Reply #42: Action in Legal Case Against AIPAC

[FECvAkins]

To bring readers up to date, the legal “case against AIPAC” (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) was first filed in 1989 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The seven complainants were Ambassador James Akins, Washington Report executive editor Richard Curtiss, former Congressman Paul Findley, Admiral Robert Hanks, Ambassador Andrew Killgore, Orin Parker, former president of American-Mideast Education and Training Services, and the late George Ball, the former deputy secretary of state who died in 1994.

We maintained that the Federal Election Commission (the FEC), the named defendant, was delinquent in not finding AIPAC to be a political committee and thus subject to reporting the sources of its income and expenditures. The U.S. District Court rejected our argument. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the District Court, whereupon the FEC appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1998 the Supreme Court accepted the FEC’s argument that AIPAC was “a membership organization,” and ordered the case back to the FEC to resolve the membership organization “puzzle.”

Four years later, on May 20, 2002, our lawyers filed an administrative complaint against the FEC, arguing that if AIPAC were exempt from filing its income/expenditures under the “membership communication exception,” it must nevertheless file under a different section of the U.S. Code because, according to previous FEC findings, AIPAC communications were “expressly advocating the election…of…clearly defined candidates” at a cost “exceeding $2,000 for any election.” AIPAC had failed to comply with this reporting obligation.

Our administrative complaint consists of arguments in support of our position that AIPAC must publish its income and its expenditures. The FEC, on the other hand, supports AIPAC’s position that it is exempt because it is a “membership organization.” Finally, on July 27, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge John Garrett Penn, under whose jurisdiction this case is being heard, issued an order for plaintiffs to file a motion for summary judgment. This was on agreement of both parties, and we have filed the motion for summary judgment.

On Sept. 10, defendant FEC filed its opposition to our motion for summary judgment. On Oct. 8 plaintiffs are to respond to defendant’s opposition to our motion. Defendants must reply by Nov. 5.

Finally, there is some action in our legal case against AIPAC, and Judge Penn eventually—soon—will hear the case. If he decides for the FEC (AIPAC) we will appeal to the Court of Appeals. If he decides in our favor, the FEC is expected to appeal to the Court of Appeals. And so on, up to the Supreme Court—just as happened in the earlier case.

Our attempt to drive AIPAC out of the shadows into the sunlight is now 15 years old. We note that there are unresolved allegations of espionage against AIPAC. Whether this had any effect on the present action we do not know.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2004/0411025.html