Politico published “FEC can’t explain secrecy” by Dave Levinthal.

The Hill posted “Lawmakers demand FEC documents, threaten subpoena” by Debbie Siegelbaum and Kevin Bogardus.

The FEC provided this press release and the text of the joint statement delivered to the oversight hearing.

The Boston Globe’s Political Intelligence just published this article, “Transparency groups lash out at FEC, Obama” by Donovan Slack.

Here are some of the questions the article raises: “… [C]an foreign companies with some US operations legally contribute to US elections? In the past, foreign citizens and companies have been barred from spending money in the American political system. Also unanswered: Should American organizations who spend money to influence elections have to disclose the source of the money?”

Bruce Watson offers an opinion piece called “Really Want to Influence Politicians? Stop Donating to Campaigns” on AOL’s Daily Finance page. Watson puts particular focus on the increase in fundraising by the members of the Super Committee. He references a recent study by the Project On Government Oversight. As we recall, Politico offered a bit of a different view with “Supercommittee panelists don’t cash in” by Abby Phillip.

A Federal constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance is being introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennett.

The amendment, a response to last year’s Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, grants Congress and the states the power to “regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents” in their laws for their respective elections.

The bill allows the government to set limits on both the amount of direct political contributions to candidates and the amount of independent expenditures that may be made in support of or in opposition to those candidates.

According to his press release, Senator Udall states, “With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A different constitutional amendment addressing the Citizen’s United decision was introduced in September by Congressman John Conyers. Information about that amendment may be found in a prior LobbyComply post here.

Individuals with federal contracts should be allowed to make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties, a lawsuit filed yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues.

The suit, Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the constitutionality of section 441c of Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits any vendors with contracts with the federal government from making such contributions.

According to its press release, the ACLU is asking the Court, on behalf of the three named plaintiffs, to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies. Because federal workers who are not contractors may make federal political contributions, while contractors performing the same work may not, the suit argues section 441c violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

Photo of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia courtesy of the Court’s website.

Today’s scheduled House Subcommittee hearing with the FEC’s Commissioners has been postponed.

The Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections has not yet chosen a new date for the hearing.

All six Commissioners from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) are slated to appear before a House Subcommittee tomorrow at 3pm.

The Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections has designated the scheduled meeting “Federal Election Commission: Reviewing Policies, Processes and Procedures.”

Among its other election-related duties, the Subcommittee on Elections oversees the FEC.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is soliciting comments for possible regulations concerning exceptions to its rules regarding disclaimers on internet communications, hoping to glean insights to keep pace with the rapidly evolving technological advances available to practitioners of campaign finance.

In its draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FEC invites comments addressing the ways that campaigns, political committees, and others use or may soon use the internet, mobile devices, and other technologies to disseminate and receive campaign and other electoral information. The Commission is also interested in possible modifications and technological alternatives to the current disclaimer requirements, and data or experiences “in purchasing, selling, or distributing small or character-limited advertisements online.”

The FEC anticipates any final rules would not become effective until after the 2011-2012 election cycle.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will no longer prohibit nonconnected political committees from accepting corporate and labor organization contributions, provided the political committee maintains and deposits those contributions into separate bank accounts.

The Commission will also not limit the amounts permissible sources can contribute to such accounts.

In an statement released by the FEC, it stated, consistent with its agreement to a stipulated order and consent judgment in Carey v. FEC, it would no longer enforce 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3), as well as any implementing regulations, against any nonconnected political committee with regard to contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations, and labor organizations under certain conditions.

A single committee may now contribute directly to candidates and political committees, and make independent expenditures, separating the funds only by using two separate bank accounts. The committee must maintain the statutory limits on the solicitation of funds used for direct contributions while it may simultaneously seek unlimited funds for use in their independent expenditures.

The FEC intends to develop new regulations and amend its reporting forms. Until that time, the Commission says committees should follow the procedures the FEC outlines in its current statement, which is located here.

This post follows up  previous articles by George Ticoras, “FEC Agrees Not to Enforce Some Laws Against NDPAC” and “One PAC Is Enough.”

Disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show that U.S. House and Senate candidates set a new record in campaign fundraising for the first half of 2011. The total was more than $285 million dollars.

