 |
|
Blog
|
|
Welcome to the Holtzman Vogel Law Blog. We aim to keep you
up to date on important legal developments and other items of interest. On this
blog, we'll track developments in the news and changes to the rules and regulations
affecting political committees, corporate PACs, trade associations, non-profit groups
and advocacy organizations. We'll also keep you updated on the lobbying and ethics
arena. The Law Blog is designed to supplement our regular newsletter.
On behalf of the Holtzman Vogel team, I hope you find this site helpful and interesting.
And we hope you'll become a regular visitor. (If you'd like to receive our newsletter,
please click here to sign up.)
Jill Holtzman Vogel
|
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Eliza Newlin Carney: Whither The FEC? The Agency Is Under Attack Again As Reformers Push For An Overhaul
Eliza Newlin Carney's latest op-ed at National Journal on the FEC is here.
If you ever need a sneak-peak at next week's Carney column, just take a quick look at the professional reform lobby's latest press releases. There is rarely any difference between the two.
This week, she cuts-and-pastes from three "reformer" press releases. Fred Wertheimer's comments on the FEC's coordination rules are here; the Campaign Legal Center's criticism of two recent Advisory Opinions is here; and the press release announcing CREW's lawsuit is here.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Wash. Post: Mixed reaction to new FEC rules on candidates, interest groups working together
If one single, solitary person objects to something, does it warrant a newspaper report noting "mixed reaction"? If the subject is the FEC, then yes, a full report is apparently warranted.
The Washington Post reports that "[s]ome campaign finance reformers, however, say the rules don't go far enough and leave loopholes allowing broad coordination between candidates and outside groups that support them." Actually, the only public complainer, so far, is Fred Wertheimer, the one-man-band interest group known as Democracy 21. His usual allies - the Campaign Legal Center and Craig Holman at Public Citizen - haven't chimed in yet.
But we should listen to what Mr. Wertheimer has to say, because he offers a reasoned, expert analysis, right? Actually, he carps that the new coordination rules are nothing but a "huge loophole" and "[a]s a practical matter, it means we don't have coordination rules." So, the "mixed reaction" that the Post reports is little more than the hyperbolic letting-off-steam of one lobbyist feeding patently absurd claims to the media.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
FEC Adopts New Coordination Rule, Effective Dec. 1
Last Thursday, the FEC adopted a new rule on coordination, which was made necessary by a 2008 court ruling. The new rule goes into effect on December 1. After December 1, ads and other public communications issued outside the 90/120 day election windows may be deemed "coordinated" if there was sufficient collaborative conduct between the parties involved, and if the communication constitutes express advocacy or the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The "functional equivalent" standard is the new addition to the coordination test, and is also known as the Wisconsin Right to Life test.
Professional "reform" lobbyist Fred Wertheimer, who sometimes goes by the name "Democracy 21," has already publicly objected to the new coordination rule, so the FEC may be heading back to court. Wertheimer and a small handful of fellow travelers in the "reform" lobby have successfully deprived everyone involved in federal political campaigns of any stability on the matter of coordination since 2003 through their repeated court challenges.
We will have more on these developments shortly.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Boston Herald: Jack E. Robinson sues FEC over Senate campaign fine
The Boston Herald reports "Failed U.S. Senate candidate Jack E. Robinson, trounced by Scott Brown in December’s Republican primary for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat, is suing the Federal Election Commission over a $6,050 fine for allegedly violating federal campaign finance law. Robinson said the penalty, imposed because he filed a required campaign finance report 81 days late, amounts to 'nitpicking' by the FEC, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Boston last week....The candidate’s campaign finance report for the Nov. 19 to Dec. 31, 2009, period was due Jan. 31. Robinson said he mailed the report on April 15, but the FEC received it on April 22. It levied the fine in March. 'It’s an outrageous decision,' Robinson said. 'Obviously we did use our best efforts (to timely file), but the idiots at the FEC don’t seem to realize how things work in the real world.'"
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Do Internet Search Engine Text Ads Require A Disclaimer?
Do Google's "text ads" -- the paid advertisements that show up on your computer screen when you use Google's search engine -- require a disclaimer? Google has asked the FEC for an answer.
Google's advisory opinion request notes that "text ads" use up to 25 characters in the title, and up to 70 additional characters in the body of the advertisement. The purpose of a "text ad" is to get the viewer to click on its link and visit a separate web page.
The request seeks FEC confirmation that "text ads" are exempt from the full federal disclaimer requirements under the "small item" exemption (which historically has applied to items such as bumper stickers and buttons). A second exemption, likely also relevant in this matter, applies where including a disclaimer would theoretically be possible, but would be "impracticable."
As for current practice, many candidates pay for search engine text ads, and rarely is a "paid for by" disclaimer included.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wash. Post: Group sues Federal Election Commission, saying its slow response limits appeals
The Washington Post has this piece on CREW's latest lawsuit. According to CREW, the FEC "routinely makes it impossible to appeal its decisions. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington identifies at least nine cases over the past two years in which the FEC dismissed complaints but did not provide enough information about the decision to allow a legal challenge. The FEC is required by law to provide details promptly so parties in such disputes can meet a 60-day deadline to file an appeal in federal court, according to the lawsuit. But the commission frequently defies this requirement by delaying or never releasing information about cases it drops, the lawsuit says."
The FEC has not yet responded.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Roll Call: Obama Withdraws FEC Nomination
Roll Call reports "President Barack Obama backed off Thursday on his Federal Election Commission nominee [John Sullivan], whose union work concerned Republicans and advocates of overhauling campaign finance law." The nomination was made in May 2009, and had been awaiting a full Senate vote since June 2009.
Sullivan was nominated to replace Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, whose term ended over 3 years ago, in April 2007.
The Roll Call article mentions that Sullivan's past union work "concerned Republicans," although this seems to be a new charge. Opposition to Sullivan came from the campaign finance reform lobby, and Senators Feingold and McCain responded with holds on Sullivan's nomination.
The Center For Competive Politics issued a statement, here.
The Center For Public Integrity issued this update in May.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Wash. Post: Head of defunct lobbying firm PMA indicted on charges of illegal campaign gifts
The Post reports "Paul J. Magliocchetti, founder and owner of the now closed PMA Group, was indicted in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on eight counts of making illegal campaign contributions and three counts of making false statements....For nearly five years from 2003 to 2008, according to the 18 page indictment, Magliocchetti concealed campaign contributions from the Federal Election Commission....Magliocchetti now faces criminal charges. In some instances, prosecutors allege, Magliocchetti directed family members to make contributions and then paid them back. He also recruited two acquaintances who lived near his Florida vacation home to write checks to candidates, court papers allege. Magliocchetti reimbursed them by writing personal checks or company checks or by putting them on PMA's board of directors, even though they never worked as lobbyists and never attended board meetings, according to the indictment. Magliocchetti also instructed the firm's lobbyists to make political contributions, then repaid the employees with either personal or company funds, the indictment alleges."
