February, 12 2009, 01:25pm EDT
![Brennan Center for Justice](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012660/origin.jpg)
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Susan Lehman, (212) 998-6318
Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, (212) 998-6289 or (646) 265-7721
Letter to FEC Expresses Deep Concerns about the Agency
WASHINGTON
In a letter sent today
by seven reform organizations to the six Commissioners who serve on the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), the groups strongly criticized the
agency for its misguided rulemaking priorities.
The groups also strongly criticized three of the six Commissioners-Vice
Chairman Matthew Petersen, Commissioner Donald McGahn, and Commissioner
Caroline Hunter-for their demonstrated "distinct lack of interest in
enforcing" the campaign finance laws.
The votes of four of the six FEC Commissioners are required to take any enforcement action.
The letter was sent by Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, the
Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, Common Cause, the
League of Women Voters of the United States, Public Citizen and U.S.
PIRG.
The groups called for fundamental changes in the approach used by the
President to nominate Commissioners to the FEC and in the structure and
authority of the agency.
The letter urges that President Obama:
establish a system by which an advisory group made up of
distinguished Democrats, Republicans and independents or members of
other political parties, would provide him (and future Presidents) with
a list of potential nominees for each FEC appointment, from which he
would select a nominee. This would change the longstanding practice of
having FEC nominees chosen by congressional leaders and party
officials.
The groups' letter was sent to the FEC is in the midst of its
fast-track rulemaking on changes to its "agency procedures," mostly
relating to enforcement practices as they affect the interests of
respondents in enforcement proceedings.
The letter expresses deep concern about the FEC giving priority
treatment to its current rulemaking on "agency procedures," while the
agency still has failed to adopted a lawful regulation on
"coordination," almost seven years after the requirement to do so was
enacted in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).
The coordination provisions are essential elements of the contribution
limits and prohibitions contained in BCRA and earlier campaign finance
laws.
According to the letter:
In September 2007 the federal district court in
Washington, D.C. invalidated as contrary to law the Commission's deeply
flawed rules on coordination issued to implement BCRA-rules which are
essential to the proper functioning of the law.This district court action in 2007 followed the court's invalidation in
2004, as contrary to law, of the first version of the FEC coordination
regulation.In its 2007 decision, as it had in its 2004 decision, the district
court remanded back to the Commission, the coordination regulation, as
well as other important regulations promulgated to implement BCRA that
were struck down by the court, "for further action consistent with this
opinion." Shays v. FEC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 10, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (Shays III).
The court said that "it assumes that, on remand, the Commission will
act promptly, in light of the impending 2008 election." Id.That was seventeen months ago.
The letter continues:
Instead of fixing the regulations, however, the Commission
appealed the district court decision. The FEC lost its appeal in the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, as it had when it appealed the district
court ruling in 2004 striking down the first FEC coordination
regulation.That was eight months ago.
The letter points out that the FEC still has failed to issue
coordination regulations that comply with the law. According to the
letter:
One might reasonably have thought that fixing the
coordination regulation, and the other BCRA regulations invalidated by
the courts in Shays III, would have commanded the Commission's urgent attention, especially since BCRA was enacted in 2002.Yet, as far as we are aware, the Commission has done nothing to replace
the defective coordination regulation and the other BCRA regulations
invalidated in Shays III,
and instead has chosen to consider this "agency procedures" rulemaking
on a fast-track basis and moved it to the head of the line.The effort to obtain an FEC coordination regulation that complies with
the campaign finance laws has been going on for more than six years,
over three federal election cycles, and has involved two district court
decisions and two court of appeals decisions, each of which rejected as
contrary to law the FEC's coordination regulations. Yet the FEC still
has failed to adopt a lawful coordination regulation to govern federal
elections.
The letter also notes another rulemaking that has been sitting for more than a year and a half without resolution stating:
In another matter, the pending FEC rulemaking on "hybrid"
ads has languished on the Commission's docket since a public hearing
was held in July 2007, leaving unaddressed by the FEC an area of
significant abuse where clarification of the rules is plainly required.
The letter states that the current rulemaking deals largely with due
process rights for respondents in agency enforcement proceedings.
According to the letter:
This is more than a little ironic since recent actions by
three of the six FEC Commissioners-Vice Chairman Petersen, Commissioner
McGahn, and Commissioner Hunter-indicate not only sharp ideological
disagreements with the campaign finance laws, but also a distinct lack
of interest in enforcing them.To illustrate the point, one need look no further than the outcome in
MUR 5541 (The November Fund), in which the three Commissioners cited
above voted to reject a conciliation agreement that was negotiated by
the professional staff of the agency, based on past precedents of the
agency, and that was agreed to and signed by the respondent in the case.
The Statement of Reasons issued by the three Commissioners goes so far
as to reject the construction of "electioneering communication" set
forth in Chief Justice Roberts' controlling Supreme Court opinion in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007). See
Statement of Reasons of Vice Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and
Commissioners Carolyn C. Hunter and Donald F. McGahn in MUR 5541 (Jan.
23, 2008) at 6 n. 22 ("[W]hat Justice Alito anticipated could
happen-that the standard set forth in the Chief Justice's opinion may
not prove to be sufficiently clear and could, without the reversal of
the holding in McConnell, impermissibly chill political speech-apparently has happened.").When there are three Commissioners who have little apparent interest in
enforcing the laws-indeed, who support reversal of the Supreme Court's
opinion in the McConnell
case-and who also are able to block enforcement of the laws by the FEC,
there seems to be little point to a rulemaking about how to improve the
rights of respondents in enforcement cases.
The letter states that while due process rights for respondents in
enforcement proceedings are "essential," the Commission "should be
extremely wary of taking unnecessary new steps that would make an
already slow and cumbersome enforcement process even more so. Many of
the proposals discussed in the current rulemaking would tend to make
the status quo worse by slowing the current enforcement process even
further."
"Under current procedures, for example, it is not uncommon for the
FEC to take three or four years to resolve complaints. Creating
unnecessary new procedures that would slow the disposition of
enforcement matters even further would not serve the public interest,"
according to the letter.
The letter further notes that the call for additional procedural
protections "does serve to highlight one of the key structural problems
with the agency-the fact that the FEC was not given the powers to make
its own adjudicatory decisions about violations of law and impose its
own penalties-powers that many other agencies have."
The letter states, "The types of due process rights that the defense
bar advocates for respondents may be appropriate for an agency that can
exercise its own adjudicatory authority. But there is little reason to
provide respondents with such rights where the FEC has no such
adjudicatory power."
The reform groups state in the letter that they have not participated in the rulemaking on agency procedures because:
it cannot and does not address the fundamental problems
that plague the FEC-problems that require changes to be made by
Congress in the structure and powers of the agency, and changes to be
made by the President in the appointment process for nominating FEC
Commissioners.These problems have often left the FEC largely dysfunctional.
This does not mean, however, that the FEC cannot and should not be
doing a better job of enforcing the campaign finance laws under
existing circumstances. Operating within the framework of the agency's
powers, Commissioners are obligated to faithfully administer and
enforce the laws as enacted by Congress and construed by the
courts-regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the laws or the
court decisions construing them.
The letter from the reform groups states that "the structural flaws in
the Commission's enforcement authority are a statutory problem that
must be fixed by legislation." The groups state that they will support
legislation, like H.R. 421 introduced in the last Congress, "to replace
the FEC with a new agency to administer and enforce the campaign
finance laws, one that will have its own power to adjudicate violations
of law and impose appropriate sanctions, subject to judicial review."
The letter also challenges the way FEC Commissioners are currently named. According to the letter:
A central cause of the agency's problems over the years
has been its process for appointing Commissioners, which in practical
application allows the congressional leadership of both parties, in
conjunction with the national party committees, to name the FEC
Commissioners, and thereby to choose their own regulators.In reality, the President has become little more than a pass-through,
receiving the names provided by congressional leaders and party
officials, and passing them on to the Senate as nominees for
confirmation as FEC Commissioners.The result of this process has too often been the appointment of
Commissioners who adhere to a very truncated view of the law, either as
a matter of ideology or personal constitutional interpretation, or who
are responsive to partisan interests in the administration and
enforcement of the law.
