Posted October 2, 2006 by Paul S. Ryan

Legal Center Files Comments in Two FEC Proceedings

The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed comments today with the FEC in two separate proceedings.

On Friday, the Commission Office of General Counsel produced alternative draft Advisory Opinions 2006-24 for consideration by the Commission at its October 4 public meeting.  These alternative draft opinions respond to an advisory opinion request (AOR 2006-24) filed jointly by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania, a state party, seeking permission for those party committees or their federal candidates to raise non-federal funds for use in recounts or election contests following the 2006 mid-term elections.

The Legal  Center and Democracy 21 filed comments today in response to the draft advisory opinions, incorporating comments we filed August 24 in response to the parties’ advisory opinion request.  We remind the Commission that twice before, party committees have submitted materially similar advisory opinion requests; twice before, the general counsel recommended that the Commission adopt an opinion that BCRA now requires the committees (and their federal candidates and officeholders) to raise and spend only hard money for recount purposes; and twice before, these advisory opinion requests were withdrawn by the party committees at the last minute — after the release of the general counsel’s recommendation, and on the eve of the Commission’s consideration of the matter — thereby preempting the Commission’s vote.

The Commission has now been asked the same question for a third time since the enactment of BCRA.  Nothing has changed in the intervening years.  For the reasons detailed in our comments filed today, in our August 24 comments and our August 24 blog post, we urge the Commission to adopt alternative “Draft A” at this week’s meeting, advising the parties of the obvious—that a recount is, indeed, “in connection with” the federal election that necessitates it—and that BCRA requires federal candidates and parties to raise and spend only hard money “in connection with” federal elections.

Also, in response to an Advisory Opinion Request from the Bob Casey for Pennsylvania Committee (AOR 2006-31), the Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed comments today urging the Commission to advise the Committee that, having forfeited eligibility to the “lowest unit charge” (LUC) for television airtime as a result of its proposed failure to comply with the federal Communications Act disclaimer requirements, the Committee’s acceptance of the LUC from a corporate broadcast station would constitute acceptance of an illegal corporate contribution.