The Washington Times reports here.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
CQ Politics: Independent Expenditure Groups Start Lining Up at FEC
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, July 23, 2010
FEC Provides Guidance to "Independent Expenditure Committees"
The FEC approved two advisory opinions yesterday, providing guidance to entities that wish to raise and spend unlimited sums to make independent expenditures. These new "independent expenditure committees" are the result of recent court decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC, and SpeechNow.org. v. FEC.
"In Advisory Opinion 2010-09 (Club for Growth), the Commission concluded that Club for Growth — a 501(c)(4) corporation — could establish and administer a political committee that will make only independent expenditures, that will register and report with the Commission, and that will solicit unlimited contributions solely from individuals in the general public, including contributions given for specific independent expenditures.
In Advisory Opinion 2010-11 (Commonsense Ten), the Commission concluded that Commonsense Ten, a registered nonconnected political committee that intends to make only independent expenditures, and that will report the contributions it accepts and the independent expenditures it makes, may solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations and labor organizations for the purpose of making independent expenditures."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Holiday Weekend Roundup
Politico: More union disclosure woes ("A Center for Public Integrity inquiry shows that for the past five years, disclosure forms filed by the 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers have failed to detail the group’s specific lobbying activities, as required by law. In May, the Center revealed that the American Maritime Officers union had violated disclosure laws for nearly a decade without detection by the two congressional offices tasked with oversight.")
Chicago Tribune: Lawsuit attacks Mich. limit on some political cash ("A Republican political strategist has asked a federal judge to strike down some of Michigan's limits on campaign donations, saying First Amendment rights are being violated by the restrictions....The $500 limit on contributions by individuals to House candidates hasn't changed in more than 30 years, making it worth about $132 when adjusted for inflation, according to the lawsuit filed this week in federal court in Grand Rapids.")
Boston Globe: Ruling widens the meaning of ‘media’ ("A little-noticed Federal Election Commission ruling that expands the definition of “media’’ to include a partisan film production group is the latest in a series of actions eroding legislative limits on the influence of money in politics.") This "little-noticed" Advisory Opinion was widely reported, and we noted it here on June 11. The first half of the Globe's article is essentially an editorial, parroting the "reform" community's comments focusing on the partisan nature of Citizens United (which is irrelevant under long-standing "media exemption" precedent at the FEC), and ignoring the limited nature of the FEC's decision. The second half of the article actually explains the FEC's opinion, and makes clear that the FEC did not decide that all political organizations are now the "media." ("The latest FEC ruling left it unclear precisely what a political group has to do to qualify as a media organization.")
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, June 21, 2010
USA Today Notes Campaign Finance Developments Overshadowed by DISCLOSE Act
USA Today notes that the DISCLOSE Act has "faltered," and draws attention to three overshadowed campaign finance developments of recent weeks:
"Attempts to place more restrictions on campaign spending have been unsuccessful in recent weeks.
The Supreme Court, for instance, barred the state of Arizona this month from distributing public funds to candidates running against wealthy, self-funded opponents. The move blocks a key component of the state's 12-year-old 'Clean Elections' law while the high court decides whether to hear a challenge from the law's opponents.
Last week, acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argues the government's cases before the Supreme Court, decided not to appeal a lower court ruling that allows independent groups to raise as much as they want to support or oppose candidates.
In addition, the Federal Election Commission recently sided with Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, and ruled that it would not have to publicly disclose its spending on movie projects. It was the second major victory for Citizens United this year. The legal battle over the group's critical film about Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign led to the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in January to allow unlimited corporate and union funding on political ads."
More on the Supreme Court's decision is here. The Court's order in McComish v. Bennett is here.
The second item above concerns the government's decision not to appeal the D.C. Circuit's decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC. More information on that decision is here.
Finally, we noted the FEC's decision in Advisory Opinion 2010-08, granting a limited media exemption to Citizens United, here.
Friday, June 11, 2010
FEC Concludes That Documentary Films Produced by Citizens United are Entitled to Media Exemption
Yesterday, the FEC voted 4-1 to approve Advisory Opinion 2010-08, concluding that Citizens United was entitled to the "media exemption" for its documentary film productions. The group's other activities are not exempt under the Advisory Opinion. (The Commissioners approved Draft A, available here.)
What does this mean? It means that the group's movies, such as Hillary: The Movie, are not subject to any campaign finance regulations. If you recall, the Supreme Court concluded in Citizens United v. FEC that Hillary: The Movie could be disseminated by Citizens United using corporate funds. However, the Court also concluded that the movie could still be subject to various disclosure requirements. Under the FEC's new determination, because the media exemption applies, Citizens United will not be required to include any "paid for by" disclaimers on their movies (or advertisements for their movies), and they will not be required to report the movies' costs and funding sources to the FEC. In addition, questions of coordination with candidates are now irrelevant, as are questions of content (e.g., is there express advocacy?). Simply put, Citizens United's political documentary movies will be treated just like a New York Times editorial, a Bill Moyers PBS production, or a Michael Moore film.
We previously noted the Advisory Opinion Request here.
The FEC's press release is here.
Commissioner Walther's dissenting statement is here.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Wash. Post: New records show some lobbyists are top fundraisers for political candidates
The Washington Post examined the lobbyist bundling filings at the FEC and came up with this report. From the report: "For the first time, the records provide a clear public view into one of the most influential subcultures in Washington: lobbyists who moonlight by bundling campaign contributions for candidates and their political parties. The fundraising occurs even as the same lobbyists attempt to shape legislation to benefit their clients, including energy firms, insurers and other corporations with major financial stakes in the outcome of federal legislation."
Friday, May 28, 2010
CQ Politics: FEC Deadlocks on Soft Money
CQ Politics has this report on yesterday's 3-3 split at the FEC on an advisory opinion concerning federal candidate and officeholder fundraising for a ballot initiative committee.
From the report: "The fourth time was not the charm: the Federal Election Commission could not agree Thursday on whether members of Congress could raise unlimited funds for organizations pushing state ballot initiatives. On three separate previous occasions, the FEC issued various opinions on whether federal candidates could raise soft money for such groups and each time the agency reached different decisions....The sticking point was whether soliciting on behalf of a state ballot or proposition would be considered raising money for an election. Republicans supported allowing federal candidates to raise unlimited funds for state balloting initiative organizations while Democrats stood opposed to any such lawmaker unlimited third-party fundraising."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
New York Times editorial on FEC Redistricting Decision
Last week, the FEC gave federal officeholders the green light to raise funds not subject to the limits and prohibitions of campaign finance law ( i.e., "soft money") for their parties' redistricting efforts. (See here.)
