In a Statement thick with argument and peppered with footnotes, the Republican Commissioners have set out their reasons for declining to support enforcement against 527 activity in 2004 funded by the Chamber of Commerce.  

   On a quick, first review, it becomes clear  that the Commissioners object to the questions raised, as a result of their vote in this case, about their commitment to enforcement.  Their view, energetically asserted, is that the November Fund case is different from other 527 matters decided in 2004 while suffering along with other 527 enforcement from a more fundamental flaw in the use of the enforcement process to fashion  rules in constitutionally sensitive areas.

    A key difference stressed between this case and others: it represents the first time that the agency proposed to extend liability to a donor (the Chamber of Commerce).  More generally, the three Commissioners question the process by which the theory of liability came into being--on the basis of what they maintain is a misreading the Survival Education Fund case, before rules promulgated in its name became effective.  This was a case, they argue, that should never have been investigated: November Fund engaged in no express advocacy, nor did it coordinate with the any candidate, and the solicitation of funds reviewed by the Commission mentioned neither a candidate nor an election.

    More on this to follow shortly.

Bob Bauer