Yesterday (while I was in Sacramento and unable to blog), the FEC held its meeting to determine what it should do about regulating 527s in this election cycle. The most important votes were the 4-2 vote against the Toner-Thomas proposal, and the 3-3 deadlock on adopting the Toner-Thomas allocation rules. This leaves the FEC with at least another 90 days before they come back to decide what, if anything, to do about the issue.
Press coverage of yesterday’s action is as follows:
The New York Times (and see this editorial)
The Washington Post
The Wall Street Journal (thanks to Steven Sholk for the link)
The Los Angeles Times
A.P.
Roll Call
The Financial Times
The FEC’s series of decisions means that immediate enforcement action against any of the 527s is unlikely. As I understand it (and my understanding may be incorrect), it will be difficult procedurally now for anyone (e.g., the Bush campaign, the RNC, or that part of the reform community that is pushing for greater regulation of 527s) to challenge the FEC’s inaction in court.
Enforcement actions could come later down the line, after there has been significant spending. In the era of uncertainty of what the rules are, it is hard to see significant penalties being levied against those who violate the eventually crafted rules (if rules are indeed eventually crafted).
There may be something uncomfortable about some would-be 527s allied with the Republican party coming into action after the RNC has said that the 527s are engaged in clearly illegal activity. But I don’t expect this will stop much of the additional fundraising.
One of the most interesting questions is whether additional Republican spending will matter much on the presidential level. The Democratic-leaning spending has served to counter President Bush’s $180 million war chest. But what will additional pro-Bush spending do at this point? See Tom Mann’s quote in the Financial Times article above. Of course, 527 spending may be quite influential in certain Senate and House races.