Unsurprisingly, the New York Times editors denounced the decision. The Times editorial, though, gives us an interesting glimpse into the mindset of the FEC's harshest critics. It turns out that the real problem with the FEC is that it has never lived up to its reason for being: according to the Times, "The F.E.C. was created to protect the public interest in elections."
So, what is the role of the FEC? Is it supposed to enforce and administer the campaign finance laws, as they are written, making policy judgments to the extent that is required because Congressional instructions ( i.e., the statute) are unclear? Or is the FEC supposed to serve as some sort of "public interest" watchdog, protecting us all from "party insiders" so that we don't have to be "cynical" about the election process? The New York Times says it's the latter. Or perhaps it's nothing more than a "good rant," as Allison Hayward suggests.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
FEC Allows "Soft Money" Fundraising For Redistricting Efforts
For the first time since BCRA became effective in November 2002, federal officeholders have the FEC's approval to raise funds not subject to the limits and prohibitions of campaign finance law (i.e., "soft money") for their parties' redistricting efforts.
The FEC issued Advisory Opinion 2010-03 to the National Democratic Redistricting Trust, unanimously concluding that "the Trust's proposed activities are not in connection with an election and therefore Members of Congress may solicit funds on behalf of the Trust that do not comply with the Act‟s amount limitations and source prohibitions." In a series of prior Advisory Opinions, the FEC had declined to conclude that redistricting matters were not "in connection with an election." (Several Democratic Commissioners previously took the position that such matters are "in connection with an election.")
However, in the new opinion, the six Commissioners state, "not all activities that may have some indirect effect on elections are encompassed by the 'in connection with' standard of BCRA." (This statement is a rejection of a position long-taken by the pro-regulatory, campaign finance "reform" voices.)
The FEC further explains, " The Trust seeks to engage in litigation over the electoral process that will govern how future elections are conducted, but its activities will not be a means to participate in those elections. BCRA does not explicitly address whether redistricting activities are 'in connection with' elections. Although the outcome of redistricting litigation often has political consequences, the Commission concludes that spending on such activity is sufficiently removed that it is not 'in connection with' the elections themselves."
The bottom line? "[A] Member of Congress may solicit unlimited funds on behalf of the Trust to defray the legal expenses associated with the Trust's redistricting efforts."
The New York Times reports here. The Washington Post reports here.
The Campaign Legal Center, whose arguments the FEC rejected, objects to the AO here. (The CLC's post notes that the group's Executive Director, Gerald Hebert, did not participate in the CLC's efforts to urge the FEC to reject the advisory opinion request. Mr. Hebert "served as General Counsel to IMPAC 2000, the National Redistricting Project for Congressional Democrats.")
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
John Sullivan's FEC Nomination - Still on Hold
The Center For Public Integrity has this update on the status of John Sullivan's nomination to the FEC. Senators Feingold and McCain have maintained their holds on the nomination, preventing a Senate vote.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
CQ Politics: FEC Delays Redistricting Ruling
CQ Politics reports " A deadlocked Federal Election Commission has postponed a decision on whether members of Congress can raise soft money for a partisan redistricting committee. They’ll try again May 7. At issue is whether the National Democratic Redistricting Trust will be banned from raising uncapped 'soft money' with the help of federal lawmakers and candidates. The commission’s Republicans said they favored allowing that kind of fundraising."
We previously noted the NDRT advisory opinion request here and here.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
CQ Politics: FEC Leaves Redistricting Question Open
From CQ Politics: "The Federal Election Commission is keeping its options open as it heads into a Thursday meeting when it is slated to decide whether members of Congress can raise soft money for a partisan redistricting committee. On Monday, the FEC released two opposing draft advisory opinions - one that would allow and one that would forbid - the National Democratic Redistricting Trust from using federal lawmakers and candidates to raise unlimited funds for the organization."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
NYT editorial: The Court, Money and Politics
The latest from the New York Times editors, this time on RNC v. FEC.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
An Independent Expenditure Campaign - Paid for by the Candidate's Brother
CQ Politics reports "Tennessee House candidate Ron Kirkland (R) will report a whopping $857,600 in receipts in his first fundraising report this week, but that filing won’t cover the most interesting campaign account devoted to getting Kirkland elected. Kirkland is benefiting from a robust independent expenditure effort that so far has spent more than $135,000 on his behalf. It’s being led by Kirkland’s brother, Robert."
While much of the scrutiny here will likely fall on whether the effort is truly "independent," it is also worth asking why a candidate's brother would need to undertake an independent spending program in the first place. Would there really be a risk of corruption if the brother, or any other immediate family member, contributed the same amount of money directly to the candidate?
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, April 05, 2010
RNC Seeks Supreme Court Review of "Soft Money" Decision
The Daily Caller reports that the Republican National Committee will file paperwork seeking Supreme Court review of the "soft money" case it recently lost at the district court level ( RNC v. FEC): "The Republican National Committee and Chairman Michael Steele are continuing their push to allow corporations and individuals to make unlimited donations known as 'soft money' to national committees. On Friday, Steele and the RNC appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal court denied the RNC permission to raise soft money for state elections and congressional redistricting, according to Federal Election Commission records."
The RNC's Notice of Appeal is here. More from USA Today here.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Citizens United Seeks FEC's Media Exemption
Citizens United submitted an advisory opinion request to the Federal Election Commission, asking if it qualifies for the "media exemption." (Media exempt entities are not subject to any campaign finance laws, including reporting and other disclosure requirements.)
The organization sought media status in 2004, but was denied. Since then, Citizens United has produced quite a few political documentaries, and this, they claim, now entitles them to the media exemption, at least with respect to their documentary activity.
The Washington Post reports here.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wash. Post: Ruling allows contributions to activist groups for campaigns
The Washington Post has this article on yesterday's SpeechNow decision. More details on the case are here.
According to the Post article, "The SpeechNow decision effectively widens the field of organizations that can raise and spend money on politics more freely in light of the Citizens United decision, which swept aside decades of legislative restrictions on the role of corporations in political campaigns. In a similar vein, SpeechNow and other independent political groups -- also known as 527 organizations, for their designation under the tax code -- are now free to solicit unlimited contributions as long as they do not donate directly to candidates or coordinate with their campaigns."
The Wall Street Journal opines here.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Two Important Court Decisions Rendered Today
This morning, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided SpeechNow.org v. FEC ( opinion here), ruling that contribution limits cannot be imposed on individuals wishing to give money to organizations that make independent expenditures. However, the court also held that such organizations may still be required to register and file financial disclosure reports with the FEC if the organization is a "political committee."
A few hours later, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Republican National Committee in its case against the FEC ( opinion here), challenging aspects of BCRA's soft money restrictions.
