is that sometimes they’re really out to get you. But, most of the time they’re not. That is to say, occasionally 2 plus 2 equals 22. Just not this time.
As to the merits, recounts and contests have historically been exempted from the limits of the Act, since they were not “for the purpose of influencing” federal elections - the election, obviously, is over if you’re having a recount. Now, the soft money ban on parties is arguably broader. They can’t raise or spend any money not raised under the limits of the Act. Even dividends? Interest? Rebates? Ahhh.
So - was the soft money ban intended to stretch this far? That’s a good question. Are you an idiot, or corrupt, or evil, or a protege of CVS (cue the organ music), if you take a position contrary to that of the good Paul Ryan and the merry men of the Campaign Legal Center? Hmm.
Meanwhile, alert readers have observed that the FEC General Counsel declined to make recommendations on AOs 2003-36 or 2004-20 - and as I can attest this was before Commissioner Count Chocula . . . I mean Von Spakovsky . . . had added his visage to the ensemble. So the notion that not offering a recommendation is “new” because of something he did - possibly involving hypnosis - is, um, weird.
The notion that you can tell what’s going on by counting the agenda documents is also quaint and deficient, but we will leave that for another time.
. . . who remain active Bar members? I guess the answer is - don’t blog about anything useful.
I’ve certainly got that covered.
A three-judge panel of the DC District court dismissed the Maine grassroots lobbying case as moot. Christian Civic League of Maine v. FEC, No. 006-614, 9/27/06. It should be available here, eventually.
Presently it seems to be the case that a group (not a PAC) intending to run an advertisement naming a federal candidate within the electioneering period, cannot obtain an injunction because of their inability to show a likelihood of success on the merits, cannot obtain a ruling in an as-applied challenge in the ordinary course because the time for running the ad will have come and gone, and cannot rely on any regulatory exceptions the FEC might author, because the FEC punted that opportunity.
It would seem the one recourse would be just to go ahead and run the ad, and define one’s constitutional rights in the resulting enforcement matter. Which - if the FEC pursues it to the courts, means we should have a judicial answer to this little puzzle in five to ten years. At best.
Cato is having a Book Forum for John Samples’s new book “The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform.” Here are the details:
BOOK FORUM
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)
Featuring the author John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute; with comments by Robert Bauer, Perkins & Coie; and Eliza Newlin Carney, National Journal.
The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Many Americans support campaign finance reform. They believe that private money in politics and elections corrupts and demeans our democracy. These concerns have contributed to a 40-year effort to regulate, restrict, and even eliminate private money in politics. But many Americans know that there is little or no evidence that campaign contributions really influence members of Congress? Or that so-called negative political advertising actually improves the democratic process by increasing voter turnout and knowledge? Or that limits on campaign contributions make it harder to run for office, thereby protecting incumbent representatives from losing their seats of power? The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform argues that our most common concerns about money in politics are misplaced. The chance to regulate money in politics allows representatives to serve their own interests at a cost to their constituents. And, ironically, the long crusade against the corruption caused by campaign contributions allows public officials to reduce their vulnerability by suppressing freedom of speech.
To register for this event, please email events@cato.org , fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by 12:00 noon, Tuesday, October 3, 2006.
Here’s a fun AP piece quoting Brad Smith, Rick Hasen and Dan Lowenstein to the effect that this is a growth area, and that may not be such a great thing.
From roughly 50 years ago:
Political machinery is oiled by campaign contributions. Without them, the whole system would come to a halt. As a sort of salve to the public’s conscience, laws have been enacted to limit expenditures and contributions and discourage political activity by corporations, labor unions and governmental employees. But, realistically, it is well understood that these laws are mere opiates to permit a design for living and have no pretensions toward remedying the problem.
Arnold Bloom, Tax Results of Political Contributions, 36 B.U. L. Rev. (1956). Anyone interested in the tax treatment of contribution-substitutes (like, say, “dues”) at midcentury will find this article lots of fun. It’s on HeinOnline.
As mixed metaphors go, “opiates” that permit a “design for living” has got to be one of the more unusual ones.