The recent decision by a federal appeals court to rebuke the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for failing to investigate an unusual arrangement between Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and a liberal group, Correct the Record, has sent shockwaves through the political establishment. This case is a perfect illustration of the complexities of campaign finance laws and the agency's failures to uphold them.

At the heart of the controversy is the internet exemption, a provision that allows individuals and organizations to engage in unpaid online communications without being subject to the same limits and disclosure requirements as paid online communications. Correct the Record, a super PAC, leaned heavily on this exemption, claiming that their expenses, including staff salaries, travel expenses, and office rentals, were "input costs" for their unpaid internet communications.

But did the FEC prioritize politics over principle when they dismissed the complaint? The court's decision suggests that the agency stretched the limits of the internet exemption beyond lawfulness. "The nature of internet exemption really was supposed to protect individuals who were engaged in almost costless internet communications from being captured by the campaign finance laws," notes Tara Malloy, senior director for appellate litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, which filed the complaint.

As we ponder the implications of this case, it's essential to ask: What if this assumption is wrong? What might the author have missed? Is the FEC's failure to investigate a case of "lawlessness among at least some parts of the political elite," as Dan Weiner, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's elections and government program at New York University Law School, suggests?

The case raises several crucial questions: What constitutes "input costs" for unpaid internet communications? Should staff salaries, travel expenses, and office rentals be exempt from disclosure and contribution limits? Does the internet exemption still serve its original purpose of protecting individuals who engage in costless internet communications, or has it become a loophole for political operatives to exploit?

In an ideal world, the FEC would conduct a thorough investigation of Correct the Record and the Clinton campaign, ensuring full disclosure of coordinated activities and donor involvement. The agency must also revisit the contours of the internet exemption to prevent future cases of abuse.

Unraveling the Web of Campaign Finance: A Critical Look at the FEC's Failure to Investigate Coordination

Actions