Thursday, June 04, 2009
Update: I was wrong below, it was 3-3, not 4-2.
Is the FEC gettting worse and worse, or bettter and better?
"Things Getting Worse, Much Worse, in Terms of FEC Enforcement", or are they?
Colonel Arjinderpal Sekhon, MD, JD, ran as the Democrat for congress in a safe Republican seat in California. He narrowly won a 3 way primary and got 1/3 of the votes in the general election. He raised $100,000+ from some 200 contributors.
As of June 06, 2006, District 02- Money raised
Wally Herger (R) $590,519
A. J. Sekhon (D) $144,951
E. Kent Hinesley (L) $0
His filed FEC reports only stated "self" for employer and occupation for some 80 contributors. No one complained. FEC staff initiated an enforcement action, contending that best efforts had not been used to obtain employer and occupation info.
Whether a person can occupy themself is an interesting metaphysical question.
The FEC split 2-4 and did not approve a conciliation agreement. The 4 were one Democrat and the 3 then-GOP members, including the infamous Hans Van. The 2 have filed a statement pdf objecting to this disposition. Rick Hasen's coverage is titled 'worse and worse'.
I think the decision to dismiss the case is appropriate discretion.
Seckon is a disabled veteran officer of the Gulf war. He provides no-cost medical care to other disabled vets. I suspect that a large fraction of his donors are Sikhs.
With their distinctive turbans, Sikhs sometimes encounter prejudice when they are confused for Moslems. They are a distinct and insular minority.
NAACP v Alabama ex rel Patterson, Bates v Little Rock, and Talley v California establish that there is a First Amendment right of privacy to protect freedom of association. Under Buckley v Valeo, Brown v 74 Socialist Workers, and McConnell v FEC, the courts have authorized exemptions from campaign finance reporting and disclosure on a case by case basis, with the reporting campaign having the burden of proof to establish the exemption.
The current court is in a wave of reducing the FEC's authority to regulate,and it makes sense for the agency to proceed cautiously instead of always pushing the limits of its jurisdiction.
Campaign finance disclosure in California is controversial right now, in the wake of proposition 8. Supporters and opponents of proposition 8 are both at risk, of being fired, attacked, boycotted or shunned. Disclosure can kill.
Dismissing the case against the Colonel was the right thing to do, and was also a prudent thing to do. Two of the Democrats on the commission are out of touch with the majority of the commission, and a majority of the voters,and a majority of the court. Forthcoming decisions about Citizens United and Section 5 of the voting rights act will tell us more about what the court is thinking right now. Either of these cases could go either way. (post was actually written june 13)
Is the FEC gettting worse and worse, or bettter and better?
"Things Getting Worse, Much Worse, in Terms of FEC Enforcement", or are they?
Colonel Arjinderpal Sekhon, MD, JD, ran as the Democrat for congress in a safe Republican seat in California. He narrowly won a 3 way primary and got 1/3 of the votes in the general election. He raised $100,000+ from some 200 contributors.
As of June 06, 2006, District 02- Money raised
Wally Herger (R) $590,519
A. J. Sekhon (D) $144,951
E. Kent Hinesley (L) $0
His filed FEC reports only stated "self" for employer and occupation for some 80 contributors. No one complained. FEC staff initiated an enforcement action, contending that best efforts had not been used to obtain employer and occupation info.
Whether a person can occupy themself is an interesting metaphysical question.
The FEC split 2-4 and did not approve a conciliation agreement. The 4 were one Democrat and the 3 then-GOP members, including the infamous Hans Van. The 2 have filed a statement pdf objecting to this disposition. Rick Hasen's coverage is titled 'worse and worse'.
I think the decision to dismiss the case is appropriate discretion.
Seckon is a disabled veteran officer of the Gulf war. He provides no-cost medical care to other disabled vets. I suspect that a large fraction of his donors are Sikhs.
With their distinctive turbans, Sikhs sometimes encounter prejudice when they are confused for Moslems. They are a distinct and insular minority.
NAACP v Alabama ex rel Patterson, Bates v Little Rock, and Talley v California establish that there is a First Amendment right of privacy to protect freedom of association. Under Buckley v Valeo, Brown v 74 Socialist Workers, and McConnell v FEC, the courts have authorized exemptions from campaign finance reporting and disclosure on a case by case basis, with the reporting campaign having the burden of proof to establish the exemption.
The current court is in a wave of reducing the FEC's authority to regulate,and it makes sense for the agency to proceed cautiously instead of always pushing the limits of its jurisdiction.
Campaign finance disclosure in California is controversial right now, in the wake of proposition 8. Supporters and opponents of proposition 8 are both at risk, of being fired, attacked, boycotted or shunned. Disclosure can kill.
Dismissing the case against the Colonel was the right thing to do, and was also a prudent thing to do. Two of the Democrats on the commission are out of touch with the majority of the commission, and a majority of the voters,and a majority of the court. Forthcoming decisions about Citizens United and Section 5 of the voting rights act will tell us more about what the court is thinking right now. Either of these cases could go either way. (post was actually written june 13)
Comments:
Post a Comment
