How to establish priorities for the enforcement of the federal (or any) campaign finance laws is a difficult question. Congress has not specified them by statute and as the years go by, the Federal Election Commission has shown less rather than more agreement on what those priorities might be. As a result, sensible prioritization has sometimes gotten lost in partisan and policy conflicts. Adding to the problem is uncertainty about the enforceability of a law that is under pressure from changes in political practice and expanded constitutional limitations on regulatory action. Now the Commission is changing with the arrival of two new Commissioners, and a fresh opportunity is presented for discussion about the elements of a sensible, effective enforcement program. Ann Ravel, one of two new Commissioners, comes to the job with certain priorities in mind: disclosure and, more generally, “enforcement of significant matters.”

George Will has written about the problems that state campaign finance laws present for little people—“small groups and individuals” going about their business and discovering when they dip their toes into political waters that those waters can be treacherous. See Justice v. Hosemann, No. 3:11-CV-138-SA-SAA (N.D. Miss. filed Sept. 30, 2013); see also Galassini v. Town of Fountain Hills, No. CV-11-02097 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2013) at 1 (involving the “rights of an ordinary citizen [to] organize a protest”). The few hundred dollars these individuals and groups raise to express an opinion about a ballot initiative can subject them to a registration and reporting statute. They may find that they must put off their political project until they have complied with a law about which, only a short time before, they knew nothing. Some imagine, rightly or wrongly, that a lawyer has to be called, and eventually the call goes out—for a lawsuit. Will blames the errant course of the law on the insatiable appetite of “liberals” for “the regulatory state.”

But it is not certain that “liberals” or “progressives” who support reasonable campaign finance regulation would all applaud the results in these cases. They might well agree that there is a problem, one that arises from certain theories of enforcement and their application, not from core progressive commitments.

After one unsuccessful engagement with the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona continues to work through the implementation of its public financing laws. The issue remains, as before, how it can structure the law to draw candidates into the systems. One strategy it devised did not suit the Court: the state discovered that it could not provide offsetting public funding to participating candidates who faced well-heeled opponents and free-spending independent expenditure groups.

As the Supreme Court decides McCutcheon, should it be looking for a middle ground? Some, like Rick Hasen, think so; others, like McMichael McGough, do not. But it is worth considering what it means for a campaign finance jurisprudence to be “moderate.”

The Justices yesterday pondered and puzzled over various hypotheticals about how large donations can flood into the political system. All advocates were highly able and performed well, but the discussion never came to a clear agreement about what the law would allow, or when its proper enforcement would require the Federal Election Commission to challenge underhanded activity. There was uncertainty about contribution limits and the various uses of the terms "transfers" and "contributions"; disagreement about how far the earmarking rules reached; distinctions blurred between "hard" and "soft" money; and differences over which schemes for evading the limits could be considered "realistic" predictions of political behavior. Justice Breyer offered one hypothetical and a view of the legal implications, then conceded he or his law clerk might have it wrong and would have to review the rules again.