honest services mail fraud. The jury acquitted the two other defendants in the case, Siegelman’s former chief of staff, Paul Hamrick, and Siegelman highway director Mack Roberts, on all charges. “I was satisfied with the verdict. I could tell the jury struggled with it,” said Louis Franklin, lead prosecutor in the case. “The message I hope it sends is you shouldn’t take bribes, that you shouldn’t trade on your office.”
(snip)
After a nine-week trial, the case seemed perilously close to a mistrial. The panel of seven blacks and five whites deliberated for 11 days and twice told the judge they were deadlocked.
Or maybe the lesson here is that prosecutors should present simpler cases.
I am attempting to deal with a spammer who has hijacked my domain for evil purposes. So things are going to be pretty quiet here today while I straighten things out.
He’s not pleased with Alito and Roberts.
My guess (a hopeful one, perhaps) is that they are keeping their powder dry.
. . . to see what I have to say about the Texas redistricting case, well, sadly it isn’t much.
Here’s Rick Hasen’s opinion link. It’s 132 pages, so have fun! Personally, I am not sure political gerrymandering should be justiciable. What next - political party central committee appointments?
At their chain of integrity-themed eateries.
In an effort to avoid the “thinly veiled bribery” found in the majority of restaurants, Russ & John’s prohibit tips, disparaging them as “the worst kind of soft money,” according to the “Message From The Founders” on the restaurant’s menu. Instead, management will distribute company-issued “server grants,” intended to prevent undue influence on the waitstaff’s performance and ensure that every customer receives the same quality service.
(snip)
“Our servers are not there to just tell you what you want to hear,” McCain said. “If a customer asks how the Zesty Three-Cheese Ranch Chicken Platter is, and if it’s not particularly good, they’re going to be up-front with you and say, ‘Frankly, the chicken is not that good.’” …
A series of TV commercials for the chain focus on the positive aspects of the dining experience and carefully avoid personal attacks on its competitors…. At the end of the ad, both McCain and Feingold appear on camera to say they approved this message.
While Russ & John’s has garnered much media attention, early business has been sluggish, especially in the D.C.-metro area. “Their heart is in the right place, but I don’t ever see myself eating there, especially when there’s a McConnell’s Pork Barrel right across the street,” said Sen. George Allen (R-VA), referring to the barbecue-style eatery owned and operated by Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, known for its controversial “lawmakers-and-campaign-donors-eat-free” policy. “Who wants to eat at a place that bans complimentary soda refills on ethical grounds?” Allen added.
HT Bob Bauer, courtesy of the Listserv.
This article speculates on the effect the Randell decision may have on Arizona’s campaign finance law, which includes low contribution limits.
. . . can’t Washington be more like Portland, Oregon? You know, homogeneous and mossy.
Because then the weather like we’ve had this last week would be typical.
