Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,47
the definition of campaign-related disbursements covered by the disclosure requirement to include communications that “support or promote or attack or oppose” the election of a candidate, without regard to whether the communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. Remember, the ACLU’s home page is all about fighting (not defeating, but fighting) Donald Trump. By this standard, that home page would subject the ACLU to disclosure requirements they currently don’t have to worry about.
Now, I’m actually with the ACLU on this one. In fact, they end up making the very argument Republicans have used to defend the Citizens United decision and the use of undisclosed donors (what Democrats derisively refer to as dark money). In their letter, the ACLU passionately defends the very free speech Democrats are seeking to jeopardize, writing:
Should the DISCLOSE Act, as currently constituted, become law, it will have one of two effects. First, donors could choose not to give to organizations, even if they support their messages, or could be forced to give less than they otherwise might. Second, organizations, especially small organizations that either cannot afford the compliance costs or simply refuse to breach the trust that donors expecting anonymity have placed in them, could choose to refrain from speaking at all. Either way, the public discourse and the First Amendment lose.
The FEC as a Partisan Weapon
There are many more troubling provisions in this one bill, much less the next nine bills that round out the Democrats’ legislative priority list. But we’ll conclude our analysis with one final unnecessary and baffling provision. That is the partisan weaponization of the currently nonpartisan Federal Election Commission (FEC). Weaponizing federal agencies like the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice is certainly not new. But never have we seen Democrats do it so boldly and so openly.
Since 1974, the six-member FEC has operated as a bipartisan commission, with Democrats and Republicans each more or less controlling three seats. Four votes are needed to initiate an investigation or prosecute an FEC violation, thus always depending on bipartisan support before the body can proceed with an action.
This legislation changes the FEC to a five-member commission that can proceed with a simple majority vote, making it possible for the party holding the majority to steamroll the minority. Democrats tried to hide this reality by dictating that no more than two members may belong to any one political party. The Institute for Free Speech points out that this requirement would not be a barrier to partisan control, explaining that “under this criteria, Senator Bernie Sanders, who nearly gained the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, would not count as a Democrat on the Commission (technically, Sanders remains an ‘independent’), allowing him to join two other Democrats in a Commission majority. The same would be true for Angus King, the Maine senator elected as an independent, but who caucuses with Democrats.”
H.R. 1 goes even further, allowing the president to appoint a powerful chairman of the FEC to serve as a sort of Speech Czar, with vast powers to appoint staff, control budgets, issue subpoenas, and compel testimony. This person is required to consult with the commission, but has no limitations on his own authority to act.
Finally, the bill is timed to ensure Democrats will be the ones to control the commission. The Institute for Free Speech analysis found that while most provisions of H.R. 1 (the ones that favor Democrats in the election) are effective in 2020, this provision does not take effect until 2021—when Democrats hope Donald Trump will have been replaced with a president from their party. That person will appoint all five commissioners and choose the first chair. Those appointments will last through 2027, regardless of whether the next president serves a second term, and that chair will be able to appoint the staff director and general counsel for the FEC. Ultimately, the Institute for Free Speech wrote:
That means that all the new regulations required under other provisions of H.R. 1 will be written by the initial appointing president’s team of the Chair, supportive commissioners, and their appointed General Counsel, and can be written (and if necessary re-written) with a specific eye to the 2022 midterms and the 2024 and 2028 presidential races. That same group would also respond to Advisory Opinion Requests and approve or disapprove of all enforcement actions.
Working with these potential advantages, if that president is re-elected in 2024, he or she could appoint a Commission majority through 2033.
It’s a big gamble that rests upon the