Today, a federal appeals court ruled that the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton and a liberal super PAC violated federal election laws by openly displaying their collaboration in an expensive attempt to support the Democrat in her unsuccessful run against Donald Trump.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rendered a historic ruling in which it held that Clinton and the super PAC Correct the Record had improperly abused the “internet exemption” to circumvent other limitations in order to establish a “Benghazi Hearing War Room” and launch a witch hunt for critics without disclosing the expenditure as a political expense.
The 36-page ruling won’t sanction Clinton or David Brock, the creator of Correct the Record; instead, it chastised the Federal Election Commission for failing to look into a complaint regarding the spending. To correct the exception, it forwarded the case to the FEC.
“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 tangentially related to an eventual internet message or post, the Commission’s reading of the internet exemption stretches it beyond lawful limits,” the court stated.
According to FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey, who spoke with Secrets, the commission has accepted the court’s ruling and he will work to get a “robust” exception for political activity conducted online.
“Following the D.C. Circuit’s decision today, my colleagues and I will carefully review the court’s opinion and consider next steps, including whether to seek review in the Supreme Court. Regardless, I will continue to fight for internet freedom at the FEC and a robust regulatory exemption for political activities online, consistent with the law,” he stated.
The case began during the 2016 election campaign, when Brock formed his organization and assured the press that he would work in tandem with the Clinton campaign. That seemed to be against the prohibition on PAC and candidate collaboration.
However, the group claimed that it would use a 2006 FEC “internet exemption” to circumvent that regulation because it would be conducting business online. The appeals court said that Clinton’s campaign ought to have recognized the expenditure as a donation and that Brock had gone too far.
According to the court, Brock’s organization spent $5.95 million while disguising its expenditures under the internet exception, which was established to safeguard unrestrained online political commentary and modestly funded political campaign assistance.
The FEC’s “capacious construction” of the internet exception to encompass expenses for staff, polls, and Correct the Record’s rent was deemed excessive by the court.
“The internet exception was never intended as a [Federal Election Campaign Act]-swallowing loophole enabling political committees to launder all their coordinated expenditures via unpaid internet postings,” the court added.
The Campaign Legal Center, based in Washington, contested the expenditure and coordination after the FEC was unable to conclude its investigation. Two commissioners were absent from the six-member commission at the time.
The court preserved the internet exception for the time being by returning the case to the FEC. Former FEC Chairman Lee Goodman, who has long supported the exemption to safeguard political discourse online, was thrilled by this.
“It did appear that the Clinton campaign and Correct the Record tried to place too much weight, and force too many far-flung political activities, onto the internet exemption,” he said. “The entire internet exemption was at risk under that kind of weight, but the court preserved the internet exemption. So the most important result of this court decision is that the internet exemption remains intact for organizations to speak freely on the internet.”
In order to prevent well-funded super PACs from attempting to use internet expenditure as a cover for coordinated attacks, Goodman said that it was a good idea to impose limits on this kind of spending.
“The court sent the matter back to the commission to clarify which input costs are directly related to the production and dissemination of free internet communications, like staff time and production costs, versus costs that are only tangentially related to internet communications. I’m confident the commission can draw reasonable distinctions and provide clear guidance to protect free speech on the internet,” he stated.
