Posted on 04/10/2002 9:27:27 PM PDT by Rensselaer
As the Federal Election Commission begins the task of writing and implementing a soft-money ban and other sweeping changes contained in the new campaign finance laws, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is calling on two Republican commissioners to recuse themselves from the process. In a letter to FEC Chairman David Mason and Commissioner Bradley Smith, McCain and other key sponsors of his reform legislation - including Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Reps. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) - asked Smith and Mason to remove themselves from the agency's "rulemaking" efforts because of their controversial involvement in the Capitol Hill debate over the measure.
"By your inappropriate and ill-advised intervention into the Congressional debate, and through other actions opposing passage of the Act, you have impaired your ability to credibly fulfill your duties as Federal Election Commissioners to fairly write implementing regulations for this new law," the April 10 letter stated.
Common Cause, the nonprofit lobbying group that played a key role in the successful adoption of the McCain-Feingold bill, is also calling on Mason and Smith to remove themselves from the process.
Smith and Mason "crossed a line when they agreed to the request of House Republican leadership for help in a legislative floor fight," Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger says in a statement to be released today.
"Their actions were inappropriate and irretrievably damaged their ability to impartially and effectively implement the law the President signed. They should recuse themselves immediately from the rule-writing process."
But Smith and Mason insist they have done nothing improper and said that they have no intention of recusing themselves from anything.
"This is merely a political complaint," Mason said Wednesday, arguing that there is absolutely "no legal or other basis for recusal."
Mason lashed out at Common Cause and called the controversy a "circus-like distraction."
"The result of this sort of activity is to give the appearance of attempting to silence people with whom they disagree and that is very unfortunate," Mason said. " I would not attempt to silence Common Cause, and Isimply disagree with their conception that public servants, whether in the legislative or the executive branch, should stifle or silence their opinions about appropriate legal rules."
Since the passage of campaign reform, Common Cause and watchdog groups such as Democracy 21 have been pressing for substantive changes - essentially, a complete overhaul - of the beleaguered agency.
Those groups and other critics of the FEC also raised their eyebrows about Smith and Mason's involvement in the recent House debate over the Shays-Meehan bill.
"Commissioners Smith and Mason are entitled to voice their opinions like all Americans. But as public officials, they had an obligation to temper their involvement in the legislative battle in light of their responsibility to enforce the law and defend it in court," Harshbarger wrote. "Their continued participation in this rulemaking will undermine public confidence in the administration of the laws they are sworn to uphold."
During the debate in question, Smith and Mason provided a written statement to lawmakers and the media stating that a re-worded portion of the Shays-Meehan bill would have in effect left open the door for parties to pay off hard money debts with soft money.
Republicans used their statement to attempt to peel off support for the measure and Shays and Meehan changed the wording in that section of the bill through a motion to recommit to hold their fragile coalition of support together.
Smith -who was the target of considerable criticism by McCain-Feingold supporters even before he was confirmed to the FEC - appeared frustrated by the latest admonishing missives.
"None of these people have ever spoken to me,"Smith said. "I think they're just trying to keep the media attention on themselves and I don't think they expect anyone to take the suggestion seriously, but I appreciate their advice."
Continued Smith: "These people have been giving me advice on how to do my job since before I was appointed, yet they never meet with me, never get the facts. ..."
Mason said he planned to proceed with the rulemaking and invited his critics to come and watch.
"As you're aware, we have an ambitious agenda which we are going to begin tomorrow to try to implement, and anyone who has doubts or reservations can come and watch, because it will all be done in open session and we are intending to implement the law appropriately," said Mason.
"To issue this sort of comment or call on the eve of a serious effort on our part to go ahead and get on with the business of writing regulations is nothing but a publicity stunt," he continued.
James Bopp, a conservative attorney who is closely allied with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and will fight the new laws in court, defended Smith and Mason.
Bopp said he saw no reason for the commissioners to step aside and that their efforts to oppose the reform measure were a defense of the Constitution, something Members of Congress swear to uphold.
"It's apparent that the Congressmen and Senators who are complaining don't take their oath as seriously as those two gentlemen," said Bopp.
In an open meeting this morning, FEC officials will discuss the timetable and approach for implementing a soft money ban and addressing other changes contained in the McCain-Feingold bill President Bush signed into law late last month.
The agency has 90 days to implement the soft money ban and another 270 days to write new regulations addressing the other changes in the law - a time frame that some FEC officials believe is insufficient.
