John Samples has wondered whether the FEC, in considering the pending proposal for an exemption for grassroots lobbying, will split along party lines.  He assumes that the Republicans will support the proposal--we know that one, the sponsor of the proposal, surely will.  Of the Democrats, he is less certain.  There is history behind his doubts, one in which Democrats feel more pressure to uphold reform, which is to say, regulation.  

   There is some reason for hope that the FEC will not split, however.  Times have changed, and the regulatory regime has become sufficiently complex that reflexive partisanship, activated by the old cues and slogans, has begun to wane.  In the recent years, the FEC Commissioners have managed some sensible, bipartisan resolution of difficult issues with major implications for political participation on all sides of the political and ideological divide.  The Internet rules are an example. The FEC's actions then actually staved off what could have been a partly (not a certainly) partisan squabble in the Congress where various, competing proposals began to force the drawing of hard lines,  some of them influenced by partisanship and some by appeals to specious distinctions between "reform" and anti-reform" positions.  Stepping in as an honest broker, the FEC settled matters for the time being by applying expertise in the construction of clearly explained, workable rules.  

   This was possible because the Internet rules cut across partisan interests, which is what an advanced regulatory regime will increasingly do.  No one party or other political interest stands to benefit or to suffer all the time, or to some significantly greater degree, than another.  In a highly competitive politics, moreover, each contestant stands, at different times, to gain from enhanced flexbility in seeking out resources for political action.  At some point, the various actors and interests and parties have more in common in managing the regulatory challenge--in just getting on with their work and competing-- than they have reason to try to turn the law to their advantage and against their adversaries'.

   In the case of grassroots lobbying, the various interests coming together in support of this proposed exemption are hardly unified in their politics.  They are, in fact, certain to oppose one another much of the time on major issues.  All of them, however, have an interested in just this conflict--in pursuing it honestly and directly, by public appeals on issues, which cannot be done at particularly crucial times without the benefit of the proposed exemption from the 30 and 60 day pre-election advertising "blackouts."  

   As a regulatory challenge, this is much like the Internet rules: there is no clear partisan advantage--no disadvantage, really, except for to politicians uncomfortable with too much broadcast criticism, or to reformers haunted by imagined scenarios for "cheating".   The exemption, however, should be considered without regard to the first "interest", and as written, the proposal should put to rest any excitable worries about the creation of dangerous "loopholes."  All that will be permitted is grassroots lobbying, which, except for the regulated world we now live in, would not require permission at all.

   Consideration of the proposed exemption for grassroots lobbying is another occasion for the FEC to play a constructive and bipartisan role , an entirely natural one.  The harder work would be to make this into a partisan issue, or one favoring one interest over another, because it is, in fact, neither.

Bob Bauer