[Just A Nobody]

What did the groups really do wrong?
Did they bribe or corrupt politicians? Well, no.
Did they make illegal contributions to campaigns? Well, no again.
Did they seek out special favors or illegally coordinate their efforts with candidates? No.

The FEC admitted that, after a "thorough" investigation, it found no evidence that any of the groups operated in concert with candidates or sought legislative favors.

The FEC admitted to going easy on the groups, given the "uncertainty" in the law.

In my view, there is no uncertainty — the groups did not violate the law at all.

[AmericanMade1776]

Maybe the Federal Election Commission is just dipping into deep pockets? Is that Illegal?

[Phlyer]

The FEC admitted to going easy on the groups, given the "uncertainty" in the law.

Robert Heinlein had an interesting essay in which he advocated a 'Plain Language' amendment to the Constitution. (Actually, he wrote it as a short fiction vignette, but the good things that resulted amounted to advocacy).

In his proposed amendment, any law that was confusing or ambiguous or 'uncertain' enough that there was more than one legitimate interpretation based on normal usage of English was unconstitutional on that basis alone.

I am leery of too-easy amending of the Constitution - though I have to admit the argument gets weak when the courts are 'interpreting' the words into meaninglessness anyway - but I think this is a good idea. We should not be subject to arbitrary interpretations of ambiguous law. In the same sense of 'innocent until proven guilty' there should be an immunity from vague laws, with any ambiguity resolved in favor of the defendant, not in favor of the government.

Of course, there should be a zillion dollars in my bank account (fairly earned, not stolen from others through government-enforced wealth redistribution) and I should be taller, younger, and better looking. I expect all of those will happen before the government surrenders its authority to exercise power arbitrarily.