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.
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.