The Federal Election Commission can no longer be considered the sole federal agency tasked with regulating federal campaign activity. As a recent New York Times article suggests, the Securities and Exchange Commission may soon require publicly traded corporations to disclose the names of individuals who contribute to various so-called Super PACs. Not surprisingly, the measure is strongly opposed by business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, which argue that such measures would infringe on the group’s right to free speech. The Internal Revenue Service has also been highlighted recently for its alleged overreach in targeting tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations associated with the conservative Tea Party.
These latest events highlight just how thorny of an issue campaign finance regulation has become. Agencies that are not normally tasked with any kind of campaign regulation have found themselves forced to overcompensate for a seemingly ineffectual FEC.
In international relations, the term “proxy war” is used to describe a situation in which two opposing parties utilize a substitute, or a third party, as an alternative to fighting each other directly. What Citizens United seems to have engendered, is a proxy war between liberals and conservatives in which government agencies are being used as reluctant battlegrounds. As we have witnessed this past week, the results are at best messy, and at worst, damaging to the overall legitimacy of the federal government.
The longer both sides continue to battle one another over procedural matters in multiple agency arenas, the more distant they become from their purported fundamental purpose for being, which is to engage in political advocacy. Not to mention, of course, the more contributor money they waste in the process. But is there any alternative?
These organizations might benefit from looking back to 2004 and the similar issues brought forth by so-called “527” organizations and their apparent exemption from the recently passed Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold). The crucial similarity between the battles being waged today, and those of the past, boil down to one thing: the definition of a “political committee” as defined in the FEC Act.
The difference between the strategies implemented today versus 2004, is that in the latter, watchdog groups and political parties funneled all their complaints and fought all their battles in one arena – the FEC. Both sides filed complaints and the FEC came down hard on 527’s, primarily for failing to register as political committees. As a result, America Coming Together was fined $775,000, the Media Fund was fined $580,000 and the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth were fined $299,500.
A strategy that devotes resources to one specific arena (namely, the FEC) could be particularly beneficial for liberals and other proponents of increased disclosure. The Supreme Court unambiguously upheld disclosure laws as constitutional. If disclosure is the bottom line, then liberals and supporters need to bring the fight back to the FEC where they maintain a home turf advantage. Otherwise, they risk undermining their cause by fighting procedural battles in agencies that have little interest in regulating campaign activity and little incentive to become enmeshed in a political battle as contentious as campaign finance.
By Erinn Larkin, Compliance Director, PACs and Parties
Tags: agencies, business, Chamber of Commerce, conservatives, Donor Contribution, electronic filing reports, Erinn Larkin, events, FEC, federal government, government, Internal Revenue Service, liberals, New York Times, political advocacy, Politics, proxy war, publicly traded corporations, Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission