You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #6: An earlier SC decision left things in limbo...Congress should act, imho. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. An earlier SC decision left things in limbo...Congress should act, imho.
Edited on Wed Mar-08-06 11:12 PM by Wordie
Recent Developments in Campaign Finance Regulation

In Akins, Supreme Court Rules FEC can be Sued by Citizens to Enforce Disclosure Statutes


FEC v. Akins
U.S. Supreme Court
June 1, 1998

Requirements of Classification as a Political Committee ("Major Purpose Test"): Unaddressed by Court (And this is the problem, imho, which needs to be addressed by Congress -Wordie)

...The underlying question in the case was not the standing of the plaintiffs, however. Instead, it concerned whether the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a membership organization and lobbying group supporting pro-Israel policies, met the technical definition of a "PAC" under the FECA, and therefore had to comply with FECA's disclosure requirements.

The FECA provides that any organization that spends $1000 on campaign-related activity is a PAC. However, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo indicated that, at least in some cases, only organizations whose "major purpose" is electing or defeating candidates may be regulated as a "PAC."

AIPAC admitted its activities included activities related to elections, including setting up meetings between candidates and its members, and distributing candidate position papers to its membership. However, AIPAC claimed these activities all constituted communications with their membership, which are exempt from regulation under FECA. Thus, despite this activity, AIPAC asserted, and the FEC agreed, that AIPAC was not a "political committee," and thus was not required to comply with legal requirements applicable to political committees.

...In the end, however, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether the $1000 test or the "major purpose" test was applicable - i.e. whether or not AIPAC was a "political committee" subject to FECA. Instead, the Court sent the case back to the lower courts to reconsider the case in light of the decision that the plaintiffs had standing, and in light of the recent lower court cases.


http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/headlines/akins.htm

And when I say that I think Congress should act, I don't necessarily mean against AIPAC specifically, but that the laws should be refined so that all campaign donations fall under the same rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC