This news source is misreporting the facts according to someone I just spoke to at the FEC. They did not join the Obama campaign or the DNC in asking for a dismissal as the article claims. They simply said that they do not have standing being that they were listed as a defendant. They made no claim as to Berg’s standing in the case.
Whoever I spoke to on the phone at the FEC lied to me. Here is their court filing for dismissal claiming that Berg has no standing.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/24/
I am calling back.
In Washington (202) 694-1000
Is that all? This is a very big if, if the FEC is neutral, since it nullifies the point of the story, and turns this thread upside down. Am I right? I admit I know jack about this item.
This is what they filed
(see http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/)
DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1) Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) moves to dismiss the Complaint in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present an Article III case or controversy because plaintiff lacks standing to raise the issue of a candidate’s constitutional eligibility. Moreover, even if Berg had standing to raise the constitutional eligibility issue, the Commission should be dismissed as a party to this case because it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.
No it isn't. The FEC filing had two parts. The first was that Berg lacks standing to bring this case. The second was that, even if he did have standing, the FEC shouldn't be a party because it doesn't have jurisdiction.