"This Office has concluded that 90 days and 270 days simply do not permit sufficient time to address in a comprehensive fashion every issue that may arise under the new litigation," an April 5 memo from FEC General Counsel Lawrence Norton stated.
The memo goes on to state that "90 days and 270 days are rather short amounts of time to complete all stages of the rulemaking, particularly given the complexity of the legal issues presented, the high level of public interest in the issues to be resolved and the need to create entirely new programs.
Moreover, Norton pointed out that a rule creating the FEC's new administrative fine program took 233 days to complete, and that was with three FEC lawyers working nearly full-time.
Norton's memo also noted that additional lawyers will be needed immediately to help with the "most intense phase of this undertaking" and raised the possibility of contracting with outside experts to get the job done.
The FEC is considering three options for implementing the soft money ban by June 25. One option would include a period for public comment and a public hearing on the matter, while a second option would allow for public comments, but no hearing. The third option would bypass a hearing all together and allow for a public comment period after the final rules are drafted and approved.
Other key areas that the FEC will address immediately through simultaneous rulemakings relate to the definition of "electioneering communications," coordinated and independent expenditures, the so-called "millionaires amendment" and the increased hard money contribution limits.
The agency also plans to work on several other amendments regarding the political contributions of minors, foreign nationals, U.S. nationals, inaugural committees, fraudulent solicitations, disclaimers, personal use and civil penalties.
Common Cause is also calling on the President to "immediately" replace Commissioner Karl Sandstrom, a Democrat whose term expired last year, but who has thus far not been replaced and continues to serve as a "holdover."
Harshbarger argued that Bush has a "duty to name a qualified, unbiased Commissioner" to the post and that Congressional leaders should strive to expedite the confirmation process.
House and Senate Democrats said they are in the process of searching for a replacement for the Sandstrom slot but are in no rush to replace him. Despite the Congressionally- imposed term limits on FEC commissioners, Sandstrom can serve indefinitely until a replacement is picked.
Last month, Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and used a recess appointment to name his former campaign counsel, Michael Toner, to the commission. Toner replaced GOP Commissioner Darryl Wold.
Meanwhile, McConnell yesterday announced the names of 24 new plaintiffs joining his lawsuit.
The new plaintiffs are the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Reps. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the National Right to Work Committee, ProEnglish, the 60 Plus Association, the Center for Individual Freedom and the Club for Growth.
McConnell is also being joined in his fight by two teenagers, a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old who want to give money to Libertarian candidates, but will not be allowed to do so under the new law, which prohibits campaign contributions from anyone under the age of 18.
McConnell's lawsuit if being led by legal heavyweights such as former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and Floyd Abrams.
"Our group of plaintiffs believe that by consolidating the legal challenge at this time, rather than doing so by court order under the Shays-Meehan expedited review provisions, will yield the maximum results in an omnibus challenge to multiple provisions of the new law," SLF President Phil Kent explained in a statement.
Paul Kane contributed to this report.
I take it with the 3 Repubicans on the comittee and this Democrat the pro CFR people really hate, the rules those 4 will adopt will not be to the CFR peoples liking at all.
Someone just threw some crap into the game and the certain left victory must be smelling like it is not so victorius.
Screaming at the judge that he does not have the right to judge you is not very bright. Especially when the judge is determined to stay and rule on your case.
The odds of such a judge coming down on your side of the issue is severely reduced by attacks on the judge. That is just human nature.
This smells like desperation. It sounds like the left bet on a sure thing that is turning out ot not be very sure.
I don't think that's necessarily the situation. My impression from previous reports is that it has become customary for the President to appoint FEC Commissioners in pairs, 1 Dem and 1 Rep. And that the other party gets to suggest their choice to the President as part of the appointment process. So the Democrats, by failing to come up with a recommendation to replace the Democratic Commissioner whose term had expired, were effectively holding up the simultaneous appointment of a Republican Commissioner.
Bush finally got fed up with those delaying tactics, and just went ahead and made an interim appointment to the Republican slot so they'd be at full strength to participate in the rulemaking for CFR. The Democrats are pissed because Bush circumvented them. Now they don't have any reason to further delay their recommendation for the Democratic slot (except that they may want the holdover Dem to stay in office indefinitely). But of course they'll look bad if they suddenly find a person after being "unable" to for a year; it blows their cover story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.