To Michael Malbin’s credit, he is taking seriously the political parties’ complaint about the terms under which they must compete for resources and influence with “outside” or independent groups. He accepts that a “rebalancing” is in order, and he proposes a compromise: more room for parties to coordinate their spending with candidates, in return for tighter enforcement of coordination rules against independent expenditure groups. He calls this a “third approach” to reform that which rejects both full de-regulation of party spending and any frontal challenge to the constitutional protections for independent spending.

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.

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.

First libertarian party committees, then the Republican National Committee, filed a suit last week to claim for political parties the advantages enjoyed by Super PACs. Each wishes to raise unlimited individual funds for “independent expenditures.”  The cases are a predictable consequence of Speechnow.org v. FEC: these party committees are arguing that what is good for the outside groups should be good for them, so long as they are also spending independently of their candidates.

Having worried about candidate fundraising for independent committees—officials were “vexed” about this prospect, the press reported—the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board appears poised to act on that worry. A new draft it will consider next week concludes that any candidate fundraising support for an independent committee is “coordination” and blocks the committee from proceeding with unlimited expenditures for the candidate.  Minn. Campaign Fin. & Pub. Disclosure Bd., Draft Advisory Op. 437 (Feb. 11, 2013).