Recently, there were emails sent en masse by MoveOn.org, an organization which prides itself on its objectivity and non-partisan diligence towards accountable government. In the message, it urged its supporters to oppose the new FEC effort, and characterized it as a Bush and Cheney initiative to curtail civil rights. Some of the fallout landed in The Sun, with a letter to the editor espousing an effort to shut down free speech.

In reality, neither Bush or Cheney had anything to do with this. Nor is this is a partisan issue.

The Federal Elections Commission was asked to adopt new rules on the allocation formula for non-connected political committees, per the joint request of Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Center for Responsive Politics. Anyone familiar with these groups or its principals would be unlikely to come away with the impression that the purpose is to curtail free speech.

Rather, there is a loophole in federal campaign finance laws which allows groups to operate as “shadow” political parties. The Supreme Court admonitions per McConnell v. FEC upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, and repeatedly indicated that government had the power and obligation to prevent circumvention of the campaign finance laws. FEC, at a minimum, has a duty to provide clarification of the existing ones while being mindful of its limitations and any need to defer to Congress for the passage of new laws.

The FEC Chairman and Commissioner David Mason were nominated by Clinton. The Vice Chair was nominated by Bush III, but served as Counsel to the Committee on Standards — an evenly divided bipartisan body.

Commissioner McDonald is a Democrat nominated by Reagan in 1981, and survived renomination by Clinton and presidents who followed. Commissioner Thomas was formerly Executive Assistant to Commissioner Tom Harris, a Democrat and original FEC commissioner. He was first appointed by Reagan, reappointed by Bush Sr., and again by Clinton. Commissioner Toner was appointed by Bush III.

Citizens truly interested in effective government should commit to participation beyond partisan dispositions. And the press should commit itself to printing rebuttals to misleading information of this nature, lest it give the impression of bias. Otherwise, this perpetuates emotional agendas over true progress.

Doña L. Keating, Pres/CEO
Professional Options
Gig Harbor