Anda di halaman 1dari 112

FOIA 2011-30 2-1

THE UNIVERSITY OF
MEMPHIS
July 14, 2008
Commissioner Caroline C. Hunter
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, ]'J. \V.
Washington, DC 20463
&v&h'vlJl-
Dear C o m m ~ e r ,
Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
207 Humphreys law School
Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3140
Office: 901.678.2421
Fax: 901.678.5210
www.memphis.edu
The Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law takes great pride in the many achievements of its
alumni. In that connection, I very much enjoyed learning that you had begun a new
phase in your career by becoming a Commissioner with the Federal Election
Commission. Congratulations.
Best wishes to you and Justin.
Sincerely,
Kevin H. Smith
Interim Dean and Thomas B. Preston Professor of Law
A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action University
FOIA 2011-30 2-2
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
12/16/2010 05:22PM
Thank you, Scott!
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
ch u nter@fec. gov
To "Thomas, Scott" <ThomasScott@dicksteinshapiro.com>
cc
bee
Subject Re: Congrats!ITIJ
"Thomas, Scott" <ThomasScott@dicksteinshapiro.com>
"Thomas, Scott"
<ThomasScott@dicksteinsha
piro.com>
12/16/2010 05:14PM
To "'CHunter@fec.gov"' <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
Subject Congrats!
Just saw the news. Congratulations, Madam Vice Chair!!!! Have a great year. --Scott
Scott E. Thomas
Of Counsel
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW I Washington, DC 20006
Tel (202) 420-2601 I Fax (202) 379-9258
thomasscott@dicksteinshapiro. coin
This email message and any attached files are confidential and
are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s)
named above. This communication may contain material protected by
attorney-client, work product, or other
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person
responsible for delivering this confidential
communication to the intended recipient, you have received this
communication in error, and any review, use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other
distribution of this email message and any attached files
is strictly prohibited. Dickstein Shapiro reserves the right to
FOIA 2011-30 2-3
monitor any communication that is created,
received, or sent on its network. If you have received this
confidential communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete
the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@dicksteinshapiro.com
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
http://www.dicksteinshapiro.com
=================================================================
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-4
01/27/2009 10:17 AM
Dear Commissioner Hunter:
To chunter@FEC.gov
cc
bee
Subject Thank you
It was a pleasure to meet you yesterday. Thank you for the time you dedicated to
interviewing me for the Staff Director position - I know you have an extremely busy
schedule.
I remain highly interested in the position and look forward to hearing more about how
my knowledge, skills, and abilities could benefit the unique needs of the FEC at this
time.
Again, thank you for your time yesterday, and best wishes as you continue the process
to find the optimal candidate.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-5
Hi Caroline!
"Zehr, Brandis"
<Brandis.Zehr@bryancave.co
m>
11/04/2010 09:52AM
To "'chunter@fec.gov"' <chunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject Possible Intern
Are you or any of the other commissioners interested in taking on a part-time law student unpaid intern for
the spring semester? (resume attached) is a 3L at , is interested in
practicing election law, and is looking for an internship next semester. Since he plans on interning for
academic credit he cannot accept compensation.
I met when he was a 1 L at and I was a 3L; we were both involved in the
Election Law Society. He transferred to after his first year. is quite smart, an
exceptionally hard worker, and a great writer. He currently is interning with the RNC Counsel's Office and
is familiar with basic election law and campaign finance concepts. I highly recommend him!
email address is
FEC if you would like to meet him.
Hope you're doing well!
Brandi
BrandiZehr
Bryan Cave LLP
1155 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
202.508.6186
Brandis.Zehr@bryancave.com
and he's willing to talk over the phone or stop by the
This electronic message is from a law firm. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender to advise of the error and delete this
transmission and any attachments.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or
matter addressed herein.
~
bcllp2010
Resume. pdf
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-6
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
09/27/2010 10:51 AM
To "Kennedy, Kevin- GAB" <Kevin.Kennedy@Wisconsin.gov>
cc '"Paul Ryan"' <PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org>
bee
Subject Re: COGELOJ
Many thanks, Kevin, for passing the request along to Paul. Paul, I would be happy to discuss COGEL with you at
your convenience. I am also interested in discussing the NDPAC AO with you.
Thank you,
Caroline Hunter
(202)694-1 045
From: "Kennedy, Kevin- GAB" [Kevin.Kennedy@Wisconsin.gov]
Sent: 09/27/2010 09:38AM EST
To: Caroline Hunter
Cc: 'Paul Ryan' <PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org>
Subject: RE: COGEL
Caroline,
I am doing very well. Thank you for asking.
Paul Ryan is coordinating the panel this year. It focuses on the federal aftermath of Citizens United. I
have shared your inquiry with him and am copying him on this email. He has arranged for a moderator for
the panel and is working with him to fill out the panel.
I look forward to seeing you in DC in December.
Kevin
Kevin J. Kennedy
Director and General Counsel
Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
608-266-8005
Kevin.Kennedy@wi.gov
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:02PM
To: Kennedy, Kevin- GAB
Subject: RE: COGEL
Kevin,
Hope you are well.
I am writing about this year's COGEL conference. It was nice to have some balance in the campaign
FOIA 2011-30 2-7
finance panel last year. Any chance we could include a Republican Commissioner this year? I have
asked Don McGahn and he said he would be happy to participate.
I am told there will be 35 people from the FEC attending the conference!!
Thank you, Kevin
Caroline
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
"Kennedy, Kevin - GAB" <Kevin.Kennedy@Wisconsin.gov>
10/18/2009 10:32 PM
Matt,
To "'MPetersen@fec.gov'" <MPetersen@fec.gov>
cc "'CHunter@fec.gov"' <CHunter@fec.gov>
Subject RE: COGEL
Thank you for getting back to me. This panel has become a COGEL institution. It has served as a
discussion point for the intersection of regulation and political speech. The panel originally started as a
means of providing the audience with a perspective on who the wide range of speakers were in political
campaigns and what regulations, if any, applied to their political speech. The public and regulators were
often asking "who are these folks that are talking about candidates and issues, can we limit their political
advertising and how are they funded?"
Given so much political speech is either exempt from regulation or regulated under tax law rather than
campaign finance law, I have tried to pull together a diverse panel to keep the audience up to date on the
latest development in the intersection of regulation and political speech. The Citizens United case and the
Emily's List case will provide the most recent springboard from which to share views on these issues.
I have pulled together a panel that presents several perspectives that has been well received because it
includes regulators, the regulated and reform groups. The panel members include two attorneys in private
practice who advise politically active individuals and groups - Mike Wittenwyler of Madison and Larry
Noble of DC. Larry has additional background with the FEC and an advocacy group. I have also included
Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS along with Paul Ryan from the Campaign
Finance Institute. You and I represent the regulators. The FEC has always played role on this panel.
There is only a short period of time to comment- 10 minutes each. I really want to ensure that the
audience has 25 minutes to ask questions of the panel.
Your role is really to give a perspective from the FEC standpoint in light of the most recent decisions. Of
course I am assuming the Citizens United decision will have been released by then.
FOIA 2011-30 2-8
I have attached a copy of the panel description. Note you are the player to be named later.
I really hope you can do this.
Kevin
Kevin J. Kennedy
Director and General Counsel
Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
608-261-8683
Kevin.Kennedy@wi.gov
From: MPetersen@fec.gov [mailto:MPetersen@fec.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Kennedy, Kevin - GAB
Subject: COGEL
Kevin,
I apologize that I've been so difficult to reach recently. Caroline discussed with me the possibility of
appearing on a panel at the GOGEL conference--I believe the topic being the Citizen's United case. Let
me know the basics about the panel (i.e., the specifics you'd like the panelists to address, the names of
the other panelists, and the how long it will last). I'd probably be available to participate.
E-mail is probably the best way to contact me over the next few days.
Best,
Matt
Matthew S. Petersen
Vice Chairman
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
FOIA 2011-30 2-9
"Kennedy, Kevin- GAB"
<Kevin.Kennedy@Wisconsin.
gov>
09/21/2009 04:49 PM
To "'chunter@fec.gov"' <chunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject COGEL Panel description
Caroline,
It was great to talk with you this afternoon. I have attached the COGEL panel description. This
is an abbreviated form of a panel we have done with the same folks for the past two COGEL
conferences. The only change has been the FEC representative. Both Mark Shonkwiler (2007)
and Ellen Weintraub (2008) have participated in the past.
The session will be on Monday, December 7, 2009 beginning at 3:30 and continuing until4:45
pm. Panel members will share their views on the impact of the Citizens United decision on the
regulation of third party political activity. I will serve as moderator of the session. A list of
fellow presenters is included in the attachment. Panel members will have 10 minutes for their
part of the presentation. Following the panel discussion, I will lead a question and answer period
on the issues presented.
Kevin
Kevin J. Kennedy
Director and General Counsel
Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
608-261-8683
kevin.kennedy@wi.gov
COG E L Campaign Finance Panel Title and Description. doc
FOIA 2011-30 2-10
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
11/30/2010 05:54PM
To "Paul Ryan" <PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org>
cc
bee
Subject Re: FW: COGEL[J)
Now I can see how you were confused since you had invited me to participate. I did not see the Oct. 22
email!! I apologize! At this point, I think I will disable that address and put the email address I actually
check on the website. Thank you, Caroline
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
"Paul Ryan" <PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org>
"Paul Ryan"
<PRyan@campaignlegalcent
er.org>
11/30/2010 05:51 PM
Dear Commissioner Hunter,
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
Subject FW: COGEL
I think I've discovered the source of my confusion. On Oct. 22, I sent the invitation to you to speak on a
panel on Dec. 6. Then, on Oct. 27, I received an email from you which read:
"Hello, Paul. For future reference, the best email addresses for Matt, Don and me are as follows:
mpetersen@fec.gov, dmcgahn@fec.gov and chunter@fec.gov. My office phone is (202) 694-1045 or
(202) 694-1043. I'm looking forward to the Dec. 6th panel. Thank you."
lh
I misinterpreted your statement that you were looking forward to the Dec. 6 panel as an agreement to
participate as a panelist. I had separetely invited Don to be on a different panel altogether.
