On September 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, held unconstitutional several Federal Election Commission regulations on campaign spending by non-profit groups, often known as “527’s”. The case is Emily’s List v FEC, 08-5422. Here is the decision. The majority decision is 44 pages, and the partial dissent/partial concurrence is 29 pages.

The FEC regulations held that non-profit groups that run their own ads campaigning for or against candidates for federal office are limited, in how they raise the money to pay for those ads. The FEC said individual contributions to such non-profit groups could not exceed $5,000. Two judges in the 3-judge panel said such contribution limits are unconstitutional. The third judge said that the Court should not have reached the constitutional issue, but should have limited its holding to finding that the FEC lacked authority to issue the regulations.

A paradox of the decision is that now (assuming the decision stands), non-profits have more ability to raise money to run their own political ads referring to candidates for federal office than political parties do. When political parties raise money, contributions from individuals are limited.

Of course, under the decision, non-profits are still limited in how much money individuals may contribute, if the non-profit then uses those contributions to contribute directly to particular candidates. The decision does not deal with contributions from non-profits to candidates. It only deals with contributions to non-profits when the non-profit uses its money to produce and run its own ads.

This decision, if it stands, should be very helpful to Unity08 in its pending lawsuit against FEC regulations that limited contributions to it. Thanks to Howard Bashman’s HowAppealing for the link.

Late on September 17, the Massachusetts House passed HB 656 by a vote of 95-58. This is the bill that lets the Governor fill a U.S. Senate vacancy almost immediately after the seat becomes vacant. The appointee would only serve until the special election, which would normally be held five months after the vacancy occurs.

As far as is known, the Massachusetts bill (if it becomes law) will be unique among the 50 states. Generally speaking, states that call a special U.S. Senate election fairly quickly after the vacancy occurs do not also provide for a gubernatorial appointment between the date of the vacancy and the special election.

Of course, most states don’t call early special elections to fill Senate vacancies. Instead, in most states, the Governor appoints someone who serves until the next regularly-scheduled Congressional election. And, sometimes the gubernatorial appointee is even permitted to serve more than two years. For example, Robert Kennedy was killed in early June 1968, and New York law permitted the man appointed by Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Charles Goodell) to serve all the way until January 1971, more than two and one-half years.

On September 17, a federal lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Mississippi, charging that the extreme variation in U.S. House districts around the nation violates the 14th Amendment. Some U.S. House seats have almost twice as many inhabitants as certain other U.S. House seats. The case is Clemons v U.S. Department of Commerce, 3:09-cv-104.

One reason there is so much variation in U.S. House district population is because districts must be wholly within a single state. A possible solution for more equal districts would be to increase the number of U.S. House seats. The lawsuit alleges that the Constitution requires some solution, and suggests this one. Here is the 12-page complaint. It was filed in Mississippi because Mississippi districts tend to be more populous than the districts of most states. Thanks to Michael Warnken for the link to the complaint. The case was assigned by Judge W. Allen Pepper, a Clinton appointee.