Spectators of campaign finance are waiting for the next big case, and many bets have been placed on the RNC's suit to lift the limits on contributions to party independent expenditure programs.  Now another entry into the sweepstakes: the question of whether an independent committee (or “hybrid”) can retain its independence if it also makes contributions, or functions within a family of related organizations that includes one making contributions.  See Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011).  At issue is the capacity of the self-proclaimed independent committee to collect unlimited contributions.

Troubled as always that the government might be dabbling in politics, George Will wrote this last week about the Patent Office cancellation of the “Redskins” trademark registration. His larger point is that once the government has the discretion to jump into political debates, it may choose those occasions that suit its political or ideological preferences. Citing Jonathan Turley,  he gives an example from campaign finance: the FEC’s exercise of discretion in approving the financing of Michael Moore's documentary about George W. Bush, Fahrenheit 911, while disapproving Citizen United’s now-famous documentary about Hillary Clinton.

A sense is building in media quarters that the Wisconsin “issue advocacy” investigation, still in limbo in the courts, might be a pivotal moment in the campaign finance reform debate. It is a spicy story: a criminal investigation with allegations about conspiracies and mention of emails to Karl Rove. And it could turn out that state law was violated. At this point there is no way of knowing. Clearer is the central issue arising out of the case: whether the First Amendment protects “a candidate’s promotion and support of issues advanced by an issue advocacy group” where “the speech may benefit his or her campaign because the position taken on the issues coincides with his or her own.”  O’Keefe v. Schmitz, No. 14–C–139, 2014  WL 1795139 (E.D. Wis. 2014).

Critics of campaign finance enforcement, or the lack of it, continue to be infuriated by the FEC’s record of deadlocks in major cases, and they are further troubled by the obstacles to judicial review.  When complainants stymied by deadlock appeal to the courts, they must still overcome the “deference” generally granted to the agency’s expertise, except where the law is clear or the agency is acting arbitrarily.  In these cases, the courts review the agency’s action by examining the stated position of the Commissioners voting against enforcement.  This is the so-called “controlling group” of Commissioners—the ones whose refusal to authorize enforcement controlled the outcome.

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.