Posted on 09/16/2004 5:51:18 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Representative Christopher Shays
1126 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Representative Martin Meehan
2447 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Plaintiffs
- v. -
United States Federal Election Commission
Defendant
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan, for their Complaint, state as follows:
1. This action challenges the failure of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) to promulgate legally sufficient regulations to define the term “political committee,” 2 U.S.C. § 431(4), as that term is used in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), Pub. L. No. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263, and particularly as that term applies to groups organized under section 527 of the tax law, 26 U.S.C. § 527.
2. Since the beginning of the last century, Congress has enacted, and the Supreme Court has upheld, laws to regulate the source and amount of contributions spent to influence federal elections. Since the enactment of the FECA in 1974, it has been established that corporations and labor unions cannot spend their treasury funds in connection with federal elections, and that individuals cannot contribute more than $5,000 per year to “political committees,” or groups whose major purpose is to influence federal elections and that raise or spend $1,000 or more to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.findlaw.com ...
48. Plaintiffs request the following relief:Sheesh. These guys. If they don't like the rules the FEC drew up, why don't they propose clarifying legislation. Congress amazes me, always trying to get somebody else to do its job. If not a regulatory agency, then the courts. I hope this gets booted out.A. That the Court declare the Commission's failure to issue necessary and appropriate regulations to define the term "political committee," and particularly to define when section 527 groups must register as such, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law;
B. That the Court issue an order requiring the Commission to commence proceedings to promulgate, on an expedited basis, necessary and appropriate regulations to define the term "political committee" and to define when a section 527 group must register as a "political committee";
C. That the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter to ensure the Commission's timely and legal compliance with the Court's decision; and
D. That the Court grant such other and further relief as it deems proper.
This lawsuit might have had more impact 8 or 9 months ago.
Glad someone had the guts to pursue the obvious.
"Since the beginning of the last century, Congress has enacted, and the Supreme Court has upheld, laws to regulate the source and amount of contributions spent to influence federal elections."
I wonder whether there should be some serious rethinking about this given the changes in information dissemination effected by the internet.
I am amazed that Congress and GWB have promulgated laws that were designed to limit advocacy organizations access to air time, while permitting licensed media outlets to say whatever the heck they want.
I want less regulation, not more. The only laws that need to be in place are those that require transparency of donor and donation amount.
It amazes me the plaintiffs weren't McCain or Feingold.
After thinking about what I wrote in post #10, I think Shays and Meehan are doing this as a political stunt done in the name of name recognition with the average reader.
A politician wouldn't do that, would they? lol!
LOL! Stranger things have happend.
Me too, I think CFR was unconstitutional when it was signed, one of GWB's "mistakes" IMO.
They shouldn't need to pass clarifying language every time a federal agency fails to obey the law. In this case, the agency is trying to arrive at a constitutional way of enforcing an unconstitutional law.
But if we establish that legislation must be passed to correct an agency's illegal interpretation of federal law, that standard will end up being used to allow fantastic expansions of every law.
Part of the brillaince of the ACLU was to support lawsuits in which they seemed to be taking a conservative or moderate stand in order to use those lawsuits to set precedents which would be useful to their radical-left agenda.
As it is, I suspect the courts will allow the FEC ruling to stand, in effect amending the law to make it more constitutional, and to make it harder to challenge the consitutionality of the law.
>>>>>>a political stunt done in the name of name recognition
>>>>A politician wouldn't do that, would they? lol!
>>LOL! Stranger things have happend.
The sun has come up, wind has blown, leaves have turned color in the fall, heavy things have fallen when released from heights...
They shouldn't need to sue either. They aren't affected. Congress creates and can destroy these agencies. They are creatures of Congress.
Thanks for the ping
. to read later...
That pretty much sums it up. Marty is a P.O.S. pol who blatantly lied in order to get elected by taking a term limit pledge and then not backing out of it, but giving it the finger.
I realize it's a bit late, but for what it's worth, the FEC *did* rule on 527s, in August, holding basically that 527s were still governed by the same rules under which they have always been governed, pre-McCain-Feingold, but changing some of the ways in which federal PACS (all federal PACs - for example, Americans Coming Together - are 527s, but not all 527s - for example, Swift Boat Vets, Media Fund- are federal PACs, and some groups -MoveOn - have both a federal PAC and a 527) operate, with those changes effective after the election.
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.