Daily Report for Executives provides in-depth coverage of unfolding legislative, regulatory, and judicial news from the nation’s capital, the states, and around the world. This daily news service...
A long-running challenge to the Federal Election Commission’s lack of enforcement action against a conservative campaign spending organization that received millions of dollars from undisclosed donors is set for a November argument in the (CREW v. FEC, D.C. Cir. No. 17-5049, order 9/12/17).
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington contends that, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit can’t force action in this case involving the now-defunct nonprofit called the Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity (CHGO), there’s no hope for enforcing disclosure requirements against any of the numerous “dark money” groups that have intervened in U.S. elections since 2010.
“The FEC claims that in this case—where CHGO committed wanton and obvious violations of the [Federal Election Campaign Act] and obstructed the FEC’s investigation, the FEC already possesses all necessary information to enforce the law yet won’t to preserve agency resources, and CREW stands ready to take legal action to vindicate its rights—a citizen suit is still barred,” said a plaintiff’s reply brief filed last month.
“One is left to wonder,” CREW added, “if the FECA does not permit a citizen suit here, when would it?”
The FEC has said in earlier court filings that it was justified in refusing to release the identities of donors to the conservative nonprofit group. Disclosing the group’s donor list, which was uncovered in an agency investigation, “would implicate serious First Amendment concerns,” according to a court brief filed by FEC lawyers.
A clerk’s order issued by the D.C. Circuit said the case involving disclosure of CHGO’s donors would be argued Nov. 15 before a panel of three appellate judges. The panel will not be named until next month.
The court argument will focus on CREW’s claims that the FEC acted “contrary to law” by deadlocking on the issue of whether CHGO was subject to disclosure rules. At the time the six-member FEC, which was equally divided between three commissioners recommended by Democrats and three by Republicans, deadlocked along party lines on a enforcement complaint against CHGO. The deadlock stymied enforcement action against the conservative group.
FEC lawyers are now in court, essentially to defend the position of the three Republican FEC commissioners, who voted against pursuing enforcement action.
CREW has argued that, even if the FEC Republicans were correct in arguing that further enforcement action against CHGO would waste resources and risk costly litigation to go after a defunct organization, the FEC could partially remedy the disclosure violation in this case without spending anything else. The FEC could simply release the names of CHGO’s donors that it already possesses, CREW said in an earlier court brief.
The FEC has acknowledged that it conducted an investigation of the conservative group and found out who funded CHGO. The agency has refused to release this information, however. A request for the identity of the conservative group’s funders, filed by Bloomberg BNA under the Freedom of Information Act, was denied by the FEC, citing privacy concerns.
The FEC’s latest court brief defended the agency’s stance against disclosure by citing a 2003 ruling by the D.C. Circuit in a case brought by the AFL-CIO. The labor federation challenged the FEC’s then-routine policy of publicly releasing virtually all information uncovered in each agency investigation. The AFL-CIO argued, and the appeals court agreed, that releasing too much information about those targeted in FEC probes could violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kenneth P. Doyle in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Paul Hendrie at pHendrie@bna.com
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)