Here is the Federal Election Commission’s news release from August 24. The FEC also has great interactive campaign finance maps for both Presidential Campaigns as well as House and Senate Elections. The maps offer campaign finance information down to the zip code level for the current and previous election cycles.

You can read Emily Goodin’s story “House and Senate candidates raise $285.2 million in first half of 2011” from The Hill.

Alex Knott offers “Election Fundraising Sets Records in First Half of 2011” in Roll Call.

The Federal Election Commission has entered into a Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment with the National Defense PAC (NDPAC) agreeing not to enforce some provisions of law regarding contribution limits for political committees and candidates.

These provisions, 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(c) and 441a(a)(3), were ruled unenforceable by the District Court in a prior decision, Carey v. FEC. Prior to the District Court’s decision, the FEC had been unable to issue a binding resolution for an earlier NDPAC advisory opinion request.

As a single committee, the NDPAC may now contribute directly to candidates and political committees, and make independent expenditures, separating the funds only by using two separate bank accounts. It must maintain the statutory limits on the solicitation of funds used for direct contributions while it may simultaneously seek unlimited funds for use in their independent expenditures. While the Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment specifically regards the FEC withholding enforcement of the law as it applies to NDPAC, it does not address other PACs utilizing the same procedures for solicitation and separation of funds.

This post updates a previous article by George Ticoras, “One PAC is Enough” from June 15, 2011.

A Federal Court has ruled aliens who are in the United States on temporary work visas may not make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties.

In Bluman v FEC, the court upheld 2 U.S.C §441(e)(a), which prohibits contributions from individuals living in the U.S. but not admitted for permanent residency. The federal statute was challenged by two foreign citizens living in the United States who want to make direct contributions to candidates and political parties.

In upholding the law, the court wrote in its decision, “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”

An advisory opinion request seeking to lift the requirement of the 24- and 48-hour reporting of independent expenditures for bulk e-mailing during the 2012 presidential primaries has been filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Western Representation PAC (WRPAC), which has 140,000 e-mail addresses, and estimates it will have 500,000 by the end of the year, intends to send the entire list an indeterminate number of e-mail messages during the more than 24 president primaries in 2012. The frequency of messages would range “from as few as four a month to as many as thirty, depending on the unpredictable political developments of the day and the fluctuating urgencies of the primary season.”

Because WRPAC will be paying a fixed monthly price for the e-mail service, and because the number of e-mails is unpredictable, WRPAC is asking the FEC to grant an exemption from the 24- and 48-hour reporting requirement, stressing the difficulty in determining what share of the fixed monthly price would apply in order to determine whether a reporting requirement would be triggered across the various different primary dates. WRPAC’s request includes several scenarios to illustrate the burdens on WRPAC’s planned independent expenditures, arguing “that they rise to the level of an infringement on WRPAC’s First Amendment rights.”

You can find the press release here.

The Federal Election Commission issued two advisory opinions today, including one allowing federal candidates to solicit contributions for independent expenditure-only political committees (IEOPC) up to $5,000.

In AO 2011-12 revised draft A, which was approved unanimously by the six commissioners, the FEC held solicitations by federal candidates are restricted to the applicable “limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements” of 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1)(a). While an IEOPC may accept unlimited contributions, the commission held the law still restricts the contribution amount a federal candidate may solicit. Therefore, although federal officeholders and candidates, and officers of national party committees cannot solicit unlimited contributions for an IEOPC, they may still make solicitations within the monetary strictures of the amended Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

The advisory opinion also concluded federal officeholders and candidates, and national party officers, may attend, speak at, and be featured guests at fundraisers held by an IEOPC, even when unlimited contributions are simultaneously being solicited from corporations, individuals, and labor organizations. The federal candidate would have to restrict their personal solicitation at the event to the amounts limited by the law.

A second advisory opinion was also issued granting Viacom a press exemption from reporting expenses as contributions, with some exceptions, for its employee Stephen Colbert’s new political action committee, which Mr. Colbert intends to use a vehicle for commentary on the current state of campaign finance.

Elizabeth Bartz offers a few more pictures from after Stephen Colbert’s appearance at the Federal Election Commission’s open meeting today: