On May 24, 2012 the FEC in a carefully worded document admitted it was wrong.
Actions by the Federal Election Commission that removed controls on individual campaign spending were illegal and they are finally admitting they know it:
1. Congress intended individual Federal campaign contribution limits.
2. The FEC cannot pass laws or go against the intention of Congress.
3. The FEC is part of Executive Branch and cannot make formal legal rulings.
4. They can issue “advisories”. These are opinions only.
5. Actions of the FEC must pass the Chevron test.
6. According to Chevron test, the FEC can't pass new laws, nor go against the intention of Congress.
7. Facts 1-6 were just proven yet again when the FEC lost in a case filed by Chris Van Hollen Jr.. Changes the FEC made regarding disclosure were deemed illegal.
8. In 2010, the FEC in a similar rule making modified 3 key statutes in the wake of a ruling by the Court in a case called EMILY's List.
9. A careful reading of EMILY's List, will show the Court merely intended the FEC to modify the rules so that the FEC stuck to controlling only Federal election monies.
10. Rather then adhering to the intention of the Court and Congress, the FEC completely deleted three key statutes in 2010.
11. The action by the FEC in that 2010 rule making in the wake of EMILY's List was the true “birth” of super PACs and unlimited funds flowing from individuals.
12. The FEC has finally realized their actions after EMILY's List will also be deemed illegal. The U.S. Courts have restated again and again that the true test to evaluate if a contribution is made to influence a Federal Election is the reasonable person test. The FEC itself used this principle when charging the Texas billionaires that gave to operation Swift Boat for Veterans. Rather than face Federal charges, the group accepted a pat on the wrist and small fine.
You will find the current admission in an FEC document called Rulemaking Priorities for 2012 issued on May 24, 2012.
Notice the paragaraph:
Political Committees That Engage in Independent Spending
Several cases, including two cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -SpeechNow.org v. FEC and EMILY's List v. FECaffect portions ofthe Commission's regulations regarding contributions to, and disbursements by, certain committees not authorized by candidates. The proposed rulemaking would provide guidance to these committees on how to establish and maintain a separate account for their independent spending, how to allocate their administrative and fundraising expenses, and how to report their receipts and disbursements.
What is about to happen is exactly what I have been saying all along. There is one and only one direction the FEC can go from here. Independent groups will be told they must allocate funds spent in Federal elections in a manner that does NOT exceed individual contribution limits.
The same basis will be used as Swift Boat:
When a reasonable person would conclude that a contribution was given in order to influence a Federal election, that contribution is deemed to be a contribution subject to individual contribution limits.
The FEC cannot go against the U.S. Federal Court rulings and their own rulings that COMMON LAW and REASONABLE PERSON TEST always apply. The FEC cannot remove the individual contribution limit, which means all those that gave to super PACs and exceeded their limit are guilty in the lawsuit I filed way back on March 19th, 2012.
Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff super PAC lawsuit
Now do you believe me?