It seem unfair that just holding a hearing subjects the FEC to criticism and ridicule. The agency was acted entirely reasonably in inviting views on what it might do, if anything, in response to the McCutcheon case.  So what followed was predictable: the usual strong divisions were expressed and anyone hoping for a clear picture of the problems of campaign finance and how to address them was bound to be disappointed.  The FEC is not the culprit here: it only hosted the discussion and is not responsible for its content. It was a hearing.

The Federal Election Commission is about to hear from a varied community of observers and participants who have views of what it should do—or not—after McCutcheon.   All the witnesses are aware that there are major, lines-drawn-in-the-sand disagreements within the agency over policy and authority. They know, from the start, that proposals to toughen rules on, say, earmarking, have a slim chance of success. But still the ones who favor new, more muscular regulation make their case. But they don’t make it in all the same ways, and in the differences lies the chance to make the best use of the advocacy they know will only get them so far. 

Arguments about the prospects for campaign finance regulation now fall broadly into three categories: (1) close up loopholes; patch up the rulebook; (2) wait for scandal to break the logjam; and  (3) rethink the issues.  In recent weeks, we've had clear restatements of these alternatives.

Walter Shapiro and Larry Lessig have argued over whether Lawrence Lessig’s Super PAC, Mayday, is poised to claim success in electing its endorsed candidates.  They correctly assume that this measure—electoral impact—may dominate discussion of how well the PAC  performs.  But it is not the only measure. For progressives, who make up the natural constituency for the Mayday reform program, there is the additional question of whether, considering carefully the PAC’s strategy, they should welcome any success it achieves. It is a question of the type of politics represented by Mayday.

The Times was doing well with the younger set in recent days, hammering home the virtues of legalized access to marijuana, but it has taken a step back. Now it is questioning  the right of youth to accept unlimited support from parents and other relatives through family-established or -financed Super PACs.

This was one opportunity for the realization of a young person’s dream—unlimited financial support from family which could not be used as leverage to tell the kids what to do. This spending must be independent.  It’s the law.