It’s a fairly important substantive question being considered in the Unity08 v. FEC lawsuit, filed back in January of 2007: ought groups attempting to engineer the election of third-party figures as presidential candidates to obey the fundraising restrictions of political action committees, which restrict contributions to $5,000 per person and require the amounts, terms and conditions of loans to be disclosed? Or should they be allowed to take very large contributions from single people and hide the terms of the large loans given to them by individuals — loans that may turn out to be no-interest, payback-optional backdoor contributions? In short, should inside players be able to front presidential bids without bothering to garner the support of a widespread donor base?
A year and a half later, and a year after arguments were completed in the case, Judge Richard W. Roberts has still refused to rule in the case, even though Unity08 has continued to persist as a nominal organization for the purpose of seeing the lawsuit to its conclusion. The last development, the last big change in the case? On May 14 2008, one of the lawyers for Unity08 informed the court of a change in his address.
Something’s more than a wee bit off-kilter here.