Looks like the FEC just admitted super PACs are illegal. (votes, Congress)

[pbmaise]

On May 24, 2012 the FEC in a carefully worded document admitted it was wrong.

Actions by the Federal Election Commission that removed controls on individual campaign spending were illegal and they are finally admitting they know it:

1. Congress intended individual Federal campaign contribution limits.
2. The FEC cannot pass laws or go against the intention of Congress.
3. The FEC is part of Executive Branch and cannot make formal legal rulings.
4. They can issue “advisories”. These are opinions only.
5. Actions of the FEC must pass the Chevron test.
6. According to Chevron test, the FEC can't pass new laws, nor go against the intention of Congress.
7. Facts 1-6 were just proven yet again when the FEC lost in a case filed by Chris Van Hollen Jr.. Changes the FEC made regarding disclosure were deemed illegal.
8. In 2010, the FEC in a similar rule making modified 3 key statutes in the wake of a ruling by the Court in a case called EMILY's List.
9. A careful reading of EMILY's List, will show the Court merely intended the FEC to modify the rules so that the FEC stuck to controlling only Federal election monies.
10. Rather then adhering to the intention of the Court and Congress, the FEC completely deleted three key statutes in 2010.
11. The action by the FEC in that 2010 rule making in the wake of EMILY's List was the true “birth” of super PACs and unlimited funds flowing from individuals.
12. The FEC has finally realized their actions after EMILY's List will also be deemed illegal. The U.S. Courts have restated again and again that the true test to evaluate if a contribution is made to influence a Federal Election is the reasonable person test. The FEC itself used this principle when charging the Texas billionaires that gave to operation Swift Boat for Veterans. Rather than face Federal charges, the group accepted a pat on the wrist and small fine.

You will find the current admission in an FEC document called Rulemaking Priorities for 2012 issued on May 24, 2012.

Notice the paragaraph:

Political Committees That Engage in Independent Spending
Several cases, including two cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -SpeechNow.org v. FEC and EMILY's List v. FECaffect portions ofthe Commission's regulations regarding contributions to, and disbursements by, certain committees not authorized by candidates. The proposed rulemaking would provide guidance to these committees on how to establish and maintain a separate account for their independent spending, how to allocate their administrative and fundraising expenses, and how to report their receipts and disbursements.

What is about to happen is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Full story at: Daily Kos: Looks like FEC just admitted super PACs are illegal!

[btownboss4]

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

Yes, it's really irrelevant what the FEC thinks.

[pghquest]

What part in the OP was a ruling that they were illegal? Looks like they just said they didnt have the ability to establish laws or overrule Congress..

[CDusr]

Some evolution of these agencies.

Originally Posted by CDusr

I thought a bit of review of what helped create the so-called "box". At least more recently. This is interesting.
This came about, with many changes. Including federal money and guidelines. Even an agency "independent" of the govt. This was supposedly, in part, a reaction to the 2000 elections.

Help America Vote Act
quote:
To be eligible for federal funding, states must submit a plan describing how payments will be used and distributed, provisions for voter education and poll worker training, how to adopt voting system guidelines, performance measures to determine success (including goals, timetables, responsibilities, and criteria), administrative complaint procedures, and the committee who helped develop the state plan.
Each year the state receives federal funding they must submit a report to the EAC detailing a list of expenditures, the number of and types of voting equipment obtained with the funds, and an analysis and description of the activities funded.


Election Assistance Commission
quote:
In 2003, Congress appropriated $1.5 billion for HAVA. The General Services Administration distributed most of the $650 million permitted under Title I of HAVA, but the remainder was earmarked for the EAC to disburse. The funds languished because the commissioners were not confirmed until 9 Dec. 2003; the law had required that they be in place by 26 Feb. 2003.
In its 2004 budget, Congress again allocated $1.5 billion to fund HAVA. By January 2004, the EAC had no permanent offices or budget, even though it was required to publish state election reform plans in the Federal Register before money for new voting equipment could be disbursed to the states. In 2011, United States Representative Gregg Harper introduced a bill to end the EAC and transfer some of its authority to the Federal Election Commission.


Federal Election Commission
quote:
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that was founded in 1975 by the United States Congress to regulate the campaign finance legislation in the United States. It was created in a provision of the 1975 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act. It describes its duties as "to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections."

Membership

The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years.[1] By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. As a consequence, the organization was regularly deadlocked with a 3 -3 vote and it took no action on potentially illegal campaigning despite recommendations of its own counsel. [2]
The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term.

Criticism

Critics of the FEC, including campaign finance reform supporters such as Common Cause and Democracy 21, have complained that it is a classic example of regulatory capture where it serves the interests of the ones it was intended to regulate.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by pghquest

What part in the OP was a ruling that they were illegal? Looks like they just said they didnt have the ability to establish laws or overrule Congress..

I believe the OP intertrited the comments the way he wanted to interpret them.

Nita