Regime change coming!
calgov2002:
 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 06/09/2003 9:43:51 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Rep. Darrell Issa's bankrolling of the recall drive against Gov. Gray Davis is emerging as one of the first test cases of the sweeping new federal campaign finance law.
A Davis ally has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that the Vista Republican is raising money for the recall campaign in violation of the law known as McCain-Feingold.
Raquelle De La Rocha, a Van Nuys lawyer and Davis appointee to the state Park and Recreation Commission, contends that Issa has broken the provision of the law that bars federal officeholders from raising "soft money" campaign contributions.
Issa called the complaint "absurd" and said he has complied with the law. However, he said there are conflicting opinions over whether the law allows his campaign activities.
"We have this strange, untested new law," Issa said.
The complaint thrusts Issa into the legal and regulatory thicket surrounding the implementation of the law, which was adopted last year after years of debate in Congress.
Some neutral legal analysts say they believe Issa may be in violation of the law, even if it involves one of the more constitutionally debatable provisions.
At some point, the situation will be clarified when the FEC adopts additional implementation rules and the U.S. Supreme Court judges the law's constitutionality.
Until then, "figuring out exactly what the rules are going to be and how they're going to be applied, that's up in the air," said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Davis opponents have until Sept. 2 to collect the signatures of nearly 900,000 registered California voters to force a recall election against the governor.
Last month, Issa, who became wealthy as a car-alarm entrepreneur, announced he would raise and spend the money needed to finance a paid petition campaign to collect the signatures.
That gave the all-volunteer recall effort a chance to succeed.
It was also illegal, Democrats contend.
Under state law, unlimited contributions to ballot-measure campaigns – which a recall is considered to be – are permitted. But the new law bars federal elected officials from soliciting contributions in excess of the $2,000 federal limit even for state or local campaigns.
"Depending on what Issa does, depending on how he sets things up, he could well run afoul of this, or maybe already has," Hasen said.
Rescue California, the Davis recall committee that Issa is financing, had raised nearly $575,000 as of Friday. All of the contributions were for more than $2,000, and four were from corporations, including $445,000 from Greene Properties Inc., a real estate company owned by Issa.
"McCain-Feingold prohibits incumbent congressmen, as well as candidates for Congress, from raising soft money," said Lance Olson, general counsel to the California Democratic Party. "There's just an absolute prohibition on that, and it extends whether it's for a federal election or a nonfederal election. I don't think there's any question there's a violation."
Campaign reform advocates say extending the reach of the federal law to the state and local activities of federal officials is consistent with McCain-Feingold's goal of eradicating large soft-money donations that circumvent contribution limits.
The law is named after its principal Senate sponsors – Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
Reformers contend that along with donating to the campaign of a member of Congress, special interests can curry favor just as easily by contributing to a cause at the state or local level.
"One of the goals of McCain-Feingold was to sever the connection between federal officeholders and those large soft-money donations, and it was by saying federal officeholders cannot raise soft money, period," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "And the money going into the recall effort is soft money."
Critics contend that Congress unconstitutionally overreached by injecting itself into state campaigns. Both major political parties in California have filed suit over provisions of the law that limit the activities of state parties.
Charles Bell, general counsel to the California Republican Party, said the state parties' lawsuit did not address the provision central to the Issa complaint, but he said he believes it is unconstitutional.
"Our view is that the state and local nature of the ballot activity and his right to associate and speak and spend his own money on that would be a higher constitutional interest," Bell said.
To add to the confusion, the recall drive is speeding down the track at a much faster clip than the legal and regulatory efforts to clarify the new law.
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court set Sept. 8 as the day it would hear oral arguments, which is an accelerated timetable by court standards, but six days after the petition deadline.
FEC-watchers say complaints such as De La Rocha's can take months or even years to resolve.
Some light may be shed on Issa's legal status next month when the FEC issues an opinion requested by Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican. Flake is sponsoring a state ballot initiative and asked the commission to clarify the rules on raising money for it.
When that opinion comes out, it may offer Issa some guidance on his own activities. His case is different because he has announced that he will be a candidate to replace Davis as governor if the recall forces a special election.
The campaign reform law allows federal officeholders running for state office to raise what the federal law regards as soft money as long as it complies with state rules. Most of the donations to Rescue California are in amounts larger than the $21,200 contribution limit for governor established by the voter-approved Proposition 34.
Federal election officials say Issa took a major gamble by not seeking clarification of the law before plunging into the recall campaign.
"I always encourage people to seek (FEC opinions) when there's any gray area," said FEC member David Mason, who noted that Flake, unlike Issa, has suspended his campaign activities until the FEC releases its opinion.
When the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would take up McCain-Feingold this year, it did not stay a split lower court ruling that caused confusion in legal circles, meaning the law is in force unless the court rules otherwise.
Although the high court often defers to states, legal analysts say it is difficult to predict the case's outcome.
"Is it going to be struck down as unconstitutional? I think there's a fair chance that some of the provisions that affect purely state offices could well be," Loyola Law School's Hasen said. "However, if the theory behind the anti-solicitation rules is to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of federal officeholders, then maybe there's a reason for the court to uphold it."
There are only three enumerated powers of jurisdiction in the Constitution for the reach of federal laws within the boundaries of state.
1--Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3, "commerce clause."
2--Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17, "purchase of state land by federal government with consent of state legislature."
3--Art VI, Sec 2, "laws made in support of treaties."
McCain-Feingold meets none of these criteria, thus it has no jurisdiction within state boundaries becuase there is no jurisdiction for the federal law to apply.
Regime change coming!
calgov2002:
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
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.