More inside.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, March 26, 2010
ABC News: Senators and House Members Can Keep Campaign Funds on the Way Out; No Campaign? No Problem: Retiring Members of Congress Can Find Creative Ways to Keep Unspent Contributions
From ABC News: "While the F.E.C. clearly says campaign committee cash can't be tapped for personal use, there are no such stipulations for certain political action committees, most controversially 'leadership PACs' that elected officials can use to support various political causes other than their own....Even though a retiring lawmaker can't personally tap into authorized campaign committee funds upon leaving office the way they can leadership PACs, there nevertheless are some options for the clever and the determined. For example, it is perfectly legal for leftover war chest money to be donated to a charity, including, say, a brand new charity a politician may be moved to create."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Final Rules Published by FEC for EMILY's List Compliance
The FEC has published its final rules for compliance with EMILY's List v. FEC.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
AP: Dems want `soft money' for redistricting
AP reports "The National Democratic Redistricting Trust is asking the Federal Election Commission to let lawmakers raise soft money for the legal fights likely to develop as congressional district boundaries are redrawn after this year's census."
The Advisory Opinion Request is available here.
The issue of whether "soft money" can be raised and spent on redistricting efforts has been unresolved since BCRA became law in late 2002. The FEC was unable to answer the question in 2003, and avoided the question in 2007.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Politico: Joint fundraising yields more cash
Politico has this piece on joint fundraising practices, noting that: "Use of a joint fundraising committee does not allow a donor to escape federal donation limits of $4,800 per candidate or incumbent for any one cycle. But a donor can cut one large check to a joint committee, maxing out what the candidate gets while the rest goes to the DSCC or a state party. A donor may give up to $30,400 annually to a national party committee."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
AP: Cao's campaign finance suit moves to appeals court
AP reports "A Republican-backed challenge of federal campaign finance restrictions has moved to a federal appeals court. U.S. Rep. Ahn "Joseph" Cao (Gow) and Republican leaders filed the suit in 2008. At the heart of the complaint is the federal limit on what state and national parties can spend in coordinated efforts on behalf of a candidate - about $42,000 each. U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan threw out part of the challenge late in January. But she also decided several of the main issues in the case should be considered by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court is expected to hear arguments in May."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
FEC Weekly Digest
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Can a Political Party Sue to Recover Funds Given to a Party-Switcher?
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Interest Groups and the Columnists Who Echo Them
Back on February 4, the Campaign Legal Center issued a press release in the form of a "letter to President Obama," which we noted here. Among other things, the pro-speech regulation interest group complained about the FEC's three Republican Commissioners, and called on President Obama to replace the FEC's "three lame-duck, holdover Commissioners." The CLC didn't mention it, but the two groups of Commissioners are not the same. The "three lame-duck, holdover Commissioners" are Republican Don McGahn and Democrats Ellen Weintraub and Steve Walther. In other words, the CLC would have us believe that their push for three new FEC appointees and their opposition to the current Republican Commissioners are one and the same. Appoint three new Commissioners, and the whole FEC changes, says the CLC. Not exactly, but it makes for a better story than the truth.
Now, National Journal columnist Eliza Carney has taken the bait. Carney writes, "FEC critics have called on President Obama to replace three controversial, lame-duck commissioners." While "controversial" is in the eye of the beholder, the two Democrat lame-ducks are not usually described that way in the media, so it's safe to assume that Carney has allowed herself to be duped and is referring (incorrectly) to the three Republican Commissioners. And just like the CLC's press release, Carney makes no mention of the fact that President Obama already tried to replace one of the "lame-duck" Commissioners - he nominated John Sullivan to replace Ellen Weintraub. But the CLC opposed it.
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Hill: New FEC rules could impact effect of Court's campaign-finance decision
The Hill has this piece on the FEC's pending coordination rulemaking.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 05, 2010
FEC Statement on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United v. FEC
The FEC issued this statement today. According to the Commissioners, "Corporations and labor organizations that intend to finance independent expenditures or electioneering communications should:
* Include disclaimers on their communications, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.11;
* Disclose independent expenditures on FEC Form 5, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 109.10; and
* Disclose electioneering communications on FEC Form 9, consistent with FEC regulations at 11 CFR 104.20." The Commissioners intend to undertake a broad rulemaking to address the Court's decision, and various provisions of part 114 of the FEC's regulations will be reviewed.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Reform Group Continues Assault on FEC
The self-styled "reform" interest group, Campaign Legal Center, today issued a press release dressed up as a letter to President Obama, urging him to nominate new FEC Commissioners. As their press release indicates, and as they've said many times before (this time, though, the Citizens United decision brings a new immediacy to the "problem"), "the three Republican FEC Commissioners have repeatedly imposed their own ideological agenda rather than enforce laws enacted by Congress, with the result that our nation’s campaign finance laws have been undermined time and again." There are "three lame-duck, holdover Commissioners" that could be replaced at any time. Problem is, two of these "lame-ducks" are Democrats.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Eliza Carney: Citizens United Fallout Already Being Felt; An Ongoing Case Points Up Just How Dramatically The Court's Ruling Has Changed Judicial Thinking
Eliza Carney has this wide-ranging column on the potential impact of Citizens United. Two observations inside.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, February 01, 2010
FEC Weekly Digest
The latest, available here.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
SCOTUSblog Review of SpeechNow.org v. FEC Oral Argument
SCOTUSblog has a review of arguments here.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
AP: Appeals Court Skeptical of Campaign Finance Rules
AP reports "In the first court hearing since the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance regulations, a federal appeals court seemed poised Wednesday to strike down additional limits on money in politics. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave every indication it would make it easier for independent advocacy groups to raise money for use in campaigns for president and Congress." (Note: the article incorrectly identifies the plaintiff as FreeSpeech.org. The organization is SpeechNow.org.)
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
FEC Statement on Citizens United
The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) issued this statement on the Supreme Court's ruling: "The Commission is considering the impact of the opinion on its existing regulations, as well as its ongoing enforcement processes, and will be providing guidance to the public as soon as possible regarding what steps will be taken to comply fully with the opinion."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Comments Filed In FEC's Latest Coordination Rulemaking
Nine sets of comments have been filed in the Federal Election Commission's (FEC's) latest coordinated communication rulemaking.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Legal Questions Raised Regarding Advocacy Group in Massachusetts
CQ Politics has this report on issue ads aired by Americans for Responsible Health Care in Massachusetts. From the report: "Questions about the group, which began running $200,000 worth of ads in Boston on Wednesday, center on the involvement of New Hampshire Senate candidate William Binnie, a Republican investment banker, who appears in one of the ads. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokeswoman Deirdre Murphy said in a statement that Binnie is breaking the law because 'Senate candidates are, by law, not allowed to form a '527' Issues Advocacy Group and run television advertisements for other candidates.' And she asked whether Brown would denounce the ads and their message. Jeff Cohen, the group's spokesman, acknowledged that Binnie was 'a catalyst' for its formation, but said he 'did not form or fund Americans for Responsible Health Care.'"
