A Federal District Court denied a preliminary injunction request demanding the Federal Election Commission (FEC) not enforce a law prohibiting individuals with federal contracts from making political contributions to federal candidates or political parties.

In Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court rejected challenges to 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.

The case, brought by the ACLU, asked the Court 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 argued section 441c violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

In denying the preliminary injunction request, the Court concluded the plaintiffs do not have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

A US District Court has declared a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation regarding disclosure for “electioneering communications” invalid.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia found FEC regulation 11 CFR §104.20(c)(9), which requires disclosure only of those making contributions over $1,000 to an entity for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications, contradicts the statute which requires disclosure of all donors making contributions over $1,000.

Concluding the FEC does not have the authority to narrow the disclosure requirement required by law, the Court declared the regulation invalid by granting the plaintiff, U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen, summary judgment.

The FEC had argued for the need for the regulation after FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), which concluded corporations and labor organizations were permitted to make expenditures for electioneering communications that did not constitute express advocacy or its functional equivalent. The commission believed requiring only disclosure of funds earmarked for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications appropriately provided the public with adequate disclosure information.

Addressing this argument in the decision, District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote, “The [FEC] cannot unilaterally decide to take on a quintessentially legislative function; if sound policy suggests that the statute needs tailoring in the wake of WRTL or Citizens United, it is up to Congress to do it.”

Our Highlighted Site of the Week is the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) new Campaign Finance Disclosure Portal. The site was announced just yesterday and offers powerful resources allowing the visitor to access campaign finance data sets and perform advanced segmentation. The types of information included are independent expenditures; bundled contributions; candidate and committee summaries; receipts, disbursements, and a cash summary for PACs and National Party committees; leadership PAC and sponsor data; and much more.

According to the FEC’s news release: “The Commission announced the release of a new campaign finance disclosure portal that will simplify access to the wide range of data available on the agency’s website. The disclosure portal provides a single point of entry to federal campaign finance data.”

Information can be accessed through interactive maps, easily readable charts, or by searching with a name or keyword. Data sets can also be downloaded as XSD, XML, or CSV files in order to perform your own analysis or data mashup.

The FEC promises the Campaign Finance Disclosure Portal will be regularly updated throughout the election cycle. With both the site and its Disclosure Data Blog, you can subscribe to its feed via RSS so that you can keep up with any updates.

Enjoy your weekend everyone!

An advisory opinion request seeking to end the current aggregate limit on the contributions an individual may make to federal candidates has been made to the Federal Election Commission.

The request, made on behalf of Shaun McCutcheon, seeks to allow him to make political contributions to several federal candidates that would exceed the two-year aggregate limit currently set at $46,200 as provided in 2 U.S.C §441a(a)(3)(A).

The primary argument in the advisory opinion request argues the limit is unconstitutional because it violates a citizen’s right to speak and to associate with not just any candidate, but every candidate of his choosing.

If the FEC grants the request, Mr. McCutcheon plans to contribute amounts of $2,500 and $1,776 to 26 federal candidates

The Times Developer Network is now offering data from reports received by the Federal Election Commission through its Campaign Finance API (application programming interface). What was once a set of reports updated weekly, or in some cases daily, is now updated every 15 minutes.

You can find campaign finance information for the presidential and congressional candidates, PACs and super PACs, electronic filings by date and type, independent expenditures, and electioneering communications.

For the full story, be sure to read “Campaign Finance Data in Real Time” by Derek Willis in The New York Times.

You’ll be interested to also see “Campaign finance updates in real time? There’s an API for that” by Meranda Watling in 10,000 Words.

U.S. Congressman Chris Van Hollen has introduced a campaign finance bill in the House called DISCLOSE 2012 Act.

Like the similarly entitled bill introduced and defeated in 2010, House Resolution 4010, the Disclosure of Information on Spending on Campaigns Leads to Open and Secure Elections Act of 2012, aims to increase the reporting requirements of political expenditures and contributions by corporations and other outside groups.

Corporations, unions, and other groups, will be required to report certain campaign-related activity to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), to disclose their campaign-related expenditures to their shareholders and members, and to make their political spending available to the public, through a hyper-link to the FEC, on their websites.

