FEC rules thrown out

Judge Strikes Down Campaign Finance Rules

What does this mean? It appears there are, for the moment, no campaign finance rules?

And where were these people back in August when SBVT was running "non-coordinated" ads?

•  My Question

  Is this good for Dems or bad for Dems?

  Anyone enough of an expert on campaign finance law to opine?

  by pontificator on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:47:19 AM PDT

•  no thats not it

  the judge threw out a class of rules:

  The judge overturned several FEC rules, including those that:

      * Imposed a narrow test to determine whether a lawmaker was violating the soft money solicitation ban. Under the FEC rules, the only way a federal candidate or officeholder could violate the solicitation ban would be by explicitly asking for soft money.
      * Exempted Internet ads from rules on coordination among interest groups, federal candidates and national party committees.
      * Exempted an entire class of tax-exempt organizations from a ban on the use of corporate or union money for ads mentioning presidential or congressional candidates within a month before a primary or two months before a general election.
      * Defined coordination only as agreement between a spender and candidate or party.
      * Excluded coordinated ads aired more than 120 days before an election.

  i don't think this will have an impact this cycle.  we are too late into it.  generally this is a good thing for our democracy, but it might hurt the Dem's more than the R's.  but then again the CW after BCRA said that the D's reliance on soft-money would be extremely detrimental to their competitiveness.

  by juls on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:53:50 AM PDT

  •  Does this mean Moveon.org can coordinate with KE?

    by pontificator on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:55:50 AM PDT

    •  well

      the law suit was brought about by the sponsors of BCRA who were upset at the very narrow interpritation of the law by the FEC.  the judge ruled in their favor telling the FEC to go back and redo the rules, b/c they were not following what the law said.  so the answer is no, they cannot coordinate and most likely will even be more restricted when the FEC redoes the rules.

      by juls on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:00:14 PM PDT

      •  Sounds irrelevant for '04

        I can't imagine the FEC could come out with new rules that would go into effect before 11/2.  What are the rules in the interim?

        by pontificator on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:03:22 PM PDT

        •  irrelevent?

          I am by now means a lawyer but the article does state that all current rules are suspended until new ones are drafted, and at least one election lawyer describes the situation as "chaos."

          I wonder if the 60-day rule can now be ignored; this was going to work to our favor, by allowing certain single-issue, hard-money funded groups (such as Planned Parenthood) to campaign directly for individual candidates. I'm guessing that everyone with a dollar (or half a million) will now consider themselves free to do what they want from here on in.

          by desmoulins on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:06:18 PM PDT

          •  no

            read above, the ruling only dealt with a limited number of rules not BCRA as a whole.  this was a lawsuit by the reformers, they would not get a court ruling in their favor that left the rules wide open.

            by juls on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:14:03 PM PDT

        •  thats the big question

          the judge left it in limbo by throwing out the rules at this juncture in the election cycle.  i suspect there will be a stay of the rules till after Nov. 2nd.  

          let me note that the passage of BCRA and the accelerated hearing in the Supreme Court was intended to avoid these sorts of ruling late in the cycle.  but i am with McCain-Feingold-Shay-Meehan, the FEC did a piss poor job interpreting the rules and leaving huge loopholes where there should have been none.  this just not the right time to have a ruling like this one.

          by juls on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:11:43 PM PDT

•  This is good for Dems

  Democratic 527's have developed deep netroots fundraising prowess, ESPECIALLY MoveOn.
  They got off the ground using soft money, but have become so publicized and popular with the rank-and-file that they can now self-sustain.

  GOP 527's rely completely on 6-figure checks and corporate cash, which this judge is cracking down on.
  

  by TrueBlueDem on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:01:14 PM PDT

  •  is that true?

    I was under the impression that Soros has donated more money to MoveOn than all other donors combined.

    by Delirium on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:32:45 PM PDT