At any rate, I apologize for the confusion! I'll straighten it out. Best,
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 14
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
FOIA 2011-30 2-11
From: Paul Ryan
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:00PM
To: 'CommissionerHunter@fec.gov'
Subject: COGEL
Dear Commissioner Hunter,
In my seemingly never-ending quest to fulfill my COGEL Conference organizing responsibilities, I'd love
to recruit you as a participant on a panel entitled Campaign Finance Regulation and New Media ,
scheduled for Monday, Dec. 6 from 3:30-4:45pm. Trevor Potter will be moderating the panel, with
Eric Waldo from the Obama '08 campaign providing a candidate campaign perspective and Larry Noble
providing a private sector attorney perspective. I'm also hoping to add a political blogger to the mix. It'
d be great to have your perspective or, if you're unable to join us, another Commissioner's
perspective-perhaps discussing the Google AdWords AO and other "how does FECA apply to new
media" issues. Thanks, in advance. Best,
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202} 736-2200 ext. 14
Fax (202} 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
FOIA 2011-30 2-12
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
11/30/2010 05:57PM
To "Paul Ryan" <PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org>
cc
bee
Subject Re: FW: contact information for Matt, Don and meillJ
Oh no! I don't think this would have happened if I had seen the Oct. email in which you invite me to be a
panelist.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
"Paul Ryan" <PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org>
.. Paul Ryan ..
<PRyan@campaignlegalcent
er.org>
11/30/2010 05:55PM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
Subject FW: contact information for Matt, Don and me
Here's more of the confusing email chain. I noticed you indicated that you were looking forward to
being a spectator and I assumed you were referring to the panel Don agreed to be on. Again, my
apologies.
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. {202} 736-2200 ext. 14
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
From: Paul Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:23 PM
To: 'CHunter@fec.gov'
Subject: RE: contact information for Matt, Don and me
Thanks, I've spoken to Don and updated my address book to include the three email addresses you
sent. I appreciate the heads-up.
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
FOIA 2011-30 2-13
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 14
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:18PM
To: Paul Ryan
Subject: Re: contact information for Matt, Don and me
Paul,
Don agreed to participate as a panelist, I just wanted to make sure you had the best email to contact him regarding
the conference call you mentioned to Don. I look forward to being a spectator!
Thank you,
Caroline
From: "Paul Ryan" [PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org]
Sent: 10/27/2010 05:42PM AST
To: Caroline Hunter
Subject: RE: contact information for Matt, Don and me
Excellent! Thanks for getting back to me, Commissioner Hunter, and for agreeing to participate as a
panelist. I'm sure Trevor will want to have a conference call in late November to discuss the specifics of
the panel, so we'll be contacting you in a few weeks. Best,
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202} 736-2200 ext. 14
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:33 PM
To: Paul Ryan
Subject: contact information for Matt, Don and me
Hello, Paul. For future reference, the best email addresses for Matt, Don and me are as follows:
mpetersen@fec.gov, dmcgahn@fec.gov and chunter@fec.gov. My office phone is (202) 694-1045 or
(202) 694-1043. I'm looking forward to the Dec. 6th panel. Thank you.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
FOIA 2011-30 2-14
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-15
Hi folks,
"Paul Ryan"
<PRyan@campaignlegalcent
er.org>
11/30/2010 05:59PM
To "Thomas, Scott" <ThomasScott@dicksteinshapiro.com>,
<CHunter@fec.gov>, <nicco@echoditto.com>, "Noble,
Lawrence M" <Lawrence.Noble@skadden.com>,
cc <liz@echoditto.com>
bee
Subject RE: COGEL Conference
I have unfortunate news and an apology. Due to some miscommunication, I was mistaken in my
understanding that Commissioner Hunter was able to participate in this panel, when, in fact, she has
jury duty and will not be able to participate. She checked with Chairman Peterson and he is likewise
unavailable. I'll try to fill the void ASAP. My apologies.
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202} 736-2200 ext. 14
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
From: Thomas, Scott [mailto:ThomasScott@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:15 PM
To: 'CHunter@fec.gov'; 'nicco@echoditto.com'; Noble, Lawrence M;
Cc: 'liz@echoditto.com'; Paul Ryan
Subject: FW: COGEL Conference
Dear panelists:
I apologize for not getting to you sooner. Pursuant to the gentle nudging of Paul Ryan I am hoping to set
up a conference call to plan the upcoming panel presentation at the GOGEL Conference on "Campaign
Finance Regulation and New Media." I hope to let each of you pick a subject that you want to cover, but
of course we need to coordinate so we don't have awkward overlap. We can work out specifics, I hope,
on the call.
Would you all be amenable to a call at 11:00 tomorrow? If not, please suggest other times. Eventually,
we can reach agreement on a time. I have a conference call number we can work with once we settle on
a time for the call (Call-In: 888 839 7346 Passcode: 202 420 2601 ).
I look forward to a fun, interesting panel. Best. --Scott
Scott E. Thomas
Of Counsel
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW I Washington, DC 20006
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-16
Tel (202) 420-2601 I Fax (202) 379-9258
thotnasscott@dicksteinshapiro. com
From: Paul Ryan [mailto:PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Thomas, Scott
Subject: COGEL Conference
Hi Scott,
We're coming down the final stretch to the COGEL Conference and I'm touching base with the
moderators of the 8 sessions I'm responsible for organizing to ask you to convene a conference call with
your panelists to make sure everyone's on the same page. Your panelists are all confirmed and
expecting to hear from you. Here's the final info for your panel.
Monday, Dec. 6, 3:30-4:45pm
Campaign Finance Regulation and New Media
Moderator: Scott Thomas, Of Counsel, Dickstein Shapiro LLC.
Panelists:
1. Commissioner Carolyn Hunter, Federal Election Commission, chunter@fec.gov.
2. Niece Mele, Co-Founder & Partner, Echo Ditto and Lecturer, Harvard Kennedy School,
nicco@echoditto.com, (202)-285-9455 x109 (You can also contact Nicco's assistant, Liz
Schwartz, liz@echoditto.com.)
3. Lawrence Noble, Counsel, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flam LLP,
lawrence.noble@skadden.com.
4. Eric Waldo, Former Deputy and Assistant Staff Council to the Obama for America
Campaign,
This panel will discuss the use of the Internet and other new media in the electoral arena-focusing on
whether and/or how such political activities should be subject to campaign finance regulation. For
example, should Google AdWords, which Google limits to 70 characters of text, be subject to the
federal law "paid for byN disclaimer requirement? (This question was posed to the FEC this year in
Advisory Opinion Request 2010-19.} Such questions regarding the application of existing laws to new
technology are inevitable and often challenging. Our panelists will wrestle with this challenge and
perhaps make some predictions about the future!
There will be an IT person, a laptop, and projector in each session breakout room. So there's no need
for your panelists to bring laptops, unless they simply can't live without them. Please let your panelists
know. Also, it is probably best to ask people to bring info on flash drives rather than COs, as we may not
be able to guarantee that the laptops will have CD drives in them.
And lastly, please fill out, and have your panelists fill out a registration form (attached) (no payment
necessary if theire not staying for sessions beyond their own) and send to Diane Gill (
director@cogel.org). This is the only way Diane has of making sure we have their contact info and
names listed in the attendee listing.
Thanks for agreeing to moderate this panel and for taking things from here. Please don't hesitate to call
or email if you have any questions or concerns. Best,
FOIA 2011-30 2-17
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 14
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
This email message and any attached files are confidential and are intended
solely for the use of the addressee(s)
named above. This communication may contain material protected by
attorney-client, work product, or other
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for
delivering this confidential
communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication
in error, and any review, use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this
email message and any attached files
is strictly prohibited. Dickstein Shapiro reserves the right to monitor any
communication that is created,
received, or sent on its network. If you have received this confidential
communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original
message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@dicksteinshapiro.com
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
http://www.dicksteinshapiro.com
FOIA 2011-30 2-18

>
'
"Kline, Jessica"
<Jessica. Kline@heritage .org
>
02/03/2010 03:34 PM
To undisclosed-recipients:;
cc
bee
Subject Private Lunch following Citizens United Event with Panelists
Michael E. Toner, Marc E. Elias, and Joseph M. Birkenstock
on February 4, 201 0
Thank you for your rsvp to join us tomorrow for the private lunch following {{The Impact of the
Citizens United Decision on Federal Elections " event. We are anticipating a large crowd and a
fruitful discussion to follow the event. The lunch will be held in our Davis Policy Center. To
th
avoid confusion I have attached a map of the our 7 floor that shows the location of the Davis
Policy Center. Please make your way there tomorrow immediately following the event.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Thank you,
Jessica
Jessica Kline
Program Coordinator am/ O.ffice Manager
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6184
heritage.org
From: Kline, Jessica
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:34 PM
Subject: Private Lunch following Citizens United Event with Panelists Michael E. Toner, Marc E. Elias, and
Joseph M. Birkenstock on February 4, 2010
Importance: High
FOIA 2011-30 2-19

.. LEADERSHIP FOR AMERICAL
Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
to: Interested Parties
subject: Private Lunch with Panelists Michael E. Toner, Marc E. Elias, and
Joseph M. Birkenstock on February 4, 2010
date: 29 January 2010
On behalf of The Heritage Foundation, I cordially invite you to participate in a private roundtable
discussion and lunch following our upcoming public event "The Itnpact of the Citizens United
Decision on Federal Elections" hosted by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial
Studies and the Federalist Society. The panel discussion is from 11:30 to 1:00 on Thursday,
February 4, at the Heritage Foundation at 214 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20002. Lunch will be served imtnediately after the panel discussion ends at 1:00.
Attached is the flyer for the event. I hope you will be able to join us on Thursday, February 4,
2010, at 11:00 a.m. for the public event and the private roundtable lunch to follow starting at
approxitnately 1:00 p.m. Please RSVP to Jessica I<line at Jessica.I<line@heritage.org or (202)
608-6180.
Sincerely,
FOIA 2011-30 2-20
Hans A. von Spakovsky
Senior Legal Fell ow
Manager, Civil Justice Reform Initiative
THE FOLJN,ORY
The Foundry has a new look. Check out The Heritage Foundation's policy news blog for insight into the day's
to navigate the site and interact with Heritage. Click to view the Foundry.
Davis Policy Center Directions. PDF
FOIA 2011-30 2-21
"Carr, Rebecca"
<RCarr@Patton Boggs.com>
01/21/2010 03:16PM
To "Carr, Rebecca" <RCarr@PattonBoggs.com>
cc
bee
Subject SCOTUS RULING: EXPECT CASCADE OF NEW
POLITICAL SPENDING
As you all know the Supre1ne Court ruled today that the government can not ban political spending
by corporations in future elections.
