“I’m from the Federal Election Commission, and I’m here to
help,” said Lee E. Goodman upon taking the stage at the 2014
Liberty Political Action Conference (LPAC). It was a joke, but
Goodman may actually be a rare libertarian ally in the federal
government. Since taking office in 2013, he’s taken a strict stance
in favor of free speech.
“It’s good for people to hear more points of view,” said
Goodman, a former private-practice election lawyer. “It’s good for
democratic discourse. And it leads to more competitive policies.”
Yet all over the place, Goodman sees free speech under
attack.
“Look at college campues today, where political correctness has
run amok,” said Goodman. Banishing speech “is far easier than
meeting the merits of a concept or a speaker.” And it’s also a
prevalent pursuit from federal agencies, including the Federal
Election Commission (FEC).
Goodman is one of three Republican members of the agency; the
other three are Democrats. This even split is required by law,
though with four votes required for any official action it
regularly
leads to deadlock. Since Goodman took office about a year ago,
a number of issues have divided the members down party lines. (“A
3-to-3 split comes close to official commission policy,”
noted The New York Times in August.)
“Many of the cases we get are fairly close calls on subtle legal
principles,” Goodman told the crowd at LPAC. His “biggest insight”
since taking office is that “the line between free speech and
censorship is a very fine and fragile and delicate line.”
The most divisive issue so far has been related to so-called
“dark money” in elections. Tax-exempt organizations that donate
to political campaigns and causes don’t have to disclose their
donor or membership lists to the FEC if the group’s major or
“primary purpose” is not to influence election results. But now
some on the left want to include issue advocacy among the purposes
for which donor disclosure is required. FEC members have been
deadlocked down partisan lines on making the regulatory
change.
“The courts have told us we have no jurisdiction
over issue advocacy, so you cannot count it toward an
organization’s major purpose to bootstrap regulatory jurisdiction,”
said Goodman. “An issue advocacy organization does not have to
surrender its associational freedoms, including the confidentiality
of its members and donors, just because it spends $1,000 to
exercise its free-speech rights.”
In 2012, the FEC found 3 to 4 percent of that year’s election
expenditures came from groups that weren’t required to disclose
their donors—including about $7 million spent by Planned
Parenthood. “I daresay that the membership and donors of Planned
Parenthood would be highly sensitive to disclosure,” said Goodman,
“and it happens on the right on social issues too.”
“When you hear the dark money debate, I want you to understand
it in context,” Goodman continued. “It is an effort by those who
want to regulate speech more to alter the playing field of speech
and ban speech using govenment power, and nothing more.”
Another divisive issue at the FEC has been Bitcoin. The FEC has
endorsed various sorts of in kind contributions, including art,
computers, and securities, and “there’s nothing fundamentally or
inherently different about Bitcoin,” said Goodman. Yet the
Democratic FEC members don’t see it that way. They
endorsed Bitcoin donations, but only up to $100. A 3-3 vote has
resulted in a deadlock that effectively allows groups to receive
Bitcoin donations up to the full $2,600 per-election donation
limit.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1uxXLRK
via IFTTT