It is disconcerting to discover that Brad Smith is disappointed in an earlier posting here. He holds strong views on political law issues but he expresses them clearly, expertly and with principled consistency: he rightly says that he has maintained an independent position against even the expectations, on some issues, of natural allies in the Republican Party. Now Brad expresses frustration that I misrepresented his tone and argument in an exchange with Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center over the IRS's proposed regulation of 501(c)(4) political activity.

After Brad Smith of the Center for Competitive Politics took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to criticize the IRS’s proposed rules on tax-exempt political activity, Paul Ryan of the Campaign legal Center answered in a letter to the editor. Smith had complained about an agency "power grab" cheered on by anti-speech zealots on the left. Ryan's villain was the same—the IRS—but in this instance he depicted an agency struggling to its feet after years of “derelict” failure to police special interest misuse of the law.

The Federal Election Commission has unquestionably had its full share of troubles. And on the agency’s role and performance—about which there is unceasing disagreement—certain points deserve general acceptance: that the FEC’s computers should not be hacked, its Commissioners should not act spitefully toward one another, and it should be provided a reasonable amount of money with which to carry out its functions. Dave Levinthal of the Center for Public Integrity makes just these points, among others, and so far so good; but then he presents a dubious history of the FEC that will confuse readers about the sources of its problems and the reasons why “reform” of the agency is elusive.

The McCutcheon case continues to stir up comment about the hypotheticals the Justices used at oral argument to debate the need for an aggregate limit. Zac Morgan at the Center for Competitive Politics takes on one such hypothetical and suggests that it does not illustrate the need for any such limit. He correctly contends that the anti-earmarking and anti-proliferation provisions of the statute would apply with or without an aggregate limit to prevent the violation the hypothetical was meant to suggest.

The IRS is now receiving comments on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on (c)(4) activity, and certain of the views so far underscore the choice that the agency faces and does not make in its first set of proposed rules. It is the choice of line, and the “brightness” of that line, distinguishing “candidate-related” from social welfare activity.