Below is a state1nent from Benjatnin L. Ginsberg, a partner at Patton Boggs, who represents
political parties, political catnpaigns, law1nakers, legislatures, governors, corporations, trade
associations, vendors, donors and individuals participating in the political process.
American campaigns and elections will change dramatically as a result of today's Supreme
Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The opinion provides new opportunities for
many players in the process, but includes some large pitfalls for candidates and the political
parties.
The decision drastically alters the landscape for candidates and political parties. While the limits and
prohibitions on contributions to the1n re1nain in place, we can expect 1nuch 1nore spending, a virtual
cascade of spending, by outside groups throughout the election cycle specifically praising or criticizing
candidates. There is no language in the opinion suggesting support on the court for overturning the
ban on the political parties raising non-federal funds.
That means there will be extensive pressure in Congress to revisit those limits and prohibitions
legislatively so that candidates are not drowned out in their campaigns and the public debate.
It is a big win for the First Amendment. In reaffirming their First Amendment rights, the high court'
s decision will allow corporations and unions to pay for unlimited independent expenditures directly
from their treasuries. The ruling invalidates a key portion of the McCain-Feingold law that barred
such expenditures within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a presidential primary.
All entities will be able to directly advocate the election or defeat of specific federal candidates right
through Election Day.
The affirmation of corporate and union First Amendment rights will also apply to state and local
laws currently restricting their ability to do independent expenditures.
The court left in place the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to candidates, as
well as the current disclailner and disclosure requiretnents on com1nunications (although the precise
level of reporting detail that will be required for corporate or union independent advocacy, including
through 501c4 social welfare organizations and 501c6 trade associations is unclear).
Here's a quick analysis of what the decision 1neans for key players in the political process:
Candidates: The limits placed on the size of contributions to candidates places them at a significant
disadvantage compared to corporations and unions that will now be able to spend unlimited
FOIA 2011-30 2-22
a1nounts on express advocacy right through Election Day. Controlling the issues they want to run
on will beco1ne a real challenge, as will having sufficient funds to portray their positions and linages.
Political Parties: Unless the laws change, "political parties" as we know thetn are threatened with
extinction. The parties do several things for their candidates and supporters- raise money and
conduct independent expenditures, conduct voter contact programs and describe the party's
position on issues, often through issue advocacy. With the limits on the a1nounts and sources of
funds they can accept, the parties will be bit players cotnpared to outside groups that can now
conduct those core functions with unlllnited funds from any source.
Corporations and Unions: Freed fro1n their First A1nend1nent shackles, corporations and unions
can now engage fully in the political process. The reality of what this means is sure to be hotly
debated depending on the speaker's outlook. Republicans see a coordinated and extremely
well-funded union effort that gives over 98 percent of its funds to Democrats, while corporate
political giving tends to favor incutnbents heavy and be 1nore evenly divided. Detnocrats see the
size of corporate treasuries cotnpared to union coffers and believe they are about to get swamped.
501c4 and 501c6s: Likely to etnerge as the biggest players in the 2010 and 2012 elections,
ideological groups and trade associations also have been granted the ability to engage much more
robustly in the political process. Meager disclosure requiretnents of their donors will1nake the1n a
favorite repository of funds for independent expenditures.
Wealthy Individuals: Ever since the 2004 elections when McCain-Feingold took effect, wealthy
individuals have engaged in considerable spending. The Court's opinion has significantly loosened
what they 1nay say. The decision, combined with the D.C. Circuit's Emi!Jl's List opinion last fall, also
elllninates the chances of Federal Election Com1nission enforce1nent actions that harassed many
consetvative donors off the playing field in the last two cycles. See Politico op-ed from Jan. 21,
2010. The decision will also lead to a nutnber of new outlets \vho can catty the 1nessages that these
donors have wanted carried.
527s: This vehicle of choice for many outside, independent communications in the last three cycles
has been rendered obsolete by the Court's decision.
Vendors: The opinion should drastically increase the number of voices singing in the First
Atnendment choir. This is vety good news fot those who assist those effotts.
Please let 1ne know if I can be of any further assistance.
Rebecca Carr
Director of Media Relations and Cotnmunications
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
T. 202.457.6186
BB. 202.361.9284
Cell. 202.7 44.9911
FOIA 2011-30 2-23
rcarr@pattonboggs.coln
W\Vw.pa ttonboggs.com
FOIA 2011-30 2-24
"Ginsberg, Benjamin"
<BGinsberg@PattonBoggs.c
om>
01/21/2010 02:34PM
To "Ginsberg, Benjamin" <BGinsberg@PattonBoggs.com>
cc
bee
Subject Citizens United Analysis
Good afternoon on a very historic day. Attached is our analysis of the Citizens United and what it means
for the various players in the political process. Please feel free to call if you have questions or want to
discuss further.
Best wishes,
Ben
Benjamin L. Ginsberg
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
202-457-6405 (o)
2 02-669-6920 (c) WASHING T 0 N -tf5068791 v1-Citizens_ U nited_t-.-1 emo. D 0 C
FOIA 2011-30 2-25
"Ginsberg, Benjamin"
<BGinsberg@PattonBoggs.c
om>
04/13/2010 09:35AM
To "Ginsberg, Benjamin" <BGinsberg@PattonBoggs.com>
cc
bee
Subject SpeechNow.org Decision Ramifications
Attached please find a memorandum explaining the impact of this recent case.
Please call with any questions.
Ben Ginsberg
D:Jjt,;;,
! . ~ ~ 1
Patton Boggs LLP t-.-1moReSpeechNov.
1
_org.pdf
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-26
"Quinn, Cameron CTR
OSD/FV AP/IBM"
<Cameron.Quinn.CTR@whs.
mil>
01/05/2011 07:54 PM
To <director@fec.gov>, <apalmer@fec.gov>
cc "Rothschild, Joel CAPT FVAP"
<Joei.Rothschild@fvap.gov>, <twilkey@eac.gov>, "Rivera,
Andrew CTR WHS/FVAP/SBG"
bee
Subject Urgent re: possible meeting early next week
Mr. Palmer - I have left several messages over the past week or so
trying to reach you after a conversation with Commissioner Hunter in
which she informed me you were the personto whomi needed to speak
about the following.
On behalf of the Dept. of DefenseJs Federal Voting Assistance Program
(FVAP) Office I am trying to reach you to see if it is possible to set
up a meetingearly next weekbetween youJ or another appropriate FEC
representative) the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and FVAP
officials to discuss the issue of having a joint federal website "vote.
govJJ. We expect the meeting to take no more than 30-60 minutes.
I have spoken to the EAC Executive DirectorJ Tom WilkeyJ alreadyJ and
between his schedule and that of the relevant FVAP officialsJ it can
be anytime MondayJ January 7J or between 1-SPMon TuesdayJ January 8J
2011. (The preference if it need be Tuesday would be for as early as
possiblein theafternoon.) While FVAP is happy to host the meetingJ a
Rosslyn location may not be convenient to the rest of you. Tom Wilkey
also offered to host it at the EACJ which is on NY Avebetween the
White House & Chinatown. Both FVAP and EAC are willing to come to the
FECJ if you would prefer thatJ however.
If you want further information) you may call me on (804)-651-9059J or
email me at or please hit reply allJ as I
will not have access to this email account again until Monday.
Since we are trying to coordinate three agencies and several senior
officialsJ a prompt response would be gratefully appreciated.
Cameron Quinn
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-27
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
01/23/2009 02:25PM
Thank you, Steve. Hope you are well.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
To Steve Hoersting <shoersting@campaignfreedom.org>
cc
bee
Subject Re: Incredibly good workCJ
Steve Hoersting <shoersting@campaignfreedom.org>
Steve Hoersting
<shoersting@campaignfreed
om.org>
Sent by:
To dmcgahn@fec.gov, mpetersen@fec.gov, chunter@fec.gov
cc
01/23/2009 01:02 PM
Subject Incredibly good work
Incredibly good (and defensible) work. Don't let Bauer (or Hasen) tell you differently.
Best,
Steve
Steve Hoersting
Vice President
CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 West Street South
Suite 201
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
SHoersting@campaignfreedom.org
www.campaignfreedom.org
(703) 894-6800 phone
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-28
Steve Hoersting
09/18/2009 03:44 PM
So ...
To dmcgahn@fec.gov, chunter@fec.gov, mpetersen@fec.gov
cc
bee
Subject Wow
. . . how does it feel to have confirmation from a source like the DC Circuit?
Be well,
Steve
Steve Hoersting
CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 West Street South
Suite 201
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
SHoersting@campaignfreedotn.org
WW\v.campaignfreedom.org
(703) 894-6800 phone
FOIA 2011-30 2-29
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
01/20/2011 02:02 PM
To Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US@FEC
cc
bee Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
Subject Statement regarding Citizens United NPRM
Hello all. The FEC considered two NPRMs today to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
United v. FEC. Both NPRMs failed by a vote of 3-3.
Attached please find a statement from Commissioners McGahn, Petersen and me .
._\..,,,
! v ~ ~
GOP Commissioners CU NPRM Statement 1-20-11.pdf
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
FOIA 2011-30 2-30
thanks
"Braden, E. Mark"
<MBraden@bakerlaw.com>
10/28/2009 04:40 PM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
ec
bee
Subject RE: NPRMs for Coordinated Communications & FEA
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:03 PM
To: CHunter@fec.gov
Subject: NPRMs for Coordinated Communications & FEA
I hope this email finds you well. On October 8, the Commission approved two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs)
in response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in Shays v. FEC (Shays Ill) that found invalid aspects of some of
the rules the Commission promulgated to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Both
NPRMs were published in the Federal Register last week. The FEC intends to issue an NPRM for the Participation in
Non-Federal Fundraising Events shortly.
The NPRM on Federal Election Activity addresses important definitions of get-out-the-vote and voter registration activity.
Comments from the public are due by Friday, November 20 and should be sent to FEAShays3@fec.gov. The
Commission will hold a hearing on this NPRM on Wednesday, December 16, 2009.
The NPRM on Coordinated Communications proposes possible alternatives to the regulations that govern
communications made in coordination with federal candidates, their authorized committees or political parties but paid for
by other persons. The NPRM also proposes to define "promote, attack, support, or oppose." Comments on this NPRM
are due by Tuesday, January 19, 2010 and should be sent to CoordinationShays3@fec.gov, and the Commission will
hold a hearing at a later date.
