The first piece of legislation introduced into the new U.S. House of Representative was a sweeping 571-page campaign finance bill. Introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes, House Bill 1, the For the People Act, requires any organization involved in political activity to disclose its largest donors, creates a multiple matching system for small donations for political campaigns, and amends rules governing super PACs.

The bill also restructures the Federal Election Commission, amends the federal conflict of interest law, and expands the revolving door provision by prohibiting members of Congress from serving on corporate boards. If passed, the bill also requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, prohibits partisan gerrymandering, increases oversight over election vendors, creates an automatic voter registration across the country, and changes registration requirements for lobbyists and foreign agents.

Sarbanes argued the rational for the bill in his press release, stating, “The bold, transformative set of reforms that we introduced today will strengthen our democracy and return political power to the people by making it easier, not harder, to vote, ending the dominance of big money in our politics and ensuring that public officials actually serve the public.”

On December 13, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) may consider whether allowing an individual volunteering to allow the processing power of his or her internet-enabled device to mine cryptocurrencies for the benefit a political committee would be considered a political contribution.

An advisory opinion request asks the FEC if a federal political committee could allow its individual supporters to volunteer the processing power of their internet-enabled devices to pool the processing power of these devices, which results in the mining of a “block.”

Mining allows transactions between users to be authenticated and generates a new cryptocurrency unit for the miner as a reward for creating the “block” and pays the miner a transaction fee. Creating blocks requires enormous amounts of computing power and can take years to generate a valid “block” by a single miner.

The FEC may consider Draft Advisory Opinion 2018-13 (Draft A) at its open meeting December 13, or hold it over for a future date.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is seeking public comments on proposals for rules establishing specific time periods for the submission of public comments on drafts of advisory opinions. These comments must be submitted on or before February 1, 2019.

In 2016, a Petition for Rulemaking was received by the FEC requesting the Commission modify 11 CFR §112.3 and codify procedures establishing specific time periods for public comments on drafts of advisory opinions before the Commission votes on the drafts.

The petition, filed by Make Your Laws PAC, Inc., Make Your Laws Advocacy, Inc., Make Your Laws, Inc., and Dan Backer, Esq., additionally asks the Commission to amend existing regulations to require that, when the Commission makes public multiple drafts of an advisory opinion, the Commission indicate the differences between those drafts.

After the comment period is over, the FEC will consider the merits of the petition. The notice of availability for the submission of public comments was issued in the December 3 Federal Register.

On November 15, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released the OIG’s Statement on the FEC’s Management and Performance Challenges for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018.

An independent audit of the FEC was performed by Leon Snead & Company, P.C. under contract with, and monitored by, the OIG.

The report identifies “a significant deficiency in internal controls related to IT security and contains recommendations to address the deficiencies noted.” The audit “disclosed no instance of noncompliance that is required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards and the OMB audit bulletin.”

The auditing firm also believes corrective action is required “related to control issues dealing with reconciling trading partner transactions.”

Additionally, the audit also attributed low employee morale at the FEC to factors including the commissioners themselves and the commission’s communication.

The public has until November 16 to comment on a petition to expand federal regulations concerning the personal use of campaign funds taken from leadership PACs.

A petition for rulemaking received by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in July seeks to revise and amend 11 CFR §113.1(g), which regulates the personal use of campaign funds. The petitioners want the regulation to also apply to leadership PAC funds.

Public comments must be submitted in writing to the FEC on or before November 16, 2018, to be considered during the formulation of the proposed rule. Comments may be submitted electronically at http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/rulemaking.htm?pid=2933211.

The Commission does not consider a petition’s merits until after the comment period closes. If the FEC decides a petition has merit, it then begins a rulemaking proceeding.

On October 4, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued new guidance on the reporting of political contributions made to nonprofit organizations making certain independent expenditures.

The guidance, released in an FEC press release, was issued in reaction to a federal court’s decision in CREW v FEC, which ruled a campaign finance disclosure regulation followed for decades by the FEC failed to uphold disclosure requirements required by a federal statute.

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for The District of Columbia found the FEC regulation 11 CFR §109.10(e)(1)(vi), did not comport with the statutory disclosure requirements of 52 U.S.C. §30104(c).

The district court found the regulation impermissibly narrowed the mandated disclosure in 52 U.S.C. §30104(c)(2)(C), which requires the identification of donors contributing for the purpose of furthering the non-political committee’s own express advocacy for or against the election of a federal candidate, even when the donor has not expressly directed the funds be used in the precise manner reported.