The letter calls for a change in the approach by which the President selects Commissioners to nominate to the FEC:
That is why we will urge President Obama to establish a
system by which an advisory group made up of distinguished Democrats,
Republicans and independents or members of other political parties,
would provide him (and future Presidents) with a list of potential
nominees for each FEC appointment, from which he would select a
nominee. This would change the longstanding practice of having FEC
nominees chosen by congressional leaders and party officials.And that is why we will urge President Obama to exercise his
appointment authority, at the earliest opportunity, to nominate FEC
Commissioners under this new process that have a demonstrated
commitment to effective, non-partisan administration and enforcement of
the campaign finance laws.
The letter concludes:
The path to solving the larger problems with the FEC does
not lie in a rulemaking about how to craft procedural protections for
respondents in enforcement matters. It requires fundamental changes in
the structure and powers of the FEC, and in the process for selecting
Commissioners to serve on the agency.It is essential for the nation to have an enforcement agency committed
to properly interpreting and effectively enforcing the nation's
campaign finance laws, as written by Congress and as interpreted by the
courts. In order to accomplish this goal, we will work with the Obama
Administration and Congress to establish a new approach for nominating
Commissioners to the agency and to achieve fundamental statutory
reforms of the FEC.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
Sonya Massey, Shot by Police in Illinois, 'Should Be Alive Today'
"This video is sickening," the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus Senate chair said of the newly released body camera footage. "Justice demands answers and accountability."
Jul 22, 2024
Campaigners and political leaders across the United States responded with outrage and fresh calls for justice after the Monday release of body camera footage from the deadly police shooting of Sonya Massey, an unarmed 36-year-old Black woman from Springfield, Illinois.
"Sonya Massey, a beloved mother, friend, daughter, and young Black woman, should be alive today," U.S. President Joe Biden said in a statement. "Sonya's death at the hands of a responding officer reminds us that all too often Black Americans face fears for their safety in ways many of the rest of us do not."
"Sonya's family deserves justice," added Biden, who on Sunday exited this year's presidential race and endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, for the Democratic nomination. "Congress must pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act now. Our fundamental commitment to justice is at stake."
Massey called 911 just before 1:00 am CT on July 6 to report a "prowler" near her Springfield home,
according toWCIA and the Illinois State Police (ISP), which conducted an investigation after being contacted by Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell.
Two deputies from the Sangamon County Sheriff's Office were dispatched in response to Massey's call. ISP posted a total of over 34 minutes of bodycam footage from both deputies on YouTube. The video shows a deputy shooting Massey, who had been holding a pot of water they asked her to take off the stove. Before releasing the footage, authorities blurred her body.
The bodycam footage can be viewed here on the ISP YouTube page.
Black Lives Matter Springfield warned in a Sunday statement that "the footage will be distressing. It will be infuriating, heartbreaking, and may trigger trauma responses. It may also spur hateful comments or actions online or elsewhere by those who do not share our outrage about this senseless murder."
The group encouraged the Black community "to take care of themselves during this time" and said that it "will continue to stand for justice through peaceful protest and community action for Sonya Massey and all the Black women and men who have been murdered by police before her."
Sangamon County State's Attorney John Milhiser announced last week that one deputy, 30-year-old Sean Grayson, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and official misconduct. Campbell said that Grayson has been fired and "our office will continue to cooperate fully with the criminal proceedings as this case moves forward."
Grayson, who is white, "has pleaded not guilty" and "is being held in the Sangamon County Jail without bond," The Associated Pressreported. "If convicted, he faces prison sentences of 45 years to life for murder, six to 30 years for battery and two to five years for misconduct. His lawyer, Daniel Fultz, declined comment on Monday."
The other deputy who was on the scene has not been publicly identified.
During a Monday press conference, attorney Ben Crump said the bodycam footage would "shock the conscience of America like the pictures of Emmett Till after he was lynched" and Massey's father, James Wilburn, called for passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act—which includes various policies intended to reduce law enforcement misconduct and increase accountability.
Advocates have been sharing updates and expressing condolences on social media with the hashtag #StandWithSonya.
"Color of Change mourns Sonya Massey and we send our heartfelt condolences to the Massey family," said Kyle Bibby, the group's interim chief of campaigns and programs, in a Monday statement. "The video released today is gut-wrenching and once again shows that Black people in this country cannot escape police violence, even in their own homes. It is also a stark reminder of the urgent need to address police brutality and misconduct."