Public participation in these rulemakings is essential to informed decisionmaking. As noted in the Coordinated
Communications NPRM, "several of the alternatives propose broader content standards than those that are currently in
11 CFR 109.21, thus potentially bringing a broader range of communications under the Commission's more restrictive
contribution regulations." Because of the potential impact of the rule, we hope to receive comments from a wide variety
of organizations and individuals.
In addition, we are considering innovative ways to increase public participation in the rulemaking process, such as public
workshops consisting of roundtable discussions. Without commenting on the merits or the substance of the rulemakings,
please let us know if you have any ideas on this front.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore,
FOIA 2011-30 2-31
we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are
present in this email, or any attachment that have arisen as a result
of e-mail transmission.
FOIA 2011-30 2-32
"Laurenza, Melissa"
<mlaurenza@akingump.com>
10/28/2009 04:05 PM
To "CHunter@fec.gov" <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: NPRMs for Coordinated Communications & FEA
Hi, Commissioner! Thanks for the heads up. Hope you're well!
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:03 PM
To: CHunter@fec.gov
Subject: NPRMs for Coordinated Communications & FEA
I hope this email finds you well. On October 8, the Commission approved two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) in
response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in Shays v. FEC (Shays Ill) that found invalid aspects of some of the rules
the Commission promulgated to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Both NPRMs were published in
the Federal Register last week. The FEC intends to issue an NPRM for the Participation in Non-Federal Fund raising Events
shortly.
The NPRM on Federal Election Activity addresses important definitions of get-out-the-vote and voter registration activity.
Comments from the public are due by Friday, November 20 and should be sent to FEAShays3@fec.gov. The Commission will
hold a hearing on this NPRM on Wednesday, December 16, 2009.
The NPRM on Coordinated Communications proposes possible alternatives to the regulations that govern communications made in
coordination with federal candidates, their authorized committees or political parties but paid for by other persons. The NPRM also
proposes to define "promote, attack, support, or oppose." Comments on this NPRM are due by Tuesday, January 19, 2010 and
should be sent to CoordinationShays3@fec.gov, and the Commission will hold a hearing at a later date.
Public participation in these rulemakings is essential to informed decisionmaking. As noted in the Coordinated Communications
NPRM, "several of the alternatives propose broader content standards than those that are currently in 11 CFR 109.21, thus
potentially bringing a broader range of communications under the Commission's more restrictive contribution regulations." Because
of the potential impact of the rule, we hope to receive comments from a wide variety of organizations and individuals.
In addition, we are considering innovative ways to increase public participation in the rulemaking process, such as public
workshops consisting of roundtable discussions. Without commenting on the merits or the substance of the rulemakings, please
let us know if you have any ideas on this front.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
IRS Circular 230 Notice Requirement: This communication is not
given in the form of a covered opinion, within the meaning of
Circular 230 issued by the United States Secretary of the
Treasury. Thus, we are required to inform you that you cannot
rely upon any tax advice contained in this communication for the
purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties. In
addition, any tax advice contained in this communication may not
be used to promote, market or recommend a transaction to another
party.
FOIA 2011-30 2-33
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
FOIA 2011-30 2-34
''Laham, Carol"
<Claham@wileyrein.com>
01/20/2011 07:00PM
Thanks, Caroline.
Happy New Year!
Carol
Carol A. Laham
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(o) 202.719-7301
(f) 202.719.7207
To "'CHunter@fec.gov"' <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: Statement regarding Citizens United NPRM
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:03 PM
To: CHunter@fec.gov
Subject: Statement regarding Citizens United NPRM
Hello all. The FEC considered two NPRMs today to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in
Citizens United v. FEC. Both NPRMs failed by a vote of 3-3.
Attached please find a statement from Commissioners McGahn, Petersen and me.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein LLP may constitute an
attorney-client communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissen1ination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please
permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending
an e-mail to Information@wileyrein.com. As part of our environmental efforts, the firm is
WILEY GREEN<l. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
FOIA 2011-30 2-35
Thanks.
"von Spakovsky, Hans"
<Hans.VonSpakovsky@herit
age.org>
01/24/201112:11 PM
Hans von Spakovsky
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: Statement regarding Citizens United NPRM
Senior Legal Fellow!Mmwger, Civil Justice Reform Initiative
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
\Vashington, DC 20002
202-608-6207
Cell: 202-436-6311
heritage.org
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:03 PM
To: CHunter@fec.gov
Subject: Statement regarding Citizens United NPRM
Hello all. The FEC considered two NPRMs today to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
United v. FEC. Both NPRMs failed by a vote of 3-3.
Attached please find a statement from Commissioners McGahn, Petersen and me.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
tHE I:MP:I\Cl Gf
OBAMACARE
New policy papers, videos, blog posts and more on the issues surrounding the n
law.
Learn more about The Impact of Obamacare here.
FOIA 2011-30 2-36
"Engle, Craig"
<Engle.Craig@ARENTFOX.C
OM>
01/20/2011 03:22 PM
To "CHunter@fec.gov" <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: Statement regarding Citizens United NPRM
Hey there- good stuff- can you give me a call please ?
Craig Engle
Partner
Arent Fox LLP 1 Attorneys at Law
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339
202.775.5791 DIRECT 1202.857.6395 FAX
engle.craig@arentfox.com 1 www.arentfox.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:: This e-mail and any attachments arc for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. lfyou
received this in error, please do not read, distribute, or take action in reliance upon this message. Instead. please notify us immediately by return
e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product
privilege by the transmission of this message.
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:03 PM
To: CHunter@fec.gov
Subject: Statement regarding Citizens United NPRM
Hello all. The FEC considered two NPRMs today to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
United v. FEC . Both NPRMs failed by a vote of 3-3.
Attached please find a statement from Commissioners McGahn, Petersen and me.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1043
ch u nter@fec. gov
IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless expressly
stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written
to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
FOIA 2011-30 2-37
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
07/14/2009 12:12 PM
To Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
cc
Thank you, Sean.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today!TIIJ
Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>

.
'
Sean Parnell
<sparnell@campaignfreedom
.org>
07/14/2009 10:33 AM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Just got through reading it- fantastic piece!
Sean
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (0-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
FOIA 2011-30 2-38
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not, what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
FOIA 2011-30 2-39
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
ch u nter@fec. gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reseNed.
FOIA 2011-30 2-40
"ACTON, MARK D"
<mark.acton@prc.gov>
07/14/2009 12:06 PM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Stand on your principles commissioner!
Mark Acton
Commissioner
United States Postal Regulatory Commission
901 New York Avenue Northwest
West Tower, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20268-0001
(202) 789-6866 office
(202) 789-6883 fax
www.prc.gov
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROLL CALL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (0-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
FOIA 2011-30 2-41
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
FOIA 2011-30 2-42
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
FOIA 2011-30 2-43
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
07/14/2009 09:35 PM
Thank you, Jan.
From: "Baran, Jan" [JBaran@wileyrein.com]
Sent: 07114/2009 05:29 PM AST
To: Caroline Hunter
Subject: RE: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Caroline,
To "Baran, Jan" <JBaran@wileyrein.com>
cc
bee
Subject Re: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today!]
Very well done. This needed to be said. Congratulations.
Jan Witold Baran
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
202.719.7330 (Direct)
202.719.7207 (Fax)
www.wileyrein.com/electionlaw
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROLL CALL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold
FOIA 2011-30 2-44
(D-Wis.) have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election
Commission because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement
gridlock." Their pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in
the New York Times and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform
groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year
conclusively shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more
than 350 matters, resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of
those cases have resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those
"deadlocks" have occurred in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and
the threat to citizens' core First Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full
speed ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it
to be. That is a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the
agency was created to do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution"
and to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the
Senate one year ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes
I have cast at the commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an
open and transparent process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the
regulations properly promulgated by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect
fundamental misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the
commission operates. As borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily
prescribed structure, limitations and powers, the law is not currently as some
envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission,
which would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks."
Instead, the statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three
members may be affiliated with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to
have the FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines
program, the agency must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if
conciliation is unsuccessful may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the
enforcement process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the
statute prohibits the agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a
rulemaking process, with adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then
can the public have adequate notice of the rules of the game before the game
begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with
draconian enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to
proceed in a manner that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a
substantial civil penalty does nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for
FOIA 2011-30 2-45
voluntary compliance, we should not approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for
their longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time
to move beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and
carefully crafted compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many
of these rights are still being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court
asked for reargument in Citizens United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to
address the constitutionality of the prohibition on corporate political expenditures -
one of the cornerstones of modern campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the
law is not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh
the competing interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens
exercising their political rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of
the law.
Caroline c. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
The views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein LLP may constitute an
attorney-client communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please
permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending
an e-mail to Information@wileyrein.com.
FOIA 2011-30 2-46
"Biber Chen, Kathryn"
<KBiberChen@pattonboggs.c
om>
07/14/2009 12:56 PM
This is great.
I hope you are well.
Best,
Katie
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:31AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
FOIA 2011-30 2-47
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
FOIA 2011-30 2-48
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
DISCLAIMER:
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
This e-mail message contains confidential, privileged information intended solely for the
addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have
received it in error, please call us (collect) at (202) 457-6000 and ask to speak with the message
sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from
your system. Thank you.
This e-mail and all other electronic (including voice) communications from the sender's firm are
for informational purposes only. No such communication is intended by the sender to constitute
either an electronic record or an electronic signature, or to constitute any agreement by the sender
to conduct a transaction by electronic means. Any such intention or agreement is hereby
expressly disclaimed unless otherwise specifically indicated. To learn more about our firm,
please visit our website at http://www.pattonboggs.com.
FOIA 2011-30 2-49
nice piece
"Braden, E. Mark"
<MBraden@bakerlaw.com>
07/14/2009 10:48 AM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold
(D-Wis.) have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election
Commission because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement
gridlock." Their pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in
the New York Times and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform
groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year
conclusively shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more
than 350 matters, resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of
those cases have resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those
"deadlocks" have occurred in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and
the threat to citizens' core First Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full
speed ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it
to be. That is a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the
agency was created to do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution"
and to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the
FOIA 2011-30 2-50
Senate one year ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes
I have cast at the commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an
open and transparent process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the
regulations properly promulgated by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect
fundamental misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the
commission operates. As borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily
prescribed structure, limitations and powers, the law is not currently as some
envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission,
which would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks."