In his press release, Congressman Van Hollen states, “I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the DISCLOSE 2012 Act.”

Additionally, the bill also requires lobbyists to disclose their political expenditures in their lobbying disclosure reports in conjunction with the report of their lobbying activities.

Our Highlighted Site of the Week is the Federal Election Commission’s 2012 Campaign Finance Maps page. You can play with interactive maps of the states for information about the 2012 Presidential Candidates, or the House and Senate elections.

With just a mouse-over you can view the amount of contributions by state, and with just a bit more work you can search the amount received by each candidate, and the amount given by a donor’s name.

For the presidential races, you can drill down in each state for data down to the zip code level. For the candidates in the congressional elections, you can view the campaign finance information by the congressional district of each state.

According to their announcement, you can now view the following on your mobile phone:

• presidential candidate summary data
• a calendar with dates for commission meetings, reporting deadlines, conferences, advisory opinions, and litigation
• an audio archive of recent hearings
• the FEC YouTube channel
• The FEC Twitter feed

FEC Chair Cynthia Bauerly said, “I am pleased to announce the launch of the FEC’s new mobile interface. … I greatly appreciate the efforts of the agency staff who worked on this project, which will further the FEC’s mission of disclosing campaign finance data.”

Here is the FEC’s press release about the new pages.

You can find Politico’s coverage in “Super PACs go stealth through first contests” by Dave Levinthal and Kenneth P. Vogel.

According to the article, some in the Federal Election Commission are calling for a change of the rules to allow for greater disclosure:

The disclosure rules may need to be updated to reflect the rise of super PACs as driving forces in presidential politics, two Democratic FEC commissioners suggested in interviews with POLITICO. “Super PACs are functioning as the alter egos of the campaigns, and their activity was clearly not anticipated when the statutes were put in place,” said Ellen Weintraub, a Democratic FEC appointee. The commission, she said, “should reconsider the regulations about caucuses and disclosure or at least take a hard look at them.”

The 6 member Federal Election Commission, split equally along partisan lines, is often seen “hanging each other out to dry”.

In an article posted on Politico, Republican member of the FEC, Don McGahn states, “These public spats we have are very, very healthy. It’s a healthy ugly.” McGahn himself tore pages of regulations out of a book during a hearing, letting the scraps fall in order to prove a point to his Democratic colleagues whom he accused of disregarding their own rules.

With court decisions such as Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, the FEC has had more trouble than ever making decisions regarding campaign finance, and leaving politicians and their benefactors unsure what regulations they have to follow.

During the upcoming election season, the members of the FEC will have to set aside their differences so that they may set concrete campaign finance guidelines for the United States.

To read more, read FEC dysfunction not just politics, it’s personal by Dave Levinthal and Robin Bravender.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has issued an advisory opinion approving plans of a for-profit company’s mobile-based financial processing platform to collect and distribute funds to candidates, committees, and PACs.

GivingSphere, which allows individuals to make donations to charitable groups through the internet and mobile devices, requested an opinion about implementing contributions to political entities. Customer funds for contributions are accumulated by rebates earned by purchasing goods from merchants who participate in the GivingSphere affiliate program.

Advisory Opinion 2011-19 allows GivingSphere to transmit its customers’ funds in the form of political contributions. Additionally, the company may sell advertising space to political committees on its website, provide a searchable database of political committees to its customers, and permit political committees to post a ‘badge’ of the GivingSphere on their website.

Because GivingSphere is merely processing contributions, it will not be subject to any reporting requirements. The FEC press release can be found here.

The Federal Election Commission has received an advisory opinion request asking if an independent expenditure-only PAC may use incumbent members of congress in its advertisements.

Independent expenditure PAC American Crossroads has formally requested it be allowed to produce and distribute television and radio advertisements featuring on camera footage or voice-overs of incumbent members of congress up for re-election. Conceding the purpose of the ads would be to improve the public’s perception of the congress member, the advertisements would focus on policy and legislative issues.

American Crossroads is seeking confirmation and guidance as to whether the advertisements qualify as coordinated communications, are in-kind contributions, or may limit the PAC’s ability to independently expend funds in favor of the candidate.

The advisory opinion request can be found here.

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.