"The actions of Sean Grayson are disgraceful and inhumane, and reflect a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of the community. His actions are an alarming reminder of how police so often disregard Black lives," Bibby continued. "It is crucial that the authorities take swift and decisive action in holding those responsible for Sonya Massey's death accountable, and work towards rebuilding trust and ensuring the safety and dignity of all individuals in our communities."
"Today, we weep for Sonya Massey and ask, How much more suffering is necessary before we see real change?" he added. "As we enter election season, our community members should ensure their voices are heard so they can demand reforms that increase police accountability and prevent violence like that perpetrated against Sonya Massey from ever happening again."
Since Grayson was charged, political leaders across the state have commented on the case. In a Wednesday statement that remains pinned to the top of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker's profile on X, formerly Twitter, the Democrat welcomed the charges and called for building "a system of justice in this country that truly protects all of its citizens."
"My heart breaks for Sonya's children, for her family and friends, and for all who knew and loved her, and I am enraged that another innocent Black woman had her life taken from her at the hands of a police officer," Pritzker also said.
The comments kept mounting after the release of the video. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Monday that "the body camera footage released today is disturbing and unconscionable. My thoughts continue to be with Sonya Massey's children, family, and loved ones as they relive these horrible moments."
Some who weighed in highlighted aspects of Illinois state law, including bodycam requirements and rules for investigations.
"The body camera footage is horrific, and I offer my deepest sympathy to Sonya Massey's family as they relive a moment no family should experience," said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. "As the community reacts to the release of the footage, I urge calm as this matter works its way through the criminal justice system."
"In Illinois we have made sure that the law mandates independent investigations after officer-involved shootings," he added. "In this matter it appears that the investigation by the Illinois State Police and the subsequent referral to the Sangamon County state's attorney's office have complied with the letter and spirit of the law by providing the appropriate transparency and moving toward accountability."
State Sen. Robert Peters, Senate chair of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, said Monday that "this video is sickening. It is despicable and disgusting to see such brutal violence toward an innocent Black woman. How did this person ever become a law enforcement officer?"
"This is why we fought for increased transparency. This is why we fought for body camera requirements. This is why we fought to end cash bail to keep dangerous people detained," he continued. "But arresting and detaining the perpetrator isn't the end. Justice demands answers and accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Permitting Reform Bill Slammed as 'Biggest Giveaway' to Fossil Fuel Industry
"We urge Congress to put forward real solutions to build a clean energy economy, and not pair those reforms with more attempts to pad the pockets of fossil fuel executives," said one campaigner.
Jul 22, 2024
Green groups on Monday blasted the introduction of an energy permitting reform bill in the U.S. Senate, warning the proposal is a massive gift to the fossil fuel industry that will reduce public input on critical decisions and exacerbate the climate emergency.
U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—released the
Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, which the panel said "will strengthen American energy security by accelerating the permitting process for critical energy and mineral projects of all types in the United States."
Among other reforms, the bill "accelerates leasing and permitting decisions for all types of energy projects on federal lands" and requires the interior secretary to "hold at least one offshore wind lease sale and one offshore oil and gas lease sale per year" from 2025-29.
Manchin, a former right-wing Democrat with deep family ties to the coal industry, has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years.
"This Frankenstein legislation is nothing less than the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry," said Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate crisis, but instead would make it game over for a livable planet."
Sierra Club Beyond Fossil Fuels policy director Mahyar Sorour said in a statement that "those who promote this kind of so-called 'permitting reform' claim that it's necessary to accelerate the deployment of clean energy, but in truth this is nothing more than yet another attempt by fossil fuel industry boosters to give handouts for polluters at the expense of our communities and the climate."
"We urge Congress to put forward real solutions to build a clean energy economy, and not pair those reforms with more attempts to pad the pockets of fossil fuel executives under the guise of reducing emissions," Sorour added.
There is widespread agreement that energy permitting reform is sorely needed. However, climate campaigners argue that reform efforts must not perpetuate or expand the use of planet-heating fossil fuels. Some advocates say the answer lies in legislation like the A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act.
The bill—which is named after the late Democratic Virginia congressman—was introduced last year by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in the Senate and Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Barbara Lee (Calif.) in the House. The legislation aims to ensure timely and meaningful public notification for all new energy projects and adequate community review. It would require federal agencies to weigh the environmental justice impacts of proposed projects during the permitting process.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls to Boycott Netanyahu Speech Grow as Israeli PM Heads to DC
A new coalition of advocacy groups—some of them Jewish-led—are urging lawmakers to "amplify the voices of those in Israel, Palestine, and around the world who reject Netanyahu's failed leadership."