Instead, the statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three
members may be affiliated with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to
have the FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines
program, the agency must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if
conciliation is unsuccessful may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the
enforcement process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the
statute prohibits the agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a
rulemaking process, with adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then
can the public have adequate notice of the rules of the game before the game
begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with
draconian enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to
proceed in a manner that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a
substantial civil penalty does nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for
voluntary compliance, we should not approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for
their longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time
to move beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and
carefully crafted compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many
of these rights are still being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court
asked for reargument in Citizens United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to
address the constitutionality of the prohibition on corporate political expenditures -
one of the cornerstones of modern campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the
law is not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh
the competing interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens
exercising their political rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of
the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
The views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
FOIA 2011-30 2-51
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted. lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore,
we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are
present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result
of e-mail transmission.
FOIA 2011-30 2-52
a
-
"Burchfield, Bobby"
<BBurchfield@mwe.com>
07/14/2009 07:18PM
Nicely done.
Bobby R. Burchfield
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
600 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096
202-756-8003 (Direct)
202-756-8855 (Fax)
703-624-4914 (Cell)
bburchfield@mwe.com
To "CHunter@fec.gov" <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold
(D-Wis.) have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election
Commission because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement
gridlock." Their pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in
the New York Times and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform
groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year
conclusively shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more
than 350 matters, resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of
FOIA 2011-30 2-53
those cases have resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those
"deadlocks" have occurred in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and
the threat to citizens' core First Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full
speed ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it
to be. That is a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the
agency was created to do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution"
and to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the
Senate one year ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes
I have cast at the commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an
open and transparent process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the
regulations properly promulgated by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect
fundamental misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the
commission operates. As borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily
prescribed structure, limitations and powers, the law is not currently as some
envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission,
which would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks."
Instead, the statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three
members may be affiliated with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to
have the FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines
program, the agency must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if
conciliation is unsuccessful may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the
enforcement process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the
statute prohibits the agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a
rulemaking process, with adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then
can the public have adequate notice of the rules of the game before the game
begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with
draconian enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to
proceed in a manner that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a
substantial civil penalty does nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for
voluntary compliance, we should not approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for
their longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time
to move beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and
carefully crafted compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many
of these rights are still being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court
asked for reargument in Citizens United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to
address the constitutionality of the prohibition on corporate political expenditures -
FOIA 2011-30 2-54
one of the cornerstones of modern campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the
law is not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh
the competing interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens
exercising their political rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of
the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
The views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
*******************************************************************************************************************
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any
U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise,
is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction
or matter herein.
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all
attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please
notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
Thank you.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Please visit http://www.mwe.com/ for more information about our Firm.
FOIA 2011-30 2-55
BRAVO!!
"Laham, Carol"
<CLaham@wileyrein.com>
07/14/2009 10:36 AM
Carol A. Laham
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(o) 202.719-7301
(f) 202.719.7207
To CHunter@fec.gov
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
.
.
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold
(D-Wis.) have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election
Commission because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement
gridlock." Their pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in
the New York Times and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform
groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year
conclusively shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more
than 350 matters, resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of
those cases have resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those
"deadlocks" have occurred in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and
the threat to citizens' core First Amendment political rights is greatest.
FOIA 2011-30 2-56
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full
speed ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it
to be. That is a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the
agency was created to do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution"
and to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the
Senate one year ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes
I have cast at the commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an
open and transparent process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the
regulations properly promulgated by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect
fundamental misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the
commission operates. As borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily
prescribed structure, limitations and powers, the law is not currently as some
envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission,
which would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks."
Instead, the statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three
members may be affiliated with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to
have the FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines
program, the agency must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if
conciliation is unsuccessful may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the
enforcement process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the
statute prohibits the agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a
rulemaking process, with adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then
can the public have adequate notice of the rules of the game before the game
begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with
draconian enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to
proceed in a manner that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a
substantial civil penalty does nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for
voluntary compliance, we should not approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for
their longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time
to move beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and
carefully crafted compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many
of these rights are still being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court
asked for reargument in Citizens United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to
address the constitutionality of the prohibition on corporate political expenditures -
one of the cornerstones of modern campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the
FOIA 2011-30 2-57
law is not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh
the competing interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens
exercising their political rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of
the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
The views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein LLP may constitute an
attorney-client communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please
permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending
an e-mail to Information@wileyrein.com.
FOIA 2011-30 2-58

.
.
"Laurenza, Melissa"
<mlaurenza@akingump.com>
07/14/2009 1 0:34 AM
Very well done! Congratsl
To CHunter@fec.gov
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI -Op-Ed in Roll Call today
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
FOIA 2011-30 2-59
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
FOIA 2011-30 2-60
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
IRS Circular 230 Notice Requirement: This communication is not
given in the form of a covered opinion, within the meaning of
Circular 230 issued by the United States Secretary of the
Treasury. Thus, we are required to inform you that you cannot
rely upon any tax advice contained in this communication for the
purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties. In
addition, any tax advice contained in this communication may not
be used to promote, market or recommend a transaction to another
party.
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
FOIA 2011-30 2-61
"Lewis, Brian (McConnell)"
<Brian_Lewis@mcconnell.se
nate.gov>
07/14/2009 11:33 AM
To '"CHunter@fec.gov"' <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Well written, and not there is one from McGahn in one of the other campus newspapers.
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly fonnat
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (0-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
FOIA 2011-30 2-62
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
Caroline C. Hunter
FOIA 2011-30 2-63
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
FOIA 2011-30 2-64
awesome
"Michael Bayes"
<jmbayes@Holtzmanlaw.net>
07/14/2009 10:51 AM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
.
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
FOIA 2011-30 2-65
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
FOIA 2011-30 2-66
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
FOIA 2011-30 2-67
Nicely done
"Schalestock, Peter"
<Peter.Schalestock@mail.ho
use.gov>
07/14/2009 02:13 PM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (0-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
FOIA 2011-30 2-68
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
Caroline C. Hunter
FOIA 2011-30 2-69
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
FOIA 2011-30 2-70
Sean Parnell
<sparnell@campaignfreedom
.org>
07/14/2009 10:33 AM
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Just got through reading it- fantastic piece!
Sean
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (0-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FOIA 2011-30 2-71
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline c. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
FOIA 2011-30 2-72
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
FOIA 2011-30 2-73
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
07/14/2009 12:12 PM
To "Laurenza, Melissa" <mlaurenza@akingump.com>
cc
Thank you, Melissa. Hope you are well.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today!JI]
"Laurenza, Melissa" <mlaurenza@akingump.com>
"Laurenza, Melissa"
a

<mlaurenza@akingump.com> To CHunter@fec.gov
cc
07/14/2009 10:34 AM
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Very well done! Congrats!
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
FOIA 2011-30 2-74
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
FOIA 2011-30 2-75
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
IRS Circular 230 Notice Requirement: This communication is not
given in the form of a covered opinion, within the meaning of
Circular 230 issued by the United States Secretary of the
Treasury. Thus, we are required to inform you that you cannot
rely upon any tax advice contained in this communication for the
purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties. In
addition, any tax advice contained in this communication may not
be used to promote, market or recommend a transaction to another
party.
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
FOIA 2011-30 2-76
Good luck.
"Tettlebaum, Harvey"
<Harvey. Tettlebaum@huschb
lackwell.com>
07/14/2009 1 0:35 PM
Harvey M. Tettlebaum
Partner
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
Monroe House
P.O. Box 1251
235 East High Street
Jefferson City, MO 651 02
Phone: 573.761.11 07
Fax: 573.634.7854
To <CHunter@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
E-Mail: harvey.tettlebaum@huschblackwell.com
Website: www.huschblackwell.com
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:36 PM
To: Tettlebaum, Harvey
Subject: Re: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Thank you, Harvey. We are trying to get our message out and it seems to be working slowly but surely. Hope you
are well. Take care, Caroline
From: "Tettlebaum, Harvey" [Harvey. Tettlebaum@huschblackwell.com]
Sent: 07/14/2009 07:37PM EST
To: Caroline Hunter
Subject: RE: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Caroline,
It is about time for a piece such as this. Congratulations to you for speaking the truth. Of course, as we
all know in Washington, D.C., if you want to make people mad, lie to them; if you want to make people
furious, tell them the truth.
I hope that your family is well and enjoying the summer.
FOIA 2011-30 2-77
Harvey
Harvey M. Tettlebaum
Partner
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
Man roe House
P.O. Box 1251
235 East High Street
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573.761.1107
Fax: 573.634.7854
E-Mail: harvey.tettlebaum@huschblackwell.com
Website: www. huschblackwell.com
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:31AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call today
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
FOIA 2011-30 2-78
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
FOIA 2011-30 2-79
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
*********************************Begin Notice from Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
*************************************
Pursuant to U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this message (i1
all constituent email correspondence, attachments, enclosures and/or exhibits) is not intended or written to be
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promo tin
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
**********************************End Notice from Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
**************************************
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-80
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
07/14/2009 10:21 PM
To "Spies, Charles" <cspies@mckennalong.com>
cc
bee
Subject Re: FYI - Op-Ed in Roll Call todayOJ
Thanks, Charlie.
From: "Spies, Charles" [cspies@mckennalong.com]
Sent: 07/14/2009 07:21 PM AST
To: Caroline Hunter
Subject: RE: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
Love it! Congrats!
-Charlie
Charles R. Spies 1 Of Counsel
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
1900 K Street NW 1 Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202.496.78781 Fax: 202.496.77561 cspies@mckennalong.com
From: CHunter@fec.gov [mailto:CHunter@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: FYI- Op-Ed in Roll Call today
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
Printer-friendly format
sponsored by
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
FOIA 2011-30 2-81
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
FOIA 2011-30 2-82
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
This e-mail and any attachments contain information from
the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are
intended solely for the use of the named recipient or
recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged
attorney/client communications or work product. Any
dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an
intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a
named recipient, you are prohibited from any further
viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any
use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have
received this e-mail in error, notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any
attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or
storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or
attachments.
FOIA 2011-30 2-83
"Ken Vogel"
<kvogel@politico.com>
11/09/2008 08:08PM
Hey Chairman McGahn:
I cover money and politics for Politico.
To <dmcgahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject POLITICO reporter hoping to connect
I spent the last several months on the presidential campaign trail but am back now and am trying
to bring myself up to speed on the developments in the world of campaign finance.
As such, I was hoping you might be amenable to taking a few minutes to chat with me, either on
the phone or in person, both so I could introduce myself and pick your brain a bit.
I'm happy to chat in whatever context you're comfortable.
Thanks,
Ken
Kenneth P. Vogel
Politico
703.647.7985
www.politico.com
FOIA 2011-30 2-84
"Miller, Rebekah M."
<rebekah. miller@bryancave.c
om>
02/03/2009 03:56PM
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: Bundling E&J- Bundling FAQ
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Rebekah Miller! Special Assistant to Michael Toner
Bryan Cave LLP
700 13th Street NW, Suite 700,Washington, DC 20005
Direct: 202.508.6177! Fax: 202. 220.7477IEmail: rebekah.miller@bryancave.com
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:09 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Bundling E&J - Bundling FAQ
Importance: High
Hello All!
Attached please find today's Bundling E&J and Bundling FAQ sheet.
Thanks!
FOIA 2011-30 2-85
Thanks.
"Kahl, James"
<JKahl@wcsr.com>
02/03/2009 03:44 PM
To "'DMcGahn@fec.gov"' <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: Bundling E&J- Bundling FAQ
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:09 PM
Subject: Bundling E&J - Bundling FAQ
Importance: High
Hello All!
Attached please find today's Bundling E&J and Bundling FAQ sheet.
Thanks!
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax
advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment).
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission has been sent by a lawyer. It may contain information that is
confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message, any part of it, or any
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message and any attachments from your system
without reading the content and notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no intent on the part of the
sender to waive any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this communication. Thank you for your
cooperation.
FOIA 2011-30 2-86
"Burchfield, Bobby"
<BBurchfield@mwe.com>
01/23/2009 01:18PM
Thanks for sending. How are you?
Bobby R. Burchfield
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP
600 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096
202-756-8003 (Direct)
202-756-8855 (Fax)
703-624-4914 (Cell)
bburchfield@mwe.com
To "DMcGahn@fec.gov" <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund- FYI
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:10 PM
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released
today.
Thanks!
*******************************************************************************************************************
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any
U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise,
is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction
or matter herein.
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all
attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please
notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
Thank you.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Please visit http://www.mwe.com/ for more information about our Firm.
FOIA 2011-30 2-87
Thank you!
"Laurenza, Melissa"
<mlaurenza@akingump.com>
01/23/2009 01:22PM
, . . - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov
Sent: Fri Jan 23 13:10:15 2009
To DMcGahn@fec.gov
cc
bee
Subject Re: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released today.
Thanks!
IRS Circular 230 Notice Requirement: This communication is not
given in the form of a covered opinion, within the meaning of
Circular 230 issued by the United States Secretary of the
Treasury. Thus, we are required to inform you that you cannot
rely upon any tax advice contained in this communication for the
purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties. In
addition, any tax advice contained in this communication may not
be used to promote, market or recommend a transaction to another
party.
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
FOIA 2011-30 2-88
"Braden, E. Mark"
<MBraden@bakerlaw.com>
01/23/2009 01:23PM
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
my heroes ! nice work someone is protecting the First Amendment.
----- - ------------------------
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1: 10 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released
today.
Thanks!
This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore,
we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are
present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result
of e-mail transmission.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-89
buhler.rornan
01/23/2009 02:12PM
Please respond to
buhler. roman
To DMcGahn@fec.gov
cc
bee
Subject Re: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Thank you for changing the culture over there!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:10:15 -0500
To: undisclosed-recipients:;<lnvalid address>
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released today.
Thanks!
FOIA 2011-30 2-90
"Baran, Jan"
<JBaran@wileyrein.com>
01/23/2009 01:58PM
Thank you. We were not informed by OGC.
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov
To: undisclosed-recipients
Sent: Fri Jan 23 13:10:15 2009
To DMcGahn@fec.gov
cc
bee
Subject Re: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released today.
Thanks!
NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein LLP may constitute an
attorney-client communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please
permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending
an e-mail to Information@wileyrein.com.
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-91
It goes downhill from there ...
"Lenhard, Robert" <rlenhard@cov.com>
"Lenhard, Robert"
<rlenhard@cov.com>
01/23/2009 02:28PM
While a full reading will await
written.
Robert Lenhard
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
(202) 662-5940
rlenhard@cov.com
To "Lenhard, Robert" <rlenhard@cov.com>
cc
bee
Subject RE: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund- FYICj
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
Subject RE: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
, the first three pages were very well
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply
e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from
your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:10PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released
today.
Thanks!
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-92

"Toner, Michael E."
<Michael. Toner@bryancave.
com>
01/23/2009 09:03 PM
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. but look forward to reading
this upon my return. I hope that all is well on your end.
Best,
Michael
~
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Fri 1/23/2009 1:10PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released today.
Thanks!
FOIA 2011-30 2-93
"Tettlebaum, Harvey"
<Harvey. Tettlebaum@huschb
lackwell.com>
01/23/2009 10:13 PM
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Do I detect you deft hand in the writing of this opinion?
Harvey M. Tettlebaum
Partner
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
Monroe House
P.O. Box 1251
235 East High Street
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573.761.1107
Fax: 573.634.7854
E-Mail: harvey.tettlebaum@huschblackwell.com
Website: www.huschblackwell.com
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:10 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: SOR MUR 5541 The November Fund - FYI
Attached please find a Statement of Reasons in the November Fund matter (MUR 5541) released today.
Thanks!
*********************************Begin Notice from Rusch Blackwell Sanders LLP
*************************************
Pursuant to U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this message (it
all constituent email correspondence, attachments, enclosures and/or exhibits) is not intended or written to be
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promotin
FOIA 2011-30 2-94
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
**********************************End Notice from Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
**************************************
FOIA 2011-30 2-95
"Braden, E. Mark"
<MBraden@bakerlaw.com>
04/28/2009 04:08PM
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject RE: SOR In MURs 5910 & 5694 Americans for Job Security
after a day of bad news some sunshine thanks !
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:26PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: SOR In MURs 5910 & 5694 Americans for Job Security
Please see below.
Thanks!
This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore,
we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are
present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result
of e-mail transmission.
This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
FOIA 2011-30 2-96
..
inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore,
we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are
present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result
of e-mail transmission.
FOIA 2011-30 2-97
"Tettlebaum, Harvey"
<Harvey. Tettlebaum@huschb
lackwell.com>
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
07/14/2009 10:53 PM
bee
Subject RE: In case you missed it-- a compilation of recent clips on
the FEC- Roll Call, WP, Politico, WP & WSJ
Good for Caroline.
Harvey M. Tettlebaum
Partner
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
Monroe House
P.O. Box 1251
235 East High Street
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573.761.1107
Fax: 573.634.7854
E-Mail: harvey.tettlebaum@huschblackwell.com
Website: www.huschblackwell.com
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:54PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: In case you missed it -- a compilation of recent clips on the FEC - Roll Call, WP, Politico, WP &
WSJ
ROIL CAlL
FEC Enforces Law as It Is, Not as Some Wish It to Be
July 14, 2009
By Caroline C. Hunter
Special to Roll Call
------- ----- ------- -
According to recent press reports, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
FOIA 2011-30 2-98
have blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the Federal Election Commission
because they believe the agency "is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock." Their
pronouncement is only the latest in a string of breathless editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post, and news releases from "reform groups," alleging the same.
Without commenting on the nomination, the agency's record over the past year conclusively
shows the contrary. During that time, the agency has resolved more than 350 matters,
resulting in close to $2 million in civil penalties. A small number of those cases have
resulted in "deadlocks" among the commissioners. Most of those "deadlocks" have occurred
in the thorniest cases, where the law is least clear, and the threat to citizens' core First
Amendment political rights is greatest.
Notwithstanding the legal shoals of danger, critics have implored us to move full speed
ahead in those very cases and to decide the law according to how they wish it to be. That is
a mistake. It is not how our government works, and it is not what the agency was created to
do.
FEC commissioners take an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" and to
"faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Since being confirmed by the Senate one year
ago, this is exactly what I have done. I can defend each of the votes I have cast at the
commission. I have pressed for, and will continue to press for, an open and transparent
process that administers the laws Congress wrote and the regulations properly promulgated
by the commission in a fair, nonpartisan manner.
Any superficial allegations about what has happened over the past year reflect fundamental
misperceptions about why the commission exists and how the commission operates. As
borne out by the FEC's deliberately crafted and statutorily prescribed structure, limitations
and powers, the law is not currently as some envision it.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to create an odd-numbered commission, which
would increase the likelihood of majority decisions and fewer "deadlocks." Instead, the
statute set the agency at six members, and no more than three members may be affiliated
with the same political party.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to mandate strict compliance with (and,
conversely, enforcement of) the law. Instead, the statute charges the agency with
"encouraging voluntary compliance." Congress made an affirmative choice not to have the
FEC levy fines. Instead, with the exception of the administrative fines program, the agency
must conciliate with those accused of violating the law. Only if conciliation is unsuccessful
may the FEC go to court to seek enforcement of the law.
Congress made an affirmative choice not to give the FEC authority through the enforcement
process to create new rules that regulate political speech. Instead, the statute prohibits the
agency from promulgating any rule of law except through a rulemaking process, with
adequate notice and comment from the public. Only then can the public have adequate
notice of the rules of the game before the game begins.
When the law is unclear and critics implore the agency to move forward with draconian
enforcement, I have not, and will not, acquiesce to their demands to proceed in a manner
that is grossly unfair or contrary to the law. When levying a substantial civil penalty does
nothing to encourage the statutory mandate for voluntary compliance, we should not
approve.
We have great respect for Sens. McCain and Feingold and the reform activists for their
FOIA 2011-30 2-99
longstanding involvement in campaign finance issues. However, it is high time to move
beyond the rhetoric and remember the law is the product of laborious and carefully crafted
compromises that directly affect vital First Amendment rights. Many of these rights are still
being resolved in court. Just recently, the Supreme Court asked for reargument in Citizens
United v. FEC. The court ordered the parties to address the constitutionality of the
prohibition on corporate political expenditures - one of the cornerstones of modern
campaign finance law.
Resolving competing interests in campaign finance regulation is rarely easy, and the law is
not clear and absolute in many cases. The FEC has a duty to carefully weigh the competing
interests of enforcement against undue punishment of citizens exercising their political
rights. I will not violate our oath of office by getting ahead of the law.
Caroline C. Hunter is a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The
views expressed are her own and not those of the commission.