On September 18, a ruling invalidating a federal campaign finance regulation limiting the disclosure requirements of organizations making independent expenditures was upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

The Court overruled a stay issued on September 15 by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., which had blocked a lower federal district court’s order invalidating a Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance disclosure regulation. There were no dissents issued with the order.

Robert’s stay was decided on Saturday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an emergency motion for the stay made earlier the same day. On August 3, a federal district court had ruled a campaign finance disclosure regulation followed for decades by the FEC failed to uphold disclosure requirements required by a federal statute. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for The District of Columbia issued an order, in CREW v. FEC, vacating 11 C.F.R. §109.10(e)(1)(vi), but stayed the vacatur for 45 days to give time for the FEC to issue interim regulations comporting with the statutory disclosure requirements of 52 U.S.C. §30104(c). The FEC has not yet replaced the rule.

The case originated because of independent expenditures made in a 2012 Ohio senate race by the non-political social-welfare nonprofit Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS), an affiliate of the American Crossroads Super PAC. Crossroads GPS did not report donors when reporting its independent expenditures, while it acknowledged receiving contributions over $200, arguing the donors did not donate funds directly tied to any specific reported expenditure, as the FEC interpreted 11 C.F.R. §109.10(e)(1)(vi) to require.

Non-political committees making independent expenditures over $250 in a calendar year must comply with disclosure obligations closely analogous to those imposed on political committees. The vacated regulation required the identification of each person who made a contribution in excess of $200 to the person filing a disclosure report, including for non-political 501(c)(4) non-profit entities making independent expenditures, if the contribution was made for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure.

The district court found the regulation, as construed and applied by the FEC, did not require the disclosure of donors, absent the donor’s express agreement that the funds be used for the specific expenditures reported to the FEC, even though the donor may otherwise support and in fact contribute for the purpose of funding those expenditures.

The district court found the regulation impermissibly narrows the mandated disclosure in 52 U.S.C. §30104(c)(2)(C), which requires the identification of such donors contributing for the purpose of furthering the non-political committee’s own express advocacy for or against the election of a federal candidate, even when the donor has not expressly directed that the funds be used in the precise manner reported.

On September 15th, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr. issued an order staying a lower federal district court’s order invalidating a Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance disclosure regulation. Robert’s stay was decided on Saturday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an emergency motion for the stay made earlier the same day.

On August 3, a federal district court had ruled a campaign finance disclosure regulation, followed for decades by the FEC, failed to uphold disclosure requirements required by a federal statute. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for The District of Columbia issued an order, in CREW v. FEC, vacating 11 C.F.R. §109.10(e)(1)(vi), but stayed the vacatur for 45 days to give time for the FEC to issue interim regulations comporting with the statutory disclosure requirements of 52 U.S.C. §30104(c). The court also has allowed the FEC 30 days to change an earlier FEC dismissal to conform with the court’s ruling.

The case originated because of independent expenditures made in a 2012 Ohio senate race by the non-political social-welfare nonprofit Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS), an affiliate of the American Crossroads Super PAC. Crossroads GPS did not report donors when reporting its independent expenditures, while it acknowledged receiving contributions over $200, arguing the donors did not donate funds directly tied to any specific reported expenditure, as the FEC interpreted 11 C.F.R. §109.10(e)(1)(vi) to require. Non-political committees making independent expenditures over $250 in a calendar year must comply with disclosure obligations closely analogous to those imposed on political committees.

The vacated regulation required the identification of each person who made a contribution in excess of $200 to the person filing a disclosure report, including for non-political 501(c)(4) non-profit entities making independent expenditures, if the contribution was made for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure. The district court found the regulation, as construed and applied by the FEC, did not require the disclosure of donors, absent the donor’s express agreement that the funds be used for the specific expenditures reported to the FEC, even though the donor may otherwise support and in fact contribute for the purpose of funding those expenditures.

The district court found the regulation impermissibly narrows the mandated disclosure in 52 U.S.C. §30104(c)(2)(C), which requires the identification of such donors contributing for the purpose of furthering the non-political committee’s own express advocacy for or against the election of a federal candidate, even when the donor has not expressly directed that the funds be used in the precise manner reported.

On August 3, a federal court ruled a campaign finance disclosure regulation, followed for decades by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), failed to uphold disclosure requirements required by a federal statute. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for The District of Columbia issued an order, in CREW v. FEC, vacating 11 C.F.R. §109.10(e)(1)(vi), but stayed the vacatur for 45 days to give time for the FEC to issue interim regulations comporting with the statutory disclosure requirements of 52 U.S.C. §30104(c). The court also has allowed the FEC 30 days to change an earlier FEC dismissal to conform with the court’s ruling.

