|
Mar 24, 2006 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: March 24, 2006 Legal Center Files Supplemental Comments in "Coordination" Rulemaking
On Wednesday, March 22, the Legal Center joined Democracy 21 and the Center for Responsive Politics in filing comments with the FEC regarding the Commission's supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on "coordinated communications" (SNPRM 2006-5).
The FEC initiated this rulemaking at the order of the U.S. District Court, affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Shays v. FEC. The courts ruled that the FEC's existing regulations defining "coordinated communications"—which largely exempt advertisements aired more than 120 days before an election—may "permit exactly what BCRA aims to prevent: evasion of campaign finance restrictions through unregulated collaboration." The district court ordered the Commission to conduct a factual investigation to determine whether political advertisements are, in fact, aired more than 120 days before an election.
In response to the court's directive, the Commission initiated a rulemaking in December 2005 (NPRM 2005-28). The Legal Center filed comments in the rulemaking on January 13, providing the agency with scripts of more than 170 political advertisements run more than 120 days prior to federal elections between 1999 and 2006, demonstrating that the existing regulation does permit evasion of federal contribution limits.
On March 15, the Commission published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on "coordinated communications" (SNPRM 2006-5), seeking additional comment on a new database of approximately one million political advertisements compiled by the Commission. The Legal Center, joined Democracy 21 and the Center for Responsive Politics, advised the Commission this week that the Commission's new data, together with the scores of political ads we submitted in January, demonstrate that candidates do run substantial ads more than 120 days before federal elections. For this reason, we reiterated our earlier comment that the Commission must amend its rule on "coordinated communication" to capture all campaign ads that should be subject to the coordination rules.
To view the Legal Center's supplemental comments, click here.
To view the Legal Center's addendum to comments filed in January, click here.
On March 22, 2006, the three-judge district court granted the motion to intervene in Wisconsin Right to Live v. FEC (D.D.C.) , a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a key BCRA provision. The motion to intervene as defendants was filed on behalf of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT), Marty Meehan (D-MD) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). The Legal Center is serving as co-counsel in the case to this group of intervenors. The members filed their motion to enter the lawsuit as parties to help defend BCRA under a provision of the law that grants a statutory right to members to intervene in any case that challenges the constitutionality of the 2002 law.
In January, the Supreme Court returned the case of WRTL v. FEC to a three-judge federal lower court for further consideration. In a three-page unanimous decision, the Court reversed a ruling of the lower court which had held that WRTL could not bring an "as-applied" challenge to the electioneering communications provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law.
To read the order granting intervention, click here .
Meanwhile, on March 23, 2006, WRTL's counsel submitted a settlement proposal to the FEC offering to settle WRTL v. FEC if the FEC would agree to issue a regulation exempting grassroots lobbying ads from the electioneering provisions. The Campaign Legal Center intends to prepare comments addressing that proposed regulation.
To read WRTL's settlement offer, click here.
In a letter sent March 24, 2006, to all Representatives, the Campaign Legal Center and other reform groups urged House members to oppose H.R. 4975, the lobbying and ethics legislation recently proposed by the House Republican leadership, and to support alternative measures to provide real reforms in these areas. The reform groups included the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
In January 2006, the Legal Center and these organizations set forth six benchmarks we believe to be crucial in achieving real lobbying and ethics reform. These benchmarks include: overseeing and enforcing ethics rules and lobbying laws through an independent congressional Office of Public Integrity; breaking the nexus between lobbyists, money and lawmakers; preventing private interests from financing trips and from subsidizing travel for members of Congress and their staff, and executive branch officials and federal judges; banning gifts to members of Congress and staff; curbing the revolving door; and placing sunshine on lobbying activities and financial disclosure reports.
The letter states, ''H.R. 4975, recently proposed by the House Republican leadership, fails to meet any of these standards,'' and continues, ''We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation in its current form, and to support alternative measures that will provide real and effective reform of the lobbying laws and congressional ethics rules.''
To view the full letter, click here.
To view the six benchmarks for reform, click here.
Legal Center to Co-Sponsor Redistricting Reform Conference
On April 3-5, 2006, the Campaign Legal Center will co-sponsor a redistricting reform conference with the Council for Excellence in Government and the League of Women Voters. The Conference, which will be held at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, is entitled "Building A National Redistricting Reform Movement". The purpose of the conference is to examine strategies that have been used in states where redistricting reform has been attempted or implemented. The goal of the conference will be to meld the principles adopted at a redistricting reform conference held last year (sponsored by the Legal Center and the Council for Excellence in Government) with suitable strategies for implementing those principles in the various states.
To review a copy of the redistricting reform principles adopted at the 2005 conference, click here.
To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on campaign finance, please click here. |
