A federal appeals court recently ruled against Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the super PAC Correct the Record for misapplying a legal loophole, complicating the rules of campaign finance.
According to the Washington Examiner, the alliance between Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential effort and the super PAC Correct the Record was found to have circumvented federal campaign coordination laws.
The Court's 36-page verdict tagged both entities for exploiting an "internet exemption," originally designed for simple web-based political commentary, to shield broader undisclosed campaign expenditures. This maneuver was intended to avoid the accounted financial limits and reporting required by law.
The FEC, which initially dismissed the complaints against the campaign's finance activities, has been ordered to reassess its interpretation of this exemption in light of the ruling. FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey acknowledged the decision by expressing his ongoing support for a robust internet exemption, though within legal frameworks.
The Campaign Legal Center played a crucial role by challenging the FEC's refusal to probe the spending discrepancies initially. This led to a significant judicial review, illustrating how pivotal outside parties are in upholding election law integrity.
The court emphasized the necessity of disclosure for expenditures that are tangentially associated with internet outputs but not directly related to them.
Lee Goodman, former FEC chairman, pointed out the misinterpretation of the internet exemption by Clinton's campaign and Correct the Record. Goodman noted the need for the FEC to provide clearer rules that delineate acceptable uses of the Internet for political campaigning to ensure transparency and fairness.
We hold that the Commission acted contrary to law in dismissing the complaint. Because we conclude that the internet exemption cannot be read to exempt from disclosure those expenditures that are only casually related to an eventual internet message or post, the Commission’s reading of the internet exemption stretches it beyond lawful limits.
The controversy has its roots back in the 2016 election when David Brock established Correct the Record and boldly announced its coordination with Clinton's campaign efforts. Leaning heavily on a 2006 FEC internet exemption, the PAC suggested it was free from traditional coordination regulations.
However, post-election, the utilization of this exemption came under fire, leading to a stalemate at the FEC when complaints were first filed. It was not until this year that the federal appeals court rectified this oversight by pushing for crucial regulatory clarifications.
FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey mentioned the possibility of taking the matter to the Supreme Court while reiterating his dedication to protecting online campaign activities that adhere to legal standards. His statements underline the ongoing debate over the balance between regulation and freedom on the digital campaigning frontier.
In conclusion, the recent court decision against the Clinton 2016 campaign and Correct the Record underscores a critical reevaluation of campaign finance laws, particularly concerning online activities. The FEC's response to this ruling will likely set precedents for regulating digital campaign efforts, aiming to maintain robust political commentary online while preventing misuse.
The reprimand from the court also serves as a reminder for political entities to adhere to clear legal standards, ensuring fair play in the complex arena of political campaigning.