The case originated because of independent expenditures made in a 2012 Ohio senate race by the non-political social-welfare nonprofit Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS), an affiliate of the American Crossroads Super PAC. Crossroads GPS did not report donors when reporting its independent expenditures, while it acknowledged receiving contributions over $200, arguing the donors did not donate funds directly tied to any specific reported expenditure, as the FEC interpreted 11 C.F.R. §109.10(e)(1)(vi) to require. Non-political committees making independent expenditures over $250 in a calendar year must comply with disclosure obligations closely analogous to those imposed on political committees.

The vacated regulation required the identification of each person who made a contribution in excess of $200 to the person filing a disclosure report, including for non-political 501(c)(4) non-profits entities making independent expenditures, if the contribution was made for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure. The court found the regulation, as construed and applied by the FEC, did not require the disclosure of donors, absent the donor’s express agreement that the funds be used for the specific expenditures reported to the FEC, even though the donor may otherwise support and in fact contribute for the purpose of funding those expenditures. The court found the regulation impermissibly narrows the mandated disclosure in 52 U.S.C. §30104(c)(2)(C), which requires the identification of such donors contributing for the purpose of furthering the non-political committee’s own express advocacy for or against the election of a federal candidate, even when the donor has not expressly directed that the funds be used in the precise manner reported.

At the May 24 meeting of the Federal Election Commission, Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub resubmitted proposals for the commission to reconsider concerning whether to engage in a rulemaking to protect future U.S. elections from foreign interference.

As stated in her May 17 memorandum to the commission, the proposals were initially brought in both September 2016 and June 2017. The impetus for her new request was a bipartisan joint statement released by Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner, in which they both call for better efforts to combat foreign interference in federal elections.

This request to be considered at the commission’s meeting can be found here.

Ahead of its June 27 rulemaking hearing, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has posted examples of internet disclaimers on its website. Currently, the FEC is accepting comments from the public concerning a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on REG 2011-02 (Internet Communication Disclaimers).

The proposals in the FEC notice deal with internet communications containing express advocacy, soliciting contributions, or internet communications made by political committees. The FEC says its goal “is to promulgate a rule that in its text and interpretation recognizes the paramount importance of providing the public with the clearest disclosure of the payor or sponsor of these public communications on the internet.”

The FEC notice also requests comments concerning a proposed change to the definition of “public communication.” The illustrative examples of internet disclaimers are available to view here.

The FEC voted unanimously 4-0 to allow New York Congressional candidate Liuba Grechen Shirley to spend her campaign funds on childcare.

In her petition, she cited two cases where male candidates requested to use donor funds for limited childcare expenses.

The FEC ruled in an advisory opinion that Shirley’s expenses would not have existed if it weren’t for her run for office, and will therefore apply to any future candidates who may run for office.

Shirley said, “This groundbreaking decision will remove a major financial obstacle for working families and mothers at a time when women are increasingly considering elected office.”

Photo of Liuba Grechen Shirley via Facebook

On April 26, among the items the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is scheduled to consider will be a directive concerning FEC rules when the commission has fewer than four members.

On April 19, Chair Caroline C. Hunter submitted a memo to the FEC stating her intent to ask the Office of the General Counsel to prepare a pubic memorandum analyzing the current laws and rules applicable when the commission has fewer than four members, the number needed for a quorum. Hunter also wants the commission to seek public comment on this issue after the Office of General Counsel’s memorandum is submitted to the FEC.

Additionally, the commission is scheduled to consider examples of internet communication disclaimers, which will be circulated at the meeting.

On March 20, a federal court found the Federal Election Commission (FEC) failed to interpret campaign finance laws correctly as applied to an outside group’s political activity during the 2010 federal elections.

In 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had brought a complaint to the FEC alleging American Action Network (AAN), an outside nonprofit entity that ran nearly $18 million in television advertisements just before the 2010 federal midterm elections, was a “political committee” and subject to federal disclosure requirements.

A majority of the commissioners did not find “reason to believe” that AAN violated any law and the complaint was dismissed. Crew appealed the FEC decision to the United States District Court for The District of Columbia.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper found the FEC’s analysis used to determine whether AAN was a political committee “was inconsistent with the governing statutes,” granted summary judgment in favor of CREW, and remanded the matter back to FEC to address CREW’s initial complaint again.