Aug 29, 2006 -- FEC Correct to Vote Down Proposal for Vast Electioneering Communications Loophole Statement of Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center President

The FEC'S decision not to adopt the proposed "emergency rule" creating an exemption to the ban on corporate and labor electioneering communications was the correct decision on many levels. The proposal ignored the intent of the law's Congressional sponsors and was essentially another attempted end-around by the same groups that opposed McCain-Feingold in the first place and unsuccessfully challenged it in the Supreme Court. The three Commissioner's who voted to uphold the integrity of the McCain-Feingold law are to be commended for their votes today--they withstood considerable outside pressure and did the right thing.

First, there was no emergency of the sort that would justify a rushed rule without the normal public comment period--this is an issue that has been before the FEC for many months without any action, and the only emergency was the apparent fervent desire of some Commissioners to undermine McCain-Feingold right before an election.

Second, the entire issue is currently before the Courts and the proposed rule would have undercut the FEC's lawyers in Court in the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) and the Christian Civic League of Maine (CCLM) cases. Just last month in a WRTL filing, the FEC definitively stated that exemptions for grassroots lobbying ads would, "encourage widespread evasion of BCRA, undermining the basic purpose of the electioneering communications restrictions."

Finally, the proposed rule contained a loophole big enough to drive a tank through it--it would have again allowed the very "sham issue ads" to be paid for with corporate and labor treasury funds that the Supreme Court said could be restricted. It is fallacious to say that the current law and rules prohibit true issue ads: They simply need to talk about issues rather than federal candidates. Ads referring to candidates are also allowed by current law--they must just be paid for by individual funds, rather than corporate or labor treasury money.

# # #