Jul 22, 2024
Pressure is mounting on U.S. lawmakers to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's scheduled address to Congress later this week, as a newly formed coalition of civil society groups announced a protest against the far-right leader—whose policies and actions in Gaza are on trial for genocide at the World Court.
As Netanyahu "brings to Congress his message of extending and expanding the devastating war in Gaza, neglecting the safety of Israeli hostages, and ensuring impunity for the actions of his government, an alternative message must be heard," the new coalition said in a statement Monday. "To amplify a message of safety, freedom, just peace, collective liberation, and human rights for ALL Palestinians and Israelis, nine diverse groups have come together to form the Peace and Justice Protest Bloc."
The groups—American Friends of Combatants for Peace (AFCFP), Win Without War, T'ruah, Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, Israelis for Peace, Halachic Left, and three local chapters of Supporters of Standing Together—"will come together in Washington this week to urge members of Congress to skip Netanyahu's speech, sponsor community events with peace activists from the region, and amplify the voices of those in Israel, Palestine, and around the world who reject Netanyahu's failed leadership."
"The bloc, made up of hundreds of Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs, Jews, and allies, will unite to demonstrate that collective struggle and liberation are possible, and there is a growing movement that embodies it," the coalition added. "We must act now to ensure that the voices for a just peace are louder than those of division and bloodshed."
A larger protest by a coalition of groups including Palestinian Youth Movement, National Students for Justice in Palestine, CodePink, ANSWER Coalition, the People's Forum, International Peoples' Assembly, Al-Awda-N.Y., and the Palestinian American Community Center-N.J. is also planned for Wednesday, when Netanyahu is set to speak. Organizers are planning to surround the U.S. Capitol.
"A visit by Netanyahu to Congress and the U.S. confirms something we already knew: The United States of America financially and morally supports the slaughter of Palestinians happening in Gaza," said CodePink Palestine campaign coordinator Nour Jaghama, who was arrested outside the Republican National Convention last week after being falsely accused of assaulting a Republican lawmaker. "They are no better than Netanyahu and every single Israeli official who orders the dropping of bombs on sieges on hospitals."
Groups including the Council on American Islamic Relations and CodePink have circulated petitions urging members of Congress to boycott Netanyahu's speech, which is set for Wednesday. Numerous congressional Democrats have already said they will not attend the address, as has Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who on Monday reaffirmed why he'll skip the speech.
"Netanyahu and his right-wing, extremist government have waged total war against the Palestinian people, killing at least 39,000 Palestinians and injuring 89,000—60% of whom are women, children, or elderly people," Sanders said. "Netanyahu should not be welcomed into the United States Congress."
"On the contrary, his policies in Gaza and the West Bank and his refusal to support a two-state solution should be roundly condemned," the senator added. "In my view, his right-wing, extremist government should not receive another nickel of U.S. taxpayer support to continue the inhumane destruction of Gaza."
Axios Capitol Hill reporter Juliegrace Brufke said Monday that Vice President Kamala Harris—whom many Democrats have endorsed for president since U.S. President Joe Biden's Sunday withdrawal from the 2024 race—has "declined" to preside over Netanyahu's speech, as is her prerogative as Senate president. So has Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D-Wash.), leaving uncertainty as to who will preside over the session.
Like Biden, Harris has been an
ardent supporter of Israel during her tenure in the U.S. Senate and White House. She is facing fresh calls take a "clear stance" against any more weapons sales for Israel.
In 2015—the last time Netanyahu addressed Congress—nearly 60 lawmakers including Sanders boycotted his speech.
Some progressive groups and individuals have called for more than just a boycott of Netanyahu.
The Center for Constitutional Rights on Friday asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate Netanyahu and other Israeli officials for allegedly committing or authorizing genocide, war crimes, and torture. The group led a federal genocide complicity lawsuit against Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin that was dismissed last week.
Last month, former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turnerargued that Netanyahu "should be arrested on the spot" for "overseeing a genocide."
Meanwhile, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)
warned attendees of a Republican National Convention event last week that he would order the arrest of any lawmakers who get "out of hand" during Netanyahu's speech.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular