On October 12, the Federal Election Commission filed this brief in Libertarian Party National Committee v FEC, 18-5227. This is the case on whether it is constitutional to forbid a party from receiving a bequest, in one lump sum, after the deceased person’s estate is ready for distribution. The FEC says allowing parties to receive such bequests, even from individuals who had never told the party about the bequest, would cause bribery. The FEC also says the Libertarian National Committee lacks standing. Also the FEC attacks the Libertarian Party for having been one of the original plaintiffs in Buckley v Valeo, back in 1974, when Congress first set up strict controls on campaign spending.
I say abolish the Federal Election Commission
NO dollar amount in the 1 Amdt —
much too difficult to understand by the SUPER-HACK SCOTUS constitutional law MORONS
— before, during and after
Buckley v Valeo (1974) — a mere 44 years ago.
So, the FEC still has it in for the Libertarians for resisting Buckley v Valeo.
The FEC argues that a contribution limit need not be applied only to questionable contributions. Presumably Richard Winger or Jim Riley would not expect a quid pro quo for any political contribution they would make, but that does not mean they should be able to make unlimited contributions. A testementary contribution has potential for corruption or the perception of corruption, even though in this particular instance the Libertarian Party was unaware of the bequest.
To have standing, a party has to have suffered an injury. The FEC argues that so long as a political party can aggregate sufficient funds to voice its political positions that its free speech is not impaired. The Libertarian party is apparently arguing that since current law permits an individual to contribute $300,000 to a political party so long it is allocated to four separate funds: (1) presidential nominating conventions; (2) palaces for the national party; (3) funding of recount/contests; (4) traditional electioneering, that they ought to be able to use all of the bequest any way they want.
The FEC does not attack the LP for its litigation since Buckley. The FEC argues that the LP is rehashing settled law. The Libertarian Party apparently thinks they are making a nuanced argument that is distinguishable.
If the FEC were abolished, who would enforce federal election laws?
JR —
What happened to USA Marshals and USA District Attorneys
— with USA armed forces backups — for enforcing ALL USA criminal laws in USA courts ???
FEC = full of appointed top HACKS = nonstop gridlock and more and more court cases.
NO such thing as *settled* law — see esp. Erie RR 1938 and Brown v Bd of Ed 1954.
See the Appx to the Constitution Annotated —
long list of over-ruled SCOTUS opinions.