2009 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
POLITICO
Reject the FEC's activist overreach
By: Donald F. McGahn
July 14, 2009 04:52AM EST
It has become fashionable in some circles to blame half of the six-member, bipartisan Federal Elec
anti-enforcement deadlock, a critique that focuses on a small number of cases among the more the:
resolved (resulting in close to $2 million in penalties). And rarely mentioned are the numerous rece1
severely limiting the reach of election law, including several parts of the McCain-Feingold law.
The recent Beltway chatter is much more about a long-standing disagreement over how the FEC sl
cases that limit the reach of the law, rather than any particular split vote. The pro-regulation "reforrr
court and continues to view campaign finance regulation as a political exercise that demands dogrr
what it thinks the law ought to be.
Many in election law have long realized that what reformers characterize as enforcement is often b;
interpretation of the law and that only with the "right" FEC commissioners can the law become whaj
But reliance on this elusive spirit of the law can, and does, lead to disparate, unfair results. lndeper
balance the need to prevent public corruption with how the law applies to ordinary citizens, so as nc
participation.
A recent dispute illustrates this challenge. Some at the FEC supported a significant monetary pena
candidate, two years after he lost to a longtime incumbent congressman. The candidate, who had '
and had raised less than $200,000, had trouble disclosing the occupations and employers of certai
contributors are not required to provide).
My opposition to the proposed hefty penalty was labeled untenable. The "reformers" -who also 01
year before the Senate confirmed me by unanimous consent- branded me an obstructionist and ,
FOIA 2011-30 2-100
replaced.
The number of matters in which the process became the penalty, causing people to simply forgo p(
the burdens of the law, is striking. In one recent FEC matter, a local party committee offered to sta)
order to reduce a civil penalty. In another, the FEC sued a defeated candidate and sought more the
judge awarded a mere $7,000. Because of cases like these, I proposed numerous reforms that pro
and increase due process and compliance (as opposed to "gotcha" enforcement that has permeate
years). Several have recently been implemented, much to the chagrin of the "reformers" who boyce
very subject.
When people can afford to fight such agency action, they usually win. One House candidate who U
rights had been chilled by McCain-Feingold's so-called millionaires amendment sued, and after yec
Court struck down the law. A few years ago, a nonprofit attempted to run TV ads urging Sen. Russ
nominations.
The matter ended up in court. Sen. John McCain and others intervened in the case and argued tha
prevented this group from running ads about Feingold's official actions. The Supreme Court said er
that to ban such ads was unconstitutional.
The recent case about a movie produced by a group called Citizens United concerns the same issL
for more argument on whether this section of McCain-Feingold should be struck down entirely.
It should not be necessary to go to court again and again to fight agency overreach. But when the f
process to try to make new law- essentially handing out speeding tickets without first posting the
choice is there?
One choice is for commissioners to reject this activist approach, regardless of how the resulting "de
done just that.
For example, a private individual had authored a book opposing President George W. Bush, and tc
disclosure reports. Prior to my appointment, the FEC was poised to file suit, claiming he needed to
used to send commercial advertising for the book- even though the FEC ruled 30 years ago that
reported. Once I arrived, the vote to sue the author deadlocked, rightfully ending the case.
The issue of books was recently raised during the Citizens United matter. Seeking to explore the re
Justice John Roberts asked if the government could ban a book that at the end says to vote for a c
government's lawyer said yes, it could (and already has) banned such books.
Consider that the next time so-called reformers cry foul over FEC "enforcement deadlocks."
Donald F. McGahn II is a commissioner and former chairman of the FEC.
2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
jNominee to FEC pits lawyers vs. senators
FOIA 2011-30 2-101
- - -------------------------------------
IBy Reid Wilson
!Posted: 07/13/09 07:32PM [ET]
- ------------------- ---- ------------------------
'!President Obama's first nominee to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has pitted the Washington legal
regulations.
IThe fight, which features veteran election lawyers from both sides of aisle against reformist Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.
!enforcement process.
I
The election lawyers say that initiative will offer new measures of fairness. Those who favor more regulation worry the i
commission has frequently deadlocked in important decisions.
John Sullivan, the associate general counsel of the Service Employees International Union and Obama's nominee to reJ
battle between the two sides.
If he is confirmed, Sullivan would fill a void among the commission's three Democrats.
Unlike the other two Democrats, Sullivan has practiced election law.
IThe only other election lawyer on the commission is Republican attorney Donald McGahn, whose term expired in April
1
"The commission would benefit from having more actual practitioners serve," said Rob Kelner, a veteran Republican el
,parachute in and figure things out quickly."
I
Despite support from both Republicans and Democrats at prominent law firms, McCain and Feingold said late last mor
unanimous consent until Obama names commissioners to replace McGahn and Democratic Chairman Steven Walther,
iThe two senators argue that the lack of new commissioners has caused gridlock among the commission, which has allm
IMcCain-Feingold.
"The FEC is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock; the president must nominate new commissioners with a den
laws," McCain and Feingold said in a joint statement.
'Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dismissed their suggestion that the seats in which terms have
:expired in April 2007 and she has been serving as an acting commissioner while awaiting her replacement.
;"There is no reason to hold up a pending nomination for additional names," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "The <
ithere is no current plan to replace them."
I
Reid, Manley said, has no intention to submit a name to replace Walther, a former Reid staffer. Senate Minority Leader
McGahn, spokesman Don Stewart said. The president nominates the commissioners, usually with input from the Senat
Several watchdog groups that want to see greater enforcement of campaign finance law have issued warnings about Sui
SEIU. Though the most well-known watchdog groups have yet to formally oppose his nomination, Sullivan has taken sc
Campaign Legal Center.
'If confirmed, Sullivan would join a commission that has taken election lawyers' advice on several key regulatory proced
1for an advisory opinion to testify before the commission as it considers the request; candidates whose campaigns are au
Supporters argue that by opening the advisory opinion process, commissioners will be able to get a better sense of what
"There have always been concerns about the ways in which commission processes can affect the people involved," said l
]ike Tom Sawyer watching his own funeral."
1
"The whole theory is to give us the input from the respondent at an earlier stage," FEC Chairman Steven Walther told T
FOIA 2011-30 2-102
respondents.
Now, Svoboda said, when a candidate or campaign seeks an opinion on a move that would break new legal ground, the
information if they think it's helpful to their decisionmaking process."
And by allowing those being audited to testify, experts say, the candidates will be able to defend themselves before any t
"Often, audit reports become the basis of FEC enforcement actions, and if you're not allowed a seat at the table during t
"shouldn't be remotely controversial, because it should have been done years and years ago. It provides a very minimal
But agency watchdogs say the FEC is focused on issues that are small beans compared to the underlying deadlock betwt
a lack of serious enforcement.
"We're deeply concerned about what has happened at the Federal Election Commission because, for all practical purpo:
laws," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. "Something has to be done to change the circumstances at tht:
available to enforce the campaign finance laws in the 2010 congressional elections, and everyone is going to know that.'
McGahn, a Republican commissioner who has become a lightning rod for groups pushing for greater enforcement, disp
Since the latest wave of commissioners got their jobs on the panel, the body has resolved more than 350 cases and brou
bundling rules, implemented federal funding for presidential candidates and issued advisory opinions on dozens of mai
has yet to work out.
"I think we can all agree these are not easy issues," McGahn said. "It's not enough to just point to problems, as some pet
Walther said further reforms to commission proceedings could come out as early as Thursday.
G:l}t t\Jtl!il)ington post
Promoting Change, Not Paralysis, at the FEC
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The June 15 editorial "Deadlocked in Regulation" claimed that the Federal Election Commission
is "paralyzed from acting" and "deadlocked along party lines." Those statements are not true.
Since we joined the FEC a year ago, the agency has resolved more than 350 cases, resulting in
excess of $1.5 million in penalties.
As an example of our supposed inaction, the editorial cited the case of a novice Democratic
candidate for Congress who, following a landslide defeat, became ensnared by an ambiguous rule
involving campaign reports. It was at best a minor violation that wasn't spotted by the FEC until
six months after the election.
Nonetheless, in late 2007, the commissioners at the time voted to go ahead with the case--
without letting the candidate address the commission.
It was wrong to seek a significant penalty from a candidate for such a minor issue. In similar
FOIA 2011-30 2-103
circumstances, both the FEC and the courts have been far more lenient.
If anything, the example cited in the editorial highlights a troubling disparity in campaign finance
law: Rote enforcement of hyper-technical rules often has an unfair impact on the inexperienced.
Fixing these problems is the sort of change we have promoted.
The editorial asked: "What's worse than a federal agency that lacks the quorum of commissioners
necessary to act on a matter?" Our answer is: an agency that ignores fairness and due process and
that discourages political participation by ordinary citizens.
MATTHEWS. PETERSEN
Vice Chairman
CAROLINE C. HUNTER
Commissioner
DONALD F. McGAHN II
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
Washington
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
JULY 11, 2009
Our Pettifogging FEC
'Hillary: The Movie' is the Court's chance to finally fix the FEC.
Article
The Supreme Court sent a lovely shudder through campaign-finance scolds
this month when it agreed to hear arguments in a case that could overturn
election donation limits. It's about time, as the Justices will appreciate if
they look at the follies at today's Federal Election Commission.
The High Court agreed to hold over until the fall any decision in a case
involving "Hillary: The Movie." The FEC claimed the go-minute 2008
anti-Clinton documentary violated campaign spending limits, which looks
like a clear example of limiting political speech. The Justices invited new
arguments on some of their more benighted precedents, including 2003's
McConnell v. FEC , which carved a hole in the First Amendment.
FOIA 2011-30 2-104
We hope the Court revisits the entire edifice of campaign-finance law,
whose absurdities are now on display at the six-member FEC, which is
deadlocked on some key rulings. The delay has the campaign-finance
goo-goos howling, with some calling on President Obama to boot GOP
"obstructionists" whose terms have officially ended, but for whom he has
yet to name replacements.
Let's hope for more delay. The cases on which the GOP Commissioners are
digging in their heels aren't trivial. Consider Arjinderpal Sekhon, a
self-employed medical doctor serving in the U.S. Army Reserve, who in
2006 ran as a Democrat for the House against a long-serving GOP
incumbent in a heavily Republican California district. He raised less than
$2oo,ooo, had a family member serve as his treasurer and lost in a
landslide.
