Decision Reached in Shays, Meehan vs. FEC

Allison Hayward at Skeptic's Eye sends out word that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has reached a decision in this important case.

It's just up, so, as Allison says, Gentlemen, commence reading!

Update: Follow the link above to Skeptic's Eye, as Allison is updating with interpretations of the decision.

Update II: The Lonely Centrist has some thoughts on campaign finance reform, and why it's a bad deal for everyone in the political arena, left or right.

Update III: The Lonely Centrist has posted further thoughts on the Court ruling, and he thinks it bodes ill for bloggers:

Bloggers Beware: When the Reform Advocates Claim that they don't want to get you, they are probably not telling the truth . . . This case strongly suggest that the mere fact that bloggers may not spend any money to blog does not insulate them from regulation - or even give the FEC the authority to ignore their activities.

Update IV: The Campaign Legal Center's press release on the decision is ecstatic, which should worry anyone who values free speech in the politial arena. Here's the full text:

Appeals Court Upholds Lower Court Decision Striking Down
FEC's Regulations for BCRA

A Major Victory for Congressional BCRA Sponsors

Washington, D.C. — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed "in all respects" a lower court decision striking down fifteen regulations enacted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

The lawsuit was brought by the lead House sponsors of BCRA, Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), who successfully argued that regulations adopted by the FEC to implement BCRA undermined the law's effectiveness.

The Campaign Legal Center serves as counsel in the case to BCRA's principal Senate sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), who filed an amicus brief supporting Shays and Meehan in the suit.

According to Gerald Hebert, the Legal Center's executive director and director of litigation, "This is a major victory for BCRA's sponsors, and another in a series of court decisions to emphasize that the FEC has often undermined, rather than enforced, campaign finance law."

In the September 2004 lower court decision that was affirmed today, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held that many of the challenged FEC regulations were arbitrary and capricious and therefore contrary to law. The district court characterized one provision as having no "rational basis," said another would "render the statute largely meaningless" and noted that another "severely undermines FECA" and would "foster corruption." Another, the district court said, "runs completely afoul" of campaign finance law.

The FEC appealed the district court decision with regard to five of the invalidated rules. The FEC also challenged the right of BCRA's congressional sponsors to bring the lawsuit, asserting that Reps. Shays and Meehan lack legal standing to file the suit and that their legal claims were not yet ripe for consideration.

Echoing the tone of the district court, the appellate court found one rule "arbitrary and capricious," noting that "the Commission offered no persuasive justification for the provisions challenged by Shays and Meehan." With regard to another of the FEC's regulations, the court held that "Congress has clearly spoken to this issue and enacted a prohibition broader than the one the FEC adopted." The court held that another FEC rule "contradicts BCRA's plain text" and another "makes no sense."

Update V: Mark Tapscott has read through the decision and asks, "What hath the DC Circuit Court wrought?" Or, as he quoth the Puritan divne, John Cotton, "If you tether a beast at night, he knows the length of his tether before morning."