Posted on 06/27/2002 4:46:30 AM PDT by Rensselaer
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - House and Senate co-sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act said Wednesday they will move to abolish the Federal Election Commission in response to the commission's implementation of the BCRA.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) say they will introduce legislation to overturn the regulations, introduce legislation to abolish the FEC, and sue or support outside groups suing to overturn the regulations.
The centerpiece of the BCRA is a ban on so-called "soft money," political contributions not subject to the prohibitions, limitations, and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The ban has three fundamental components:
\fi-360\li720\tx720 - Federal candidates and office holders are prohibited from soliciting, directing, receiving, or spending "soft money;" \fi-360\li720 - National parties are prohibited from soliciting, directing, receiving, or spending "soft money;" and - State parties are prohibited from spending unlimited "soft money" donations on activities affecting federal elections.
The BCRA co-sponsors say the FEC's new regulations "undermine and compromise" all three components of the law.
"We will immediately file for the Congressional Review Act," McCain said, referring to a little-known 1996 law that allows Congress to overturn any regulations promulgated by federal agencies.
"We will be, shortly, introducing legislation to do away with the FEC in its present form," he continued. "The FEC has to be abolished and replaced by responsible body. The FEC has to be overruled in court and in the Congress of the United States."
McCain added that, even if the co-sponsors do not file suit to block implementation of the regulations themselves, advocacy groups that supported BCRA will sue on their behalf.
Shays called for Chairman David Mason and Commissioner Bradley Smith to resign.
"They're not doing their jobs," Shays charged. "They should have resigned yesterday. As soon as they became, particularly the two who became active in trying to defeat this legislation.
"And then, having failed that, to rewrite the law in regulation, to me, means that they have no longer earned the right to serve and they should resign," he said.
McCain agreed, noting that all four of the BCRA co-sponsors asked Mason and Smith to recuse themselves from the rulemaking process.
"Clearly [they] should find other things to do," McCain concluded.
Mason was out of the country Wednesday and unavailable for comment. But Smith told CNSNews.com that he is proud of the regulations the commission has written.
"They are either poorly informed about what is in the regulations and what is in their own bill - how the regulations are true to their own bill," Smith said, "or, they are simply trying to use the regulatory process to enact something that they did not have the votes to pass in Congress."
Feingold cited one example that he believes illustrates the commission's disregard for the intent of the law.
"One of the main reasons that we wrote this law was to get members of Congress out of the business of raising unlimited 'soft money.' We prohibited members from soliciting 'soft money,' period," Feingold claimed. "But when it came to the limited exception to the state party 'soft money' spending ban, provided by the Levin Amendment, the one thing that we made very clear was that members of Congress shouldn't be involved even in the raising of the limited soft money permitted under that provision."
The FEC's regulations, counter to Feingold's stated intent, do allow federal candidates and office holders to solicit 'soft money' at state party fundraising events.
Smith says that's because section 323(e)(3) of the BCRA states that "Notwithstanding [the 'soft money' solicitation ban], a candidate or an individual holding Federal office may attend, speak, or be a featured guest at a fundraising event for a State, district, or local committee of a political party."
Therefore, Smith says, Feingold's claim that the law "prohibited members from soliciting 'soft money,' period" is inaccurate.
"First, I think the term 'speak' encompasses 'solicit.' To speak means to speak, it's totally broad," Smith explained. "It says you can speak at a fundraising event. My question is: What did they think that the featured guest at a fundraising event was going to speak about? Of course he's going to ask for money."
If members of Congress had thought the prohibition would preclude them from speaking at a "Lincoln Day" or "Jefferson-Jackson Day" state party fundraising dinner, Smith believes the bill could never have become law.
"We're totally in sync with the language and the intent of the statute," he added. "They put that loophole in, if they want to call it that."
Feingold also complained about the FEC's definition of the term "solicit."
"They came up with a definition of 'solicit' that is unreasonably narrow," he charged. "Basically the regulation says that 'solicit' means to, quote, 'ask for a contribution.' So if members don't 'ask for a contribution' they can keep doing what they've been doing."
Smith laughed when asked about the definition.
"To me, that's what 'solicit' is, it's to ask," he said. "Our regulation simply says asking for money is a solicitation. And I made clear during the hearings that I view that as fairly broad. In other words, I don't think 'asking' necessarily has to end with a question mark.
"For example, if somebody said, 'Now, look, you need to give some money to the South Dakota Democratic Party so that they can get out the vote for Tim Johnson,'" Smith said, "that's a solicitation in my mind."
Smith says it appears that some supporters of the BCRA are trying to manipulate the regulatory process.
"It may not even be the sponsors, but people who want to write these regulations to get things that they could not have gotten through Congress and to have sort of an interim effect," he added. "I think it's wrong. Those are approaches that are not supported by the statute and are extreme."
Threats to abolish the commission over disagreements about implementation of the law are "really not helpful," in Smith's opinion.
"It's not helpful to the staff's morale and, frankly, it's not very helpful to us in trying to enforce this law," he concluded. "They keep saying how important this is, but they don't seem to be doing much that's very constructive."
McCook won't be happy until he sees an H&K MP-5 pointed at the chairman of the American Librarian's Association for violating his "political advocacy" restrictions.
Congress critters tend to forget that words mean certain things. These particular morons screwed up and didn't make the legislation obscure enough.
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.