Posted on 06/20/2002 10:14:28 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
ASHINGTON, June 20 — Angering backers of the new campaign-finance law, federal election regulators approved a rule today that will allow federal candidates speaking at state or local fund-raisers to seek unrestricted soft money contributions, although sponsors of the law say it bans lawmakers from soliciting such money.
The Federal Election Commission also approved a provision that will allow lawmakers to suggest that corporations, labor unions and other groups write big checks to state political parties to pay for party-building activities, as long as they do not specifically ask for a contribution.
The campaign statute, the McCain-Feingold law, was intended to eliminate the influence of soft money — the unlimited and largely unregulated gifts from corporations, unions and others — in federal elections. But the Federal Election Commission, which is writing regulations to put the law into effect, has made rulings over the last two days that critics said would open loopholes, allowing lawmakers and state political parties to be more involved in raising and spending soft money than Congress intended. The commission is expected to formally approve more than 300 pages of rules within days.
Supporters of the law won a big victory on Wednesday when the commission rejected an amendment sponsors of the law said would have destroyed a prohibition on state parties using soft money to pay for "issue advertisements" that are really thinly veiled attacks on candidates for Congress or the White House.
But throughout the two-day meeting, the commission has narrowed the force of the new law in other ways. A number of its rulings track proposals it made last month that had infuriated the four principal sponsors of the law.
In a joint statement tonight, the four — Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Representatives Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, and Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts — attacked what they called the commission's decision to "flout Congressional intent and substitute its own policy preferences."
They cited "overly narrow" definitions that could allow federal lawmakers to suggest donors make soft money contributions. Those rulings, the lawmakers said, could allow candidates and party leaders to raise soft money "using careful language or a `wink and a nod.' "
But Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a lawyer who represents the Republican national political committees, offered a much different view.
"They are being, for better or worse, faithful to the statute and doing a reasonably practical job of interpreting the gray areas," Mr. Ginsberg said. The criticism of the commission, he said, is "overheated rhetoric" that "tells you how far off kilter the debate has gone."
Larry Noble, a former F.E.C. general counsel who is now executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign watchdog group in Washington, said the rulings show that the majority of the six-member commission "views this law as problem to be dealt with."
"They are putting in a lot of loopholes," Mr. Noble said.
Karl J. Sandstrom, a Democratic commissioner who joined with the three Republican commissioners to form the bloc that approved many of the provisions, acknowledged that many rulings narrowed the language that the sponsors wanted to see.
But he defended the decisions as necessary to properly implement the law. "It has been narrowed from the most expansive reading of the statute, but it remains a dramatic makeover of our national political system at every level," he said.
But Scott Thomas, a commissioner and Democratic appointee, said, "The bottom line is, this is certainly contrary to the intent of the legislation."
The McCain-Feingold statute prohibits national political parties from raising or spending soft money. But it allows state and local parties to continue the practice — subject to strict limits on how these parties can raise the money and how and when they can spend it. It is in those areas where the election commission most seriously chipped away at the law, said its supporters.
For example, the commission limited the types of party-building activities — related to voter registration, voter identification and get-out-the-vote activities — that state parties must finance without soft money. The commission also exempted the parties' use of the Internet — whether e-mail messages, streaming video or other applications — from many of the soft money provisions.
In one decision, the commission approved a rule that bans federal officeholders from specifically asking for soft money contributions for state parties, but not suggestions that such a donation be made. The ruling came even though the commission's general counsel suggested it could allow lawmakers to evade provisions meant to prohibit them from raising such money.
In a vote this afternoon, the commission approved allowing lawmakers to speak at state or local fund-raisers "without restriction or regulation," freeing them to discuss soft money contributions.
Commissioner Michael E. Toner, a Republican appointee, defended the amendment, saying the commission should not be "parsing over those comments" at party fund-raisers.
But Mr. Thomas said it would allow much more explicit soft money solicitations.
Since it was a law written by politicians, for politicians, what did Mr. Noble expect?
Reform?
I never really understood what the phrase "the devil is in the details" meant until this article. ROFLMAO.
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.