Back in March, I noted one of the many recent 3-3 party-line splits at the FEC, this one over the Romney campaign and reimbursement for airplane expenses.
This was before things got even worse, with serious concerns emerging whether the FEC will continue to fairly and dutifully enforce existing campaign finance law (and whether there will even be four votes to do anything at all).
Today things appear to have escalated. This morning this document was posted on Commissioner McGahn’s website, and this response was posted on the websites of Commissioners Weintraub and Bauerly. The first document, signed by the three Republican Commissioners, offers additional reasons for their vote in the Romney case (a rebuttal of sorts to the earlier Bauerly/Weintraub statement of reasons). But the Republican Commissioners do more in this supplemental SOR. They also respond to Paul Ryan (of the Campaign Legal Center), who wrote a blog post, Why Is the FEC Withholding Documents From the Public in Violation of Its Own Regulations and Policy Statement?. Decrying the lack of transparency at the FEC (which is a bit odd given Commissioner McGahn’s minimalist approach to press releases), the three Republican Commissioners not only state that the underlying documents in the Romney case should be released; they actually append the documents to their supplemental statement of reasons.
That led to this morning’s Statement of Commissioner Cynthia L. Bauerly and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub on the Release of Documents Subject to Freedom of Information Act Request. Here is the brief statement (footnotes omitted):

The Campaign Legal Center, on March 13, 2009 filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request seeking the release of several documents referenced in the certification of the Commission’s actions in Matter Under Review (“MUR”) 5937, which was closed by the Commission on January 28, 2009.
Pursuant to the Commission’s historic practice of delegating the authority to make initial FOIA determinations, the Agency’s FOIA Service Center issued a denial to the CLC. On May 28, 2009, Campaign Legal Center appealed portions of that decision to the Commission. While awaiting the full documentation of and recommendation from the OGC on appeal, our colleagues wrote a Supplemental Statement of Reasons in MUR 5937 to be placed on the public record. Their statement mentioned the FOIA request and attached three of the documents subject to the FOIA appeal.
Despite our request to hold their statement until the full Commission could address the issues raised in the FOIA appeal, our colleagues released their statement before the Commission could act on the FOIA request. We strongly agree that Commissioners are entitled and indeed, are under an obligation to provide rationales for their decisions. We are disappointed that our colleagues chose to move forward with their statement at this time, when a consensus decision to release the documents subject to the appeal was clearly possible in the near future. At a time when we have so many legitimate disagreements over the precise contours of the law, we had hoped this matter could have been resolved by the full Commission according to established procedures, rather than by a group of three Commissioners choosing to preempt those procedures.
Moreover, because our colleagues’ statement includes a footnote regarding an unrelated case, we must note for the record our objection to the disclosure of such internal, attorney-client advice. We have consistently advocated for fuller disclosure with respect to many of the ageny’s actions, from its website to press releases. We cannot agree to, and do not believe that the interest of a well-functioning agency is served by, individual Commissioners releasing portions of documents that continue to be subject to attorney-client privilege in the absence of decision by the full Commission.

Wow.