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
While Formal Rulemaking Is Pending, FEC Will Not Enforce Regulations Invalidated in EMILY's List v. FEC
The FEC issued this statement, announcing that it will not enforce the three regulations struck down in EMILY's List v. FEC (11 CFR 100.57, 106.6(c) and (f)) while its formal rulemaking on the matter is pending.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Democracy 21 Press Release: Three Rogue Republican FEC Commissioners Reach New Heights of Irresponsibility and Abuse of Office; Issue Opinion That Rejects Supreme Court Legal Conclusion; Change at FEC Long Overdue
Democracy 21 (which consists of lobbyist Fred Wertheimer, previously of Common Cause) has this press release on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC's) recent actions in MUR 6113 (Hollingsworth), which we previously noted here.
While the FEC documents in this case were released before the holidays, Mr. Wertheimer only yesterday issued this latest diatribe against the FEC's Republican Commissioners, and Don McGahn in particular. As Mr. Wertheimer explains, "McGahn’s term as an FEC Commissioner expired last April and he is not eligible for reappointment . . . . McGahn should not even be a Commissioner at this point." He doesn't mention it, but two Democrat-appointed Commissioners are also serving expired terms. Commissioner Walther's term expired in April 2009, at the same time as Commissioner McGahn's. Commissioner Weintraub's term expired in April 2007 (that is not a typo). But why worry about little details?
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
FEC: Congressional Candidates Raised $1.42 Billion In 2007-2008
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced that "House and Senate candidates seeking office in 2007-2008 reported over $1.42 billion in receipts, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. The 2,382 candidates who participated in primary and general election campaigns for the U.S. Congress spent a total of $1.38 billion during the two years. Total receipts of 2008 congressional candidates declined by more than 1% compared with 2006, while total disbursements declined by almost 3%."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Early FEC Enforcement Matters Now Available Online
The remainder of the Federal Election Commission's (FEC's) enforcement action archive is now available online. The files from 1999 to the present have long been readily available. Matters from 1975-1998 have now been added. According to the FEC's press release, "The newly digitized Matters Under Review, or MURs, include documents for close to 4,500 cases, which consist of approximately 770,000 pages of material dating from 1975 through 1998. The documents have been placed in PDF files for each case, and are searchable by case number, name of respondent or complainant, subject matter, opening and closing dates, and statutory or regulatory citations. Within a file, text can be searched by specific words or phrases. The documents are available at http://www.fec.gov/MUR/."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
FEC Commissioners Debate 5-Year Statute of Limitations, Applicability of Equitable Tolling Doctrine
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) may only pursue enforcement actions with respect to violations that occurred within the past 5 years. A 5-year statute of limitations seems simple enough. Not necessarily so. In a recent case (MUR 5903), the Commissioners split 3-3 on an Office of General Counsel recommendation to pursue a case against PBS&J Corporation because they could not agree on whether the statute of limitations had run. While there was no question that the alleged violations had occurred more than 5 years ago, Democratic Commissioners wanted to apply the doctrine of "equitable tolling" - a mechanism which "stops" the statute of limitations from running in certain cases where the violator hides the violation.
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Another NY Times Editorial Critical of Republicans on the FEC
The New York Times has a clever new nickname for the Federal Election Commission in this editorial, titled "The Election Sabatoge Commission." According to the editorial, "No one is in charge these days at the Federal Election Commission, the agency that is supposed to enforce campaign law. Repeated stalemates engineered by Republican members raise the potential for runaway abuses in next year’s Congressional elections. The six-member commission, shared evenly by the two parties, needs a majority for any enforcement action. For months, Republican members have cynically withheld their votes, rejecting staff investigators’ sound recommendations for citations and fines in current cases of obvious abuse. They seem to have completely forgotten why they are there: they are supposed to be enforcing the law, not sabotaging it. . . . But the latest Republican members are blazing a Paleolithic path of regression. . . . As the commission shambles toward the 2010 elections, President Obama must fulfill his 2008 campaign commitment and begin filling the panel with new, truly independent experts. He has that power, if he is willing to buck Congress’s historic preference for party hacks."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
FEC Commissioners Debate the "Promote, Attack, Support, or Oppose" (PASO) Standard in Statements of Reasons
The recently-disclosed MUR 6113 (Hollingsworth) includes two Statements of Reasons, one from the Republican Commissioners on the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and one from Democrat Commissioners Bauerly and Weintraub. The so-called "PASO standard" is discussed in detail.
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Congressman Grayson Challenges Local Citizen and Her Website
According to this report, "A Clermont woman who started a protest website against Congressman Alan Grayson has been contacted by the Federal Election Commission for some answers. . . . Angie Langely doesn't live in Alan Grayson's district, yet she started mycongressmanisnuts.com. She's been able to raise nearly $4000 through the website, asking donors to help her fight against the democrat from Orlando."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Arizona Republic: Grant Woods complains to FEC about Hayworth
The Arizona Republic reports "A former Arizona attorney general
filed a federal complaint Tuesday seeking to stop KFYI radio-talk show host J.D. Hayworth from using his microphone to promote a potential primary race against Sen. John McCain
, R-Ariz.
The complaint filed by Grant Woods with the Federal Election Commission claims Hayworth, a former Republican congressman, cannot use his radio show to further his latest political aspirations. Woods estimates Clear Channel Communications, which broadcasts Hayworth's program, is effectively providing air time to Hayworth that would cost $540,000 each week to rebut in radio ads." Hayworth is talked about as a potential challenger to Sen. McCain in 2010. Woods was formerly McCain's chief of staff.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Politico: FEC members clash over family gifts
From Politico: "Democrats on the Federal Election Commission say that the commission’s GOP members have created a loophole in federal election law that would allow wealthy parents to essentially finance a congressional campaign by one of their children. Two Republicans, Matthew Petersen and Caroline Hunter, say the FEC has failed to take a consistent position on the issue of gifts from family members to congressional candidates, and they signaled that they are unlikely to enforce existing regulations until the commission promulgates a new standard for such cases."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 18, 2009
FEC Unable to Issue Opinion on Whether Corporate PAC May Solicit General Public For Contributions Earmarked For Candidates
For the second time in three years, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was unable to render a decision in an advisory opinion request regarding whether a separate segregated fund (aka a connected PAC, or corporate PAC) may solicit the general public for contributions earmarked to Federal candidates and serve as a conduit for these contributions.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Press Release: FEC Elects Petersen Chairman for 2010, Bauerly to Serve as Vice Chair
Yesterday, "the Federal Election Commission (FEC) unanimously elected Matthew S. Petersen as Chairman and Cynthia L. Bauerly as Vice Chair for 2010. Both Petersen and Bauerly were nominated to the Commission by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Press Release: SENATORS WANT TO SEND FEC BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD ON CORPORATE JETS; Feingold, McCain, Lieberman Introduce Resolution to Reverse FEC’s Action to Gut Corporate Jets Provision
According to this press release on Senator McCain's Senate website, "A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation to reject a Federal Election Commission regulation that would effectively gut Congress’ work to crack down on Senators accepting rides on corporate jets. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the FEC’s decision and require it to redraft the regulation. . . . Under the Congressional Review Act, a resolution of disapproval passed by Congress and signed by the president would make the FEC-passed regulation, including the newly created loophole in the corporate jet provision, ineffective. The FEC would then have to issue a new regulation without the loophole." The Senators' objection to the new FEC rule is mentioned in the last sentence of the press release: "Showing great disrespect for Congress’ intent in HLOGA, the FEC created a loophole in the statute for members’ travel on corporate jets on behalf of someone’s campaign other than their own."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 18, 2009
FEC Issues "Guidebook for Complainants and Respondents on the FEC Enforcement Process"
The FEC has issued this handy guide.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
FEC Acts to "Implement" EMILY's List Decision
The day after the Obama Administration announced its decision not to seek Supreme Court review of EMILY's List v. FEC, the FEC acted to remove the regulations vacated by that decision from the books.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, December 07, 2009
FEC Republicans Respond to Washington Post Editorial on Travel Regulations
The Federal Election Commission's three Republican Commissioners wrote this letter to the editor in response to the Post's November 30 editorial.
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Final FEC Travel Rules Published in Federal Register
The final rules are available here in published form.
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on FEC Travel Regulations
The Philadelphia Inquirer has this editorial on the FEC's new candidate travel rules, and it bears a striking resemblance to a Campaign Legal Center statement/press release.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 04, 2009
CQ Politics: Shays’ Ex-Campaign Manager Indicted
CQ Politics reports that former Representative Christopher Shays' former campaign manager, Michael Sohn, was "indicted on embezzlement and tax evasion charges. Sohn, who is accused of embezzling campaign money, is scheduled to be arraigned Friday. According to the indictment, which was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn., a grand jury found sufficient evidence to charge Sohn with four counts of embezzlement, four counts of false statements in connection with the campaign’s filings with the Federal Election Commission and four counts of tax-related offenses. Also according to the indictment, Sohn is accused of embezzling more than $250,000 from Shays’ 2006 and 2008 campaigns."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
FEC Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen Defends Travel Rules in Roll Call Op-Ed
Federal Election Commission Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen defends the FEC's new travel rules in this Roll Call op-ed. Unfortunately, it will be missed by most because it is available only by Roll Call subscription.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
CQ Politics: Robocall Exemption Has Activists Talking
From CQ Politics: "Political robocalls — automated phone messages from candidates or political organizations — are exempt from the national “do not call” registry that the Federal Trade Commission and Congress established six years ago (PL 108-10). The view of the agency and lawmakers was that such messages should enjoy broad free-speech protections. But that exemption hasn’t stopped a large number of states from imposing restrictions on such calls. Two states, Arkansas and Wyoming, have even banned them. . . . Now an Iowa-based conservative group, [American Future Fund Political Action], is trying to get the state laws overturned. On its behalf last month, the law firm Holtzman Vogel of Warrenton, Va., filed a request with the Federal Election Commission for an advisory opinion on whether federal election law supersedes state laws affecting elections, in the interest of national uniformity."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Roll Call: Watchdogs Attack FEC
Roll Call reports "Ethics reform groups are hitting back against a recent ruling by the Federal Election Commission to relax candidate air travel restrictions. Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and others are trying to devise a strategy to overturn a decision that would allow candidates for Senate, vice president and president to use corporate jets as private air service as long as the candidates say they are traveling for reasons other than their election."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wash. Post Editorial: Even friendlier skies; Federal Election Commission dysfunction is made evident by how senators fly.
The Washington Post has this editorial on the FEC's recently approved candidate travel regulations. As is typical, the Post serves as an echo chamber for the so-called campaign finance "reform" lobby and criticizes the Republican Commissioners for writing a "loophole" into the law. The Post also states that "The larger outrage is the continuing our-way-or-no-way intransigence of the three Republican commissioners." It is the "intransigence" of the Republican Commissioners that has led the FEC to "increasingly deadlock" with 3-3 votes. How the Post can find "intransigence" on only one side of a 3-3 deadlock, but not on the other, remains unexplained. Then again, the press releases and statements from the "reform" lobby that the Post rewrites as its own editorials doesn't explain that point either.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, November 27, 2009
NY Times Editorial: Fly the Sleazy Skies
This New York Times editorial - which echoes the "reform" Campaign Legal Center's recent statement - accuses the FEC of "totally misinterpreting" HLOGA's candidate travel rules in its latest rulemaking. The FEC "gutted the reform" and "[t]his is nonsense by any fair reading of the Senate’s rule, which clearly considers any incumbent an ongoing candidate 24/7, regardless of announced business in hopping a corporate jet."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Sen. Feingold Objects to FEC's Travel Rules
Sen. Feingold released this statement on the FEC's new travel regulations: "Once again, the FEC has proven itself to be a lawless agency, this time by creating an enormous loophole in Congress’s crackdown on corporate jets. The corporate jet provision was a centerpiece of the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, prohibiting senators from getting an enormous corporate subsidy by paying only first class airfare for a flight on a corporate jet. The provision, which I championed with then-Senator Obama and Senator McCain, was approved overwhelmingly by Congress and no one had any doubt about what it meant. By rewriting the law, the FEC has undermined Congress’ comprehensive response to lobbying abuses in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, which the American people so clearly called for. The Commissioners must reverse this decision, or Congress will have to do it for them."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Media Coverage of the FEC's New Travel Regulations
See here for links to media reports on the FEC's newly adopted candidate travel regulations, along with a few notes and comments.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, November 20, 2009
FEC Begins Rulemaking To Revise Regulations Governing Federal Candidate and Officeholder Appearances at State and Local Party Fundraisers
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 19 on "Participation by Federal Candidates and Officeholders at Non-Federal Fundraising Events." The rulemaking was prompted by a 2008 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Shays v. FEC) that invalidated the FEC's previous rule (11 C.F.R. 300.64).
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, November 20, 2009
AP: FEC fines Fieger firm over campaign donations
AP reports "A Michigan law firm has agreed to pay a $131,000 fine to resolve an investigation into donations to former Sen. John Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign. . . . Fieger and his law partner, Ven Johnson, were acquitted in 2008 of illegally funneling campaign money for Edwards' 2004 presidential race. Jurors said the government failed to prove the lawyer knew he was breaking the law. Fieger's lawyer, Michael Dezsi, said the firm decided to pay the fine instead of continuing the litigation. . . . Under the agreement, which was reached in October, the FEC said it found probable cause that the law firm made payments to 66 individuals to reimburse them for $131,000 in contributions to Edwards' presidential campaign. Under campaign finance laws, corporations are barred from making contributions to a candidate and donors are prohibited from contributing in the name of another person."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
FEC Adopts New Candidate Aircraft Travel Rule; Campaign Finance "Reformers" Quickly Lodge Hyperbolic Objection
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) today adopted new regulations governing federal candidate travel on aircraft. The regulations implement a provision of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA). Within hours (barely long enough to read the document), the campaign finance "reformers" at the Campaign Legal Center lodged a hyperbolic objection to the new rules and issued a press release claiming that "the FEC today adopted a final rule gutting restrictions on federal candidate air travel."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
CQ Politics: How a Committee Post Morphs Into Cash Clout
CQ Politics has an interesting piece on how certain prized committee seats can (perhaps) generate more campaign contributions for a Member of Congress. Writes CQ Politics, "How much is one of the coveted spots on the powerful Ways and Means Committee worth to a House member? There’s no exact math to it, but consider: During the first three quarters of the 2007 cycle, Rep. Brian Higgins , D-N.Y., reported $268,000 in campaign contributions. This year, after being tapped for a seat on Ways and Means in January, Higgins had raised $531,000 in contributions through Sept. 30. . . . Six of the 11 new Ways and Means members raised more money during the first three quarters of the 2010 cycle than they did compared with the same time period last cycle, according to a CQ MoneyLine analysis. . . . Eight of the 11 new Ways and Means members received more PAC contributions in the first nine months of 2009 than they did during the same time period in 2007."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, November 16, 2009
CQ Politics: Missed Deadlines Make for PAC-Sized Headaches
According to CQ Politics, "Apparent computer glitches and confusion over new reporting rules for political action committees have ensnared some of the nation’s biggest lobbying organizations, which missed a campaign finance deadline by more than seven months.
Under new rules enacted by the Federal Election Commission this year, PACs are required to report before the end of March whether they are controlled by an entity that is registered to lobby. But such well-known lobbying groups as the National Mining Association, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the National Community Pharmacists Association were among more than 800 PACs that failed to report their K Street ties by the deadline, according to an analysis by CQ MoneyLine."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Is "Wrong For Virginia" Express Advocacy?
Is the tagline "Wrong For Virginia" express advocacy? Politico notes that "Democrats are charging that a U.S. Chamber of Commerce TV ad slamming Rep. Tom Periello (D-Va.) as "Wrong for Virginia" violated federal campaign laws by using corporate cash in a bid to directly impact the outcome of a congressional race. . . . Most of the ad is an in-bounds attack on Perriello's position on health care -- except for the tail -- when the screen shows a grainy picture of Perriello's face, his office number, and the words: 'Wrong on Health Care. Wrong for Virginia.'"
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
USA Today: Candidates pour more of own cash into races
USA Today reports "Congressional candidates have pumped $30 million into their own campaigns this year — 28% more than at this time in 2007 — for special elections and the 2010 races, a USA TODAY analysis shows. Driven partly by a growing number of competitive primaries, self-funding in the first nine months of the year outpaced a 14% rise in all campaign receipts. The number of candidates who gave themselves $500,000 or more jumped to 15 from five in 2007, Federal Election Commission data show."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, November 06, 2009
CCP on Yesterday's FEC Meeting
The Center For Competitive Politics has this run-down of yesterday's FEC meeting.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Columbus Dispatch: FEC votes to render no opinion on Brunner campaign plan
From the Columbus Dispatch: "Calling the facts presented to them confusing and a 'moving target,' Federal Election Commission officials today said they can't give an opinion in a case involving how Democrat Jennifer Brunner's U.S. Senate campaign dealt with property from her defunct Ohio secretary of state campaign committee. The unanimous decision to not render an opinion, one requested by the Brunner Senate campaign, was reached by the bipartisan, six-member commission at a public meeting here this morning." Secretary of State Brunner's request (AOR 2009-25) generated four draft responses before the FEC finally threw in the towel.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, October 30, 2009
CQ Politics: Lobbying From The Great Beyond
More from CQ Politics: "With a little planning, you can lobby Congress from beyond the grave.
Every year, hundreds of Americans continue to make campaign contributions, lobby Congress and in some states cast votes after they have died. And it’s all completely legal."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Politico: FEC puts Obama in a bind
Now that the FEC has announced that it won't seek further review of the EMILY's List decision, does the Obama Administration, through the Solicitor General, ask the Supreme Court to take the case?
Politico explains the political issues behind this question: "The Federal Election Commission has presented the Obama administration with the choice between standing behind President Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric or possibly threatening one of his pet causes – and maybe his reelection chances, not to mention highlighting his differences with his own lawyer, rumored to be under consideration for a top White House post."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Hill: Healthcare lobbyist bundles big bucks for key Senate Democrats' campaigns
The Hill reports "A vital player in the battle over healthcare reform raised the most campaign contributions for Senate Democrats so far this fall, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. Ken Raske, president and CEO of the Greater New York Hospital Association, collected donations worth more than $152,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in September alone, according to the latest FEC reports. . . . Under an ethics law Congress passed in 2007, politicians must report to the FEC lobbyists who have bundled money for their campaigns."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
FEC Announces It Will Not Seek Rehearing in EMILY's List Case
In a press release, the Federal Election Commission announced "The Federal Election Commission will not seek rehearing en banc in EMILY’s List v. FEC." Also, "The Commission will issue guidance to political committees in the near future."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
FEC's Coordination NPRM Published In Today's Federal Register
Available here. Written comments are due by January 19, 2010. Oral hearing dates will be announced later.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Hill: Several lawmakers are putting House campaign accounts to use in state races
According to The Hill, "Of 10 members of Congress seeking state or local office, seven have had to get creative when finding ways to put their House campaign accounts to good use.
Some sent the funds to state and local party committees or to politicians who could help them in their new campaigns; some have conducted polling; and some have refunded contributions to donors in hopes that the money would be sent right back to their new campaign.
The other three lawmakers are allowed to transfer their federal assets directly to their state campaigns.
Federal law doesn’t restrict the use of federal campaign money for nonfederal races, and state law varies on the subject, so some candidates can use their money directly from one campaign to another and others cannot."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
FEC's "Federal Election Activity" NPRM Published in Federal Register
Today. Comments are due November 20, 2009. The FEC will hold hearings on Dec. 16-17, 2009.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Republican Commissioners Issue Concurring Opinion in Black Rock AO (FEC Advisory Opinion 2009-13)
The Federal Election Commission's Republican Commissioners issued a concurring opinion in the recently decided AO 2009-13 (Black Rock Group).
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, October 19, 2009
CQ Politics: Wall Street Bounce Boosts Member Campaign Accounts
CQ Politics notes "The recent surge on Wall Street has created a windfall for some congressional campaigns that invested their political contributions in the stock market during the third quarter. . . . At least seven congressional campaigns received investment profits totaling more than $500,000 during the past three months, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of campaign reports filed by House candidates with the Federal Election Commission. . . . While it may seem unusual for members to invest their political contributions in the market, the practice is legal under current campaign laws. House conflict-of-interest rules also do not apply to campaign holdings, leaving members free to invest their funds pretty much as they please. Unlike their personal investments, members are not required to disclose the stocks their campaigns invest in."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Politico: Obama campaign still loaded
Politico notes that "Even though Obama has transferred his political operation to the DNC, his presidential campaign – which hasn’t accepted a contribution in months – continues to function as a skeleton administrative organization, and was actually in the black in the third quarter of the year." The campaign continues to receive refunds from media buys placed during the campaign. Holtzman Vogel's Jason Torchinsky explains why.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Politico on Campaign Finance "Loopholes"
This article in Politico goes a long way toward proving that in some circles, anything that is actually legal and permissible in campaign finance law must be labeled a "loophole." Politico points out five such "loopholes," including: a candidate loaning his campaign money and being paid back over time; paying family to work on your campaign; and investing campaign funds, all of which are perfectly legal. For good measure, so-called "reformers" provide color commentary throughout the piece.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, October 09, 2009
The Hill: FEC could make GOTV efforts more difficult
From The Hill: "The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has proposed new rules that could make it harder for state and local political parties to pay for voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.
In a notice published Thursday, the commission suggested it may broaden the definition of voter registration activity to include anything aimed at 'encouraging or assisting potential voters in registering to vote.'"
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
FEC Approves Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Revise Coordination Rules
The coordination NPRM is available here.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
FEC Meets Today; Will Coordination Rules Be On The Agenda?
The FEC meets today at 2:00 pm. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the latest Shays v. FEC decision (which invalidated, among other things, the FEC's current coordination rules) appears on the agenda.
One NPRM, addressing the regulatory definitions of "voter registration activity" and "get-out-the-vote activity" is available here.
Proposals addressing coordination and state and local party fundraising events have not yet been issued.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Schedules Dec. 4 Oral Argument in SpeechNow.org v. FEC Appeal
The D.C. Circuit will hear the appeal in SpeechNow.org v. FEC on December 4, 2009. The outcome of the case, however, may have already been decided in the EMILY's List decision.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Politics 101: How to Use the FEC
Politico reports that the Louisiana Democratic Party "plans to" file a complaint with the FEC charging Sen. David Vitter, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and former Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) "of scheming to conceal a contribution from Pickering to Vitter in violation of federal campaign finance laws." According to the Louisiana Democratic Party, "Barbour’s PAC essentially filtered a $5,000 campaign donation from Pickering’s PAC to Louisiana Vitter’s 2010 reelection committee to make it look like the contribution didn’t come directly from Pickering." Politico notes that "While [the complaint] offers no hard evidence of a connection between CHIP PAC’s contribution to Haley’s PAC and the one from Haley’s PAC to Vitter’s campaign, the complaint does describe the political reason Vitter might not want a direct contribution from Pickering."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
FEC To Introduce New Coordination Rule at October 8 Meeting
The FEC has placed a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" on the agenda for its October 8 Open Session. The subject of the NPRM is the implementation of the D.C. Circuit's Shays v. FEC decision, which invalidated the existing coordination rule. The NPRM itself, which will include the Commissioners' proposed new regulations, is not yet available.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
FEC Finally Approves Black Rock AO, Political Committee Question Remains Unanswered
After several delays, the FEC finally approved an Advisory Opinion response in the Black Rock matter (AO 2009-13). The ruling permits single-member LLCs to utilize the services of a consulting firm to make independent expenditures. The FEC was unable to decide, however, if these single-member LLCs could work together and share information when formulating their independent expenditures. In refusing to decide this question, the FEC ignored the recent EMILY's List court decision, and the advice of 11 Democratic election lawyers.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Brad Smith: Will EMILY's List be appealed?
Brad Smith considers whether the FEC will appeal the EMILY's List decision. He concludes the Commissions will not.
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
New York Times: Election Commission Decisions Deadlocking on Party Lines
With most of the recent news being about free speech victories in court, the New York Times tries to keep the "FEC deadlocks" theme alive with this piece.
To its credit, the Times quotes a free speech advocate to provide some balance to Fred Wertheimer's hyperbole, and even acknowledges that the "deadlocks" largely reflect genuine disagreement over the constitutional limits of campaign finance regulation, as seen in recent court cases. As the Times notes, "Indeed, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has taken an increasing deregulatory view of campaign finance. In the recent re-argument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the chief justice commented that 'we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of F.E.C. bureaucrats.' And, following the Supreme Court’s lead, the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia, ruling this month in a case involving the group Emily’s List, loosened election spending restrictions on nonprofits and other independent political groups."
Still, the Times does return to the tired "news" that the FEC Republicans rejected a settlement agreement with a "novice" candidate (the Sekhon case, made public in June 2009) and voted against taking action (in October 2008) against the November Fund, a 527 organization.
In related news, Republican FEC Commissioner Don McGahn said to BNA Money & Politics in a recent interview that he felt vindicated by the court's decision in the EMILY's List case. According to BNA, "McGahn also referred to the fact that he and other FEC Republicans were criticized by Democratic-appointed colleagues, campaign reform groups, and others when they voted in a number of recent FEC enforcement cases to find that the activities of independent groups — often known and Section 527 groups or 501(c) groups — were constitutionally protected and should not be penalized."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
ProPublica: Leadership PACs: Let the Good Times Roll
ProPublica has this piece on Leadership PACs in the Washington Post.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
National Law Journal: Prosecutors Find Allies in Campaign Contributions Case Against Attorney
The FEC and CREW have both filed amicus briefs in the government's appeal of the Pierce O'Donnell case. National Law Journal has the details.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
FEC Chairman Walther's Statement on the EMILY's List Decision
Chairman Walther's statement is here. The FEC has not yet decided whether to appeal.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
CCP: 'Reformers' v. Reality after EMILY's List decision
The Center for Competitive Politics has this posting on the immediate reaction to the EMILY's List decision.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Newsweek: Why Is John Edwards Still Spending Campaign Money?
Newsweek notes that "Since January, the John Edwards for President committee along with a separate account, Edwards for President, have spent more than $625,000, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Hill: Bundling rule doesn’t capture all |