The Tokaji-Strause report on independent spending is an enterprising and interesting examination of how a sample of politicians and political operatives experience the expanding universe of “outside money.”  It aspires to and largely achieves fair-mindedness in describing the limits of its project and of the conclusions drawn from this kind of research material.  And in a campaign finance debate in which the opposing sides scour fresh publications for rhetorical advantage, it offers something to both sides.

A conflict—the latest in the series—has broken out among FEC Commissioners about whether they have made public all relevant material on the General Counsel’s  view of Crossroads GPS and whether it is a "political committee."  In one report, the GC concluded that the evidence supported further investigation of the question, but the Commission deadlocked, and now a private lawsuit is looming.  Republicans seem to believe that the public record is incomplete and that the missing GC analysis would have a bearing on the legal merits of Crossroads’ position.   Whatever the facts of the matter, this ruckus reminds readers once again of the troubled condition of the Commission’s “case-by-case,” fact-specific approach to determining “political committee” status.

The flooding of the IRS with criticisms of the proposed rulemaking has shown that, on this issue at least, Washington is experiencing unity across party and ideological lines. The basic complaint, of course, is that the draft rule is too broad, chilling or preventing or just burdening legitimate political speech or activity.  It is a remarkable proceeding.  Activities that have been the targets of soft money reform for years—issue advertising and various other voter education activities—are now being vigorously defended against government regulation. In  the short run, the result may be a rulemaking indefinitely delayed or, in content, much changed.

But, apart from the question of whether or how this draft might be revised to address these critiques, the hostile reception to the proposals may influence the course of the campaign finance debate in other ways.   Here are two:

Under the federal campaign finance laws, the FEC and the IRS are directed to “consult and work together” in making their rules “mutually consistent.” 2 U.S.C. § 438(f). The IRS now proposes new 501(c)(4) tax exempt advocacy rules, responding to campaign finance controversies associated with the old ones, and the time has come for it to “consult and work together” with the FEC.  But the FEC Commissioners don’t themselves “work together” very well on these issues and so, splitting along party lines, they have presented two views to the Service. The difference in viewpoint is predictable—Democrats favor disclosure, Republicans are suspicious of it—but the real interest of these submissions lies more in the strategies behind these presentations than in their substance.

Here, then, are summaries of each set of comments, following by a “translation” into more straightforward terms of what rival camps are really trying to say and do.

In the discussion of Super PACs,  seemingly different concerns tend to intermingle or become fused together, creating confusion.  Most obvious is the continuing disagreement about whether candidate support for an independent committee, particularly fundraising, results in “coordination.”  Some argue—some propose an amendment to the law to provide—that a candidate’s public endorsement of a committee, including but not limited to appeals for funds, is coordination.  Another view distinguishes among Super PACs and would subject single-candidate committees to stricter coordination than others.