In a related event, the Campaign Legal Center has accused (well, is seeking a public explanation) of comments by FEC employees that the FEC is no longer regulating "express advocacy" in campaign communications. In the complicated world of election law, an advertisement that contains words of "express advocacy" may be subject to some regulation, but "issue ads" (which are theoretically educational) may not be regulated.
As an aside, the meaning of "express advocacy" has vexed legal scholars, including the Supreme Court, for the last 40 years, since the test was inaugurated. Some use a "magic words" test, that using certain words--"vote for X" "elect X," "defeat X" etc. are per se express advocacy, and no other words or combinations of words may be regulated in any fashion. Others use a more functional test, arguing that where the words are understood as advocating for defeat or election of a candidate ("If you love freedom, call X and tell him you oppose his voting record!") that is sufficient to support regulation. A recent formulation, in Wisconsin Right to Life, created a toothless variation, that only where the words cannot be understood as anything but calling for the election or defeat of a candidate, then the words are not advocacy and may not be regulated.
OK, back to the Campaign Legal Center's complaint.
Basically, a staffer for the FEC was quoted as stating that an ad, paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, asked voters to "Help" one candidate, did not fall into any of the categories above (magic words, functional, no other interpretation), and therefore would not be investigated. Clearly, the Campaign Legal Center is not amused by this development. The Chamber of Commerce has been skirting the tax-exempt/advocacy regulations for some time... will add updates as I hear them.
No comments:
Post a Comment