Some weeks ago, a number of individuals with different professional backgrounds and perspectives on campaign finance came together to urge the Federal Election Commission to take certain initiatives to improve the enforcement of the law.  (I was one of them.)  In a period of difficult, highly contested constitutional and legal questions, the FEC is in a difficult position, often charged with the perceived “sins” of others and itself divided  over regulatory direction.

But in this turbulent period, a key step for the agency is to define the available paths toward clear law, accessible and regularly updated guidance to those subject to the Act, and strengthened compliance and bipartisan enforcement. The signatories to the letter urged that the Commission consider revisions to “advance core regulatory purposes and policies in the public interest, such as the more effective implementation of well-established disclosure requirements.”

Today, in a further step, the same group has filed a Petition for Rulemaking, calling on the Commission to implement the statutory mandate to expand the Administrative Fines Program, address ambiguities, omissions and uncertainties in its guidance and reporting forms, and generally improve the enforcement of the disclosure provisions.  Once again, the signatories are unified in their view that this is a critically important function for the FEC to play, and that respect for the law and the prospects for successful compliance depend on sound administration of core statutory requirements.

Larry Lessig’s PAC has run into regulatory difficulties, apparently botching compliance with disclaimer requirements, and the Center for Competitive Politics decided to make an example of him by filing a complaint with the FEC. Example of what?  That those advocating for regulated politics should sample the fare they are urging on others and experience the same indigestion. In the Wall Street Journal, Scott Blackburn of the CCP has suggested that the moral of the tale was the need for more “sensible” campaign finance laws.

The Washington Post sensibly suggests that campaign finance reform policy must be recast and that this a job for Congress. The paper’s perspective on the current state of affairs is bleak. Post editors are unhappy with the permissive rulings of the Supreme Court and about the expanded realm of what is often, usually imprecisely, referred to as "dark money." But their emphasis is on "new ways" to improve the law and its enforcement. They suggest a focus on transparency and they call on Republicans who will soon control the Congress to reconsider their reversal on disclosure policies.

It may have been legal, or perhaps not, depending on the facts, which are so far not fully known.  But the use of  Twitter to feed polling information to outside groups lends itself to various conclusions about the state of campaign finance law.  The content of the FEC rule against coordination can be brought into question, or its enforcement criticized, or the problem can be passed off as another instance of shenanigans by a regulated community always exploring paths around the law.  Or the issue could be, more profoundly, the very conception behind the current anti-coordination rules.

The Commission seems to be back at it again: quarreling publicly over disclosure rules and policy applied to the Internet advertising. The Republican Commissioners are calling for a public uprising of sorts against Commissioner Ravel’s call for reconsidering those rules and policy as part of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. They are urging public comments—they have in mind protests—attacking tighter reporting requirements. The Internet has been provided with lenient regulatory treatment, a choice for which the Commission has been generally applauded, and the Republican Commissioners want to keep things that way. Commissioner Ravel has both moved to reopen the question and indicated her view that more regulation may be in order—that significant sums spent for political advertising on the Internet should be viewed, for disclosure purposes, as no different than broadcast, cable or satellite communications.

Those who are rooting for a Commission that works better and more collaboratively across the partisan divide have reason for concern. Only a few weeks ago, the Commissioner managed to approve rulemakings to take account of recent Supreme Court decisions. The vote was not unanimous, but a 4-2 decision was progress, and at the Commission table, there was hope expressed that the agreement reached that day marked a fresh commitment among Commissioners to explore additional areas for agreement. It would be a shame if now, in the flap over Internet regulation, the Commission quickly regressed to caustic exchange and administrative stalemate.