Feb 15, 2005 -- Judge Returns Key 527 Decision to FEC for Fast Action

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 15, 2005

Press Contact: Mark Glaze , 202-271-0982

Washington , D.C. -- A federal judge today gave the Federal Election Commission 60 days to reconsider its decision in a key c ase involving a "stealth PAC" 527 group called Council for Responsible Government (CRG) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC. The case is Kean for Congress Committee v. FEC, in which the Campaign Legal Center is representing the Committee.

"By sending the case back to the FEC to reconsider the Kean Committee's complaint in light of McConnell, and imposing strict time limits on the FEC to do so , the court put the Commission on notice that it would not allow any further delays in the case , " said Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC commissioner and chairman. Potter added: "We are gratified that the judge recognized the FEC's delays and failures, extending to almost five years in this case, and that the court put strict time limits on the agency to act this time around so the case cannot languish at the FEC , " Potter said. Potter also made clear that it was now up to the agency to do its job, or else face further action in the courts: "If the Commission doesn't impose the proper sanctions against CRG now in light of McConnell, we will ask the Judge to do so himself."

The case arises from a complaint filed by the Kean for Congress Committee in 2000 alleging that CRG spent around $200,000 on communications expressly advocating Kean's defeat without properly registering with the FEC as a political committee and making the necessary disclosure of its activities.

More than three years after the complaint was filed, the agency's General Counsel concluded that CRG should have registered and reported as a federal political committee because its "major purpose" was to support and oppose federal candidates and it engaged in "express advocacy" urging Kean's defeat. The General Counsel went further, stating that "there is no indication that [CRG] engaged in any other type of activity."

Following a common pattern on controversial matters, the Commission deadlocked on a 3-3 vote and took no action on the complaint. Three Commissioners refused to join the conclusion of their colleagues and the non-partisan General Counsel, explicitly refusing to follow a section of the Commission's own regulations defining "express advocacy," claiming it was unconstitutional - a position inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC.

The current suit seeks to overturn the FEC's failure to act on the 2000 complaint on grounds that the Commissioners' rejection of the General Counsel's recommendation was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. The complaint argues that the three Commissioners who refused to take action against CRG misapplied the "express advocacy" standard set forth in controlling Supreme Court precedent, ignored the FEC's own regulation governing express advocacy, took out of context and/or wholly ignored pertinent facts, and failed to address pertinent provisions of the federal election laws.

On January 26, 2005 the judge in the case, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, refused an FEC motion to dismiss the case.

To see the order, click here.