Cite as: 513 U. S. 88 (1994)
Stevens, J., dissenting
explains this anomaly by hypothesizing that "Presidential influence through the Solicitor General might be thought more likely in cases involving Presidential election fund controversies than in other litigation in which the FEC is involved." Ante, at 94. This hypothesis is untenable. Indeed, the Court has previously noted:
"[B]oth the Fund Act and FECA play a part in regulating Presidential campaigns. The Fund Act comes into play only if a candidate chooses to accept public funding of his general election campaign, and it covers only the period between the nominating convention and 30 days after the general election. In contrast, FECA applies to all Presidential campaigns, as well as other federal elections, regardless of whether publicly or privately funded." Federal Election Comm'n v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U. S. 480, 491 (1985).
Finally, though admittedly important, the 1971 Act was a relatively undramatic piece of legislation, enacted before Watergate seized the national (and congressional) attention. The notion that Congress was motivated by a concern about improper Presidential influence in 1971 when it enacted the Fund Act, but ignored such concerns in 1974 when it enacted FECA, is simply belied by "a page of history." See New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
During two decades of FEC litigation we have repeatedly recognized that the FEC's express statutory authority to initiate, defend, or "appeal any civil action" to enforce FECA "through its general counsel" encompasses discretionary appellate review as well as the now almost extinct mandatory appellate review in this Court. Because I remain persuaded that this settled practice was faithful to both the plain language and the underlying purpose of § 437d(a)(6), I respectfully dissent.
105
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007