No complaint was ever filed about Mr. Sekhon's campaign disclosure forms
-- not by his opponent or any watchdog group. Yet six months after the
election, the FEC found that his electronic reports were missing
information. In 228 of the 230 itemized contributions, the campaign had
listed "self' for both the donor's occupation and employer. The mistakes
were clearly due to a software glitch, since Mr. Sekhon's first reports--
completed by hand -- were correct.
The Sekhon campaign tried to remedy this, contacting the FEC for guidance
and resubmitting the forms. Yet more than a year after the election, the
FEC staff recommended that the Commissioners find reason to believe the
Sekhon campaign had broken the law. Because this was an FEC-generated
complaint, the Sekhon campaign wasn't told of this recommendation and
so couldn't defend itself. Not long after, the FEC lost its quorum, which
meant Mr. Sekhon was unable to appeal.
FEC staff instead negotiated a settlement. Rather than find Mr. Sekhon
guilty of one mistake, it essentially dinged him for each error and fined
him, we are told, approximately $20,000 (the records are closed to the
public). Once the FEC again obtained a quorum, Commissioners were
asked to vote to accept this agreement. The three Republicans refused,
arguing that the case illustrated FEC "shortcomings" in "due process and
civil penalty calculation," and highlighted the "unfair impact on
inexperienced political participants."
They contrasted the treatment of Mr. Sekhon with Kay Hagan, a Democrat
who won a North Carolina Senate seat in 2008. Ms. Hagan's campaign
raised $8.5 million. A complaint was filed that the campaign had failed to
include the occupation and employer for some $350,000 to $soo,ooo of
contributions (far more than Mr. Sekhon's total). Yet the Hagan campaign
FOIA 2011-30 2-105
was allowed to respond, hired a lawyer, and the FEC dismissed the matter
s-o.
Unable to agree on Mr. Sekhon, the FEC Commissioners ultimately voted
to close the case, which at least spares him from the outrageous fine. Yet
Mr. Sekhon is an example of how the FEC treats far too many candidates
who run afoul of its pettifogging rules. The Sekhon case has been followed
by similar petty enforcement actions, and the GOP Commissioners --
Matthew Petersen, Caroline Hunter and Donald McGahn -- are refusing to
agree and are calling for reforms to make the system more navigable to less
wealthy or experienced candidates of either party.
The fact that the "reform" community is attacking them reveals once again
that the real goal of campaign rules is to protect the professional political
class. Justices, take note.
A Welcome Supreme Court Review (Washington Post Op-Ed)
Columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. decried the Supreme Court's decision to hear re-argument in Citizens United v. Federal
Elections Commission -- which could result in corporations being freed to speak in elections after 60 years of
government censorship-- as "extreme" and "activist" ["The Real Court Radicals," op-ed, July 13]. But judges are
supposed to protect political speech, regardless of the speaker. Our system depends on this sort of principled judicial
engagement, even when it means reversing earlier, erroneous Supreme Court decisions.
Corporations, no less than any other association of individuals, deserve the right to speak out about candidates and
policies that may affect them. Indeed, media corporations such as The Washington Post Co. already enjoy this right.
If Mr. Dionne is worried that businesses will use this freedom to secure favors from the government, the correct
response -- the constitutional response -- is to restore limits on the power of government to dispense favors. The First
Amendment demands nothing less.
Paul Sherman, Arlington
The author is a staff attorney at the Institute for Justice, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Citizens
United v. FEC.
E.J. Dionne Jr. bemoaned the potential loss of a "century-old tradition" of banning corporate contributions to
candidates in the Supreme Court's rehearing of the Citizens United v. FEC campaign fmance case.
Three things are worth noting. First, the court is not considering overturning the Tillman Act of 1907, which
prohibited such contributions. Only independent political speech by corporations might be permitted, not
contributions to candidates.
Second, the striking down of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the 1990 ruling upholding the ban on these
corporate campaign expenditures, would mean unions would also be free to engage in independent political speech.
Third, it's important to remember a primary goal of the Tillman Act: to silence a business community that objected to
segregationist policies that drove up business costs. Sen. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, a loathsome racist and an
architect of Jim Crow laws, pushed through the corporate ban to deprive his political opposition of money that would
be used for opponents of Jim Crow.
One hopes the Supreme Court will decide that the McCain-Feingold campaign fmance law's broad ban on certain
political speech, as well as Austin's suppression of corporate and union speech, are impermissible violations of the
First Amendment. Sadly, they are unlikely also to reject the vile Tillman's legacy of silencing unwelcome political
speech.
Bradley A. Smith, Chairman
Sean Parnell, President
Center for Competitive Politics, Arlington
FOIA 2011-30 2-106
*********************************Begin Notice from Rusch Blackwell Sanders LLP
*************************************
Pursuant to U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this message (it
all constituent email correspondence, attachments, enclosures and/or exhibits) is not intended or written to be
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promotin
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
**********************************End Notice from Rusch Blackwell Sanders LLP
**************************************
FOIA 2011-30 2-107
Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US
09/20/2010 02:55PM
Caroline C. Hunter
Commissioner
Federal Election Commission
(202) 694-1 043
chunter@fec.gov
To tomj@holtzmanlaw.net
cc
bee
Subject Fw: Freedoms Watch SORs
-----Forwarded by Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US on 09/20/2010 02:56PM-----
Eric Wang/FEC/US
09/20/2010 02:51 PM To Caroline C Hunter/FEC/US@FEC
cc
Subject Freedoms Watch SORs
Attached.
Eric Wang
Counsel, Office of Commissioner Caroline C. Hunter
ewang@fec.gov
(202) 694-1090 (direct)
(202) 219-8494 (fax)
of Reasons for MUR 6002- (Freedom's Watch, Inc.) (Petersen, Hunter, and McGahn
ll).pdf
of Reasons for MUR 6002 (Freedom's Watch, Inc.) Vice Chair Cynthia L. Bauerly and
Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub. pdf
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FOIA 2011-30 2-108
To "Rosa Aguilar" <RAguilar@campaignlegalcenter.org>
cc
bee
Subject RE: Interview R e q u e s t ~
Whatever works for you.
202-694-1050.
"Rosa Aguilar" <RAguilar@campaignlegalcenter.org>
"Rosa Aguilar"
<RAguilar@campaignlegalce
nter.org>
03/08/2011 10:09 AM
Mr. McGahn,
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
Subject RE: Interview Request
I would still like to stick to our interview
time; however, I was hoping to spare you the possibility of getting sick by conducting our interview over the
phone instead. Please let me know if this works for you or whether you would still like to do an in person
interview.
- Rosa Aguilar
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:12PM
To: Rosa Aguilar
Subject: RE: Interview Request
999 E Street, NW. The Hard Rock Cafe is on the first floor-- the FEC door is on E.
"Rosa Aguilar'' <RAguilar@campaignlegalcenter.org>
03/07/2011 02:05 PM
That would be great. Where is your office located?
To<DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
SubjectRE: Interview Request
FOIA 2011-30 2-109
- Rosa Aguilar
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 201110:31 AM
To: Rosa Aguilar
Subject: RE: Interview Request
Maybe Tuesday at 2?
"Rosa Aguilar" <RAguilar@campaignlegalcenter.org>
03/04/2011 04:01 PM
Mr. McGahn,
To <DMcGahn@fec.gov>
cc
SubjectRE: Interview Request
I have an interview around 10:30 a.m. on Monday, thus I was wondering whether you had some free time
on Tuesday for an interview? Similarly, let me know whether an over the phone interview or in person
interview would work best for you. Thank you for taking the time, I truly appreciate it.
- Rosa Aguilar
From: Paul Ryan
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 3:29PM
To: DMcGahn@fec.gov
Cc: Rosa Aguilar
Subject: RE: Interview Request
FOIA 2011-30 2-110
Thanks, Don. Of course you're of "high stature" ... you're an FEC Commissioner ... it doesn't get any higher than
that in the world of campaign finance law! I'll leave you and Rosa to work out the details of your interview. I really
appreciate you taking the time to give her an interview. Have a great weekend.
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. {202) 736-2200 ext. 14
Mobile Ph. {202) 262-7315
Fax {202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com forme&fid=1&1temid=63
From: DMcGahn@fec.gov [mailto:DMcGahn@fec.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Paul Ryan
Cc: Rosa Aguilar
Subject: Re: Interview Request
Sure, Paul, whatever you need. Never thought you'd think of me as someone of "high stature" ...
Monday or Tuesday both work-- in person in fine, may be more productive. Both days I'll be in the office
writing, so I'm flexbile. Let me suggest Monday at 11 :00?
"Paul Ryan" <PRyan@campaignlegalcenter.org>
03/04/2011 02:11 PM
To<dmcgahn@fec.gov>
cc"Rosa Aguilar" <RAguilar@campaignlegalcenter.org>
Subjectlnterview Request
FOIA 2011-30 2-111
Dear Commissioner McGahn,
I have a small favor to ask of you. Campaign Legal Center intern Rosa Aguilar, who is cc'd on this email, is a student
at UC Santa Cruz and is in DC for the academic quarter as part of a University of California program. As part of
Rosa's academic quarter in DC, she is required to write a policy paper on an issue she's been exposed to through
her internship. Rosa has chosen to write about efforts this year to repeal the presidential public financing
program. She's required to interview individuals of high stature on both sides of the issue and, based on the fact
that you've written an op-ed supporting the repeal of the program, you instantly sprang to mind as a great
interview possibility. Are you willing to grant Rosa a short telephone or in-person interview sometime before next
Thursday? Thanks, in advance, for your consideration. Have a great weekend. Best,
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 14
Mobile Ph. {202) 262-7315
Fax(202)736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com forme&fid=l&ltemid=63
FOIA 2011-30 2-112
"Geiger, Kim"
<kim.geiger@latimes.com>
03/15/201110:47AM
To "'dmcgahn@fec.gov"' <dmcgahn@fec.gov>
cc
bee
Subject You free to chat?
Hi Don-
I'm writing about the letter that Wertheimer et al have sent to Obama. Looks like they're calling for him to
make new nominations- and to break from the tradition of consulting Senate leadership. I'm curious to
hear your reaction. Do you have time to chat today?
Thanks much,
Kim
http://www.democracy21.org/verticai/Sites/% 7B3D66FAFE-2697 -446F-BB39-85FBBBA57812% 7D/upload
s/% 7BCC360C8B-46D2-41AB-9EB4-96650403DF68% 7D. PDF
Kim Geiger
Los Angeles Times/Chicago Tribune
Washington Bureau
1090 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1 000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Desk: (202) 824-8202 1 Cell: (202) 640-9850
kim.geiger@latimes.com