But that was no 120 days just now. And if they get the court to order the FEC to take action, doesn’t that restart the 120-day clock?
You see, under the statute, if a party files an FEC complaint, and the FEC doesn’t take action, in 120 days the party can prosecute the complaint directly in federal court. These suits, called “a8″ suits, don’t work if the FEC has taken action at all - even to just start the wheels of an investigation moving.
So I’m not sure why the DNC is rushing the procedure like this. Wouldn’t it be better to wait the 120 days out, and file on the merits during . . . gee I don’t know . . . the Republican Convention?
People’s Park in Berkeley - has rules. Posted. Several places. I have photos.
Meanwhile I was able to enjoy this as a guest of the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley. They dialed up nice weather, great panelists, and a memorable occasion.
As one would expect, Candidate McCain has not felt bound by the primary spending limits. The conventional wisdom seems to be that, since the FEC lacks a quorum, nothing will be done until it can meet and muster four votes for something.
Yet recall that the DNC filed a complaint with the FEC in February about this very issue. Naturally, a quorum-less FEC can’t act on that either. But, after 120 days the DNC then has the right to file a petition in DC District Court. So, in late June (or thereafter) the DNC can petition the court, and the court can find that the failure of the FEC to act is “contrary to law” and direct the FEC to act in conformity with the court’s application of the law. McCain could then appeal this order, and so forth. Note that this could occur before the convention, which is still within the “primary” season.
Or maybe the DNC would prefer to make this lawsuit part of the media coverage of the Republican convention. The statute requires that a petition from an FEC dismissal be filed within 60 days of the dismissal, but sets no time limit for petitions based on a failure of the FEC to act.
I know failure to act petitions have been filed lots in the past, and are almost always unsuccessful. This is because the FEC (in ordinary times) acts internally on complaints quite promptly, even if the entire enforcement process seems to take forever. But here, there is no question about the FEC’s ability to “act” - without a quorum, the FEC can’t act at all. Could the FEC lawyers argue that internal administrative machinations that require no FEC Commission vote (tally or otherwise) is administrative “action.”? Hmm. I can see a judge taking notice of the lack of quorum, deciding that this is intolerable, and taking the reins here.
And maybe in other matters too. If judges can run school districts why can’t they run the FEC?
If we’ve learned anything at all this last few weeks, it is that politicians must avoid close relationship with supporters with names spelled RE_-_- vowel.
Like Rezko. And Renzi.
It doesn’t take much work in the contribution records to determine that no presidential candidate is free from this apparently scourge. The “RE _-_- vowel” donors are practically everywhere. (And I just got through the “REA”s before I tired of the exercise). Be afraid.
The Post thinks it is unfair for Senator McCain to be stuck with spending limits while the Democrats can battle away until their convention. First, so what? If rules are unfair, one remains stuck with them anyway, and can argue about changing them but is not free to ignore them.
Second, the public financing system isn’t just about doling money out to candidates. It was also intended to LIMIT SPENDING. Laws may not (constitutionally) set spending limits unless those limits are voluntary, and the traditional way to sweeten the deal has been to offer public money in exchange. The spending limit isn’t an afterthought, but an animating feature of the law.
Finally, the practice of using the promise of future public funding to secure a loan arose because candidates needed money before the Treasury could release it. Observing that this practice provided an incentive for candidates to obtain certification, without intending to limit their spending, using one’s certification as collateral is treated like accepting the money.
The issue of whether McCain’s invocation of his certification is the same thing as “collateral” is a good one on which reasonable people can disagree. But it isn’t enough to take the McCain campaign’s word for it. The real solution is either to have the FEC rule, or if it can’t, ask a federal judge to do it.
Just because you, dear Newspaper Editorialists, don’t think arcane campaign finance tiffs aren’t fun, doesn’t mean you need to be petulant about it. To quote:
In a debate that only law students could enjoy, McCain’s critics suggest that the prospective Republican nominee is legally bound to accept public financing for the rest of the period before the party convention in September — and also bound by spending limits. McCain’s defenders reply that he didn’t irrevocably commit himself to accepting matching funds and that his eligibility for public funds was not technically collateral for his campaign loan. Legalities aside, it is embarrassing that the senator — the coauthor of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law increasing government oversight of election campaigns — has soured on public financing after taking advantage of the expectation that he would participate in the system.
Well, sniff sniff to you, too!
Happy Leap Day. Happy Birthday, Eugene Volokh! God grant you many years.
Meanwhile, the presidential race threatens to overshadow this momentous occasion. Yes, there’s a special interest group for people with Leap Day birthdays.