Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FEC: Redistricting battles not subject to spending limits

By Dan Eggen
The Federal Election Commission said Friday that members of Congress may raise unlimited "soft money" to help wage legal battles over congressional redistricting.

Under the advisory opinion, the FEC concluded that litigation and other expenses related to redistricting disputes are not "in connection with" federal elections and therefore are not subject to a ban on unlimited "soft money" donations in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The decision comes less than five months after the Supreme Court, ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, held that corporations can spend as much as they want for or against political candidates.

Paul S. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center, which favors limits on political spending, said of Friday's decision: "This advisory opinion ignores both the letter and the intent of the 'soft money' ban in McCain-Feingold. To declare that redistricting activities are not 'in connection with' elections ignores the realities of the process. The outcomes of elections for some congressional seats for the next decade will be determined by those who draw the lines during the redistricting process."

But Steve Hoersting, vice president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors lifting restrictions on political spending, applauded the finding: "The unanimous, bipartisan FEC opinion demonstrates that some political activities simply are not for the purposes of influencing elections. The FEC commissioners get this point, and we hope federal courts will understand this principle as they review the soft money restrictions of McCain-Feingold in light of Citizens United and other recent court opinions."

The FEC's advisory opinion is available here.

By Dan Eggen  |  May 7, 2010; 10:31 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A presidential visit for Nashville?
Next: Obama talks health care in radio address


Safe seats for everyone.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | May 8, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Are we not embarrassed that gerrymandering and big-money political donations have become routine, legitimized political tactics?

We claim to be a democracy, but even a cursory look beneath the hood shows that it´s only money that buys political power in this country.

Posted by: kcx7 | May 8, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

It makes sense. How else can such a small number of people continue to control our government, its laws and its taxpayers?

Without unlimited money to help decide the really big decisions, ordinary people could get empowered. Boy, that could that cause problems!

Posted by: rowens1 | May 8, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

How is redistricting not related to elections? Then is the census not related to redistricting, or maybe counting is not related to the census, and numbers are not related to counting. Seems sensible.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | May 8, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company