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.

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) 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.”

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued an Advisory Opinion stating a “project” created by a trade association may make certain communications to the general public asking individuals to contribute directly to particular federal candidates.

The Utah Bankers Association (U.B.A.) had requested the Advisory Opinion. It intends to solicit the general public through its website and e-mail, as well as through the website of “Friends of Traditional Banking,” a project created for this purpose. There will be no coordination with any candidate and no contributions will be accepted or forwarded to federal candidate’s committees.

In Advisory Opinion 2011-14, the Commission concluded the expenses for soliciting contributions through a trade association’s own website and e-mail is not an in-kind contribution because an internet communication is not a “public communication” if it “is not placed for a fee on another person’s website,” and therefore does not meet the content prong test of coordinated communications. The Commission also found U.B.A.’s plan is not “electioneering communications” which are limited to broadcast, cable, or satellite communications

Other questions related to the U.B.A. request were also addressed in the opinion.

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.

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.

Federal:

Colbert Declares Victory at FEC

FEC Limits Lawmakers’ Fundraising for Super PACs

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

Gambling Trial Highlights Fees Paid to Legislators

Arizona

Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law

Florida

Judge Strikes Down Florida Campaign Finance Matching Law

Illinois

Jury Finds Blagojevich Guilty of Corruption

Massachusetts

Ethics Changes Generate Talk as Proposal to Require Lobbyists to Wear ID Badges Is Likened to Nazi Germany

Massachusetts

Special Education Director Said to Siphon $10 Million

Missouri

Missouri Lawmakers Eat for Free

Nevada

Tougher Nevada Campaign Money Laws Come into Play

New York

New Contribution Rule Limits Assignments to Elected Judges

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Ethics Commission Reprimands NRA Lobbyist

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Justices in Altercation

State and Federal Communications produces a weekly summary of national news, offering more than 80 articles per week focused on ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance.

News You Can Use is a news service provided at no charge only to clients of our online Executive Source Guides, or ALERTS™ consulting clients.

Jim Sedor is editor of News You Can Use.

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

Elizabeth Bartz, President and CEO of State and Federal Communications is attending the Federal Election Commission Open Meeting where Stephen Colbert will be answering questions about his super PAC. You can follow her tweets covering the event at @ElizabethBartz. Be sure to follow Dan Backer’s @DBCapStrategies tweets – he is also covering the event.

There is a live broadcast of the FEC Open Meeting here.

Listen live to this meeting.

Elizabeth Bartz tweets: “We are starting. Mr. Colbert’s request is first. Then there will be a break so people can leave.”

Here are a few pictures she took while waiting for and from inside the event:

At a meeting yesterday, the Federal Election Commission discussed Facebook’s request for a waiver from being required to have disclaimer statements revealing who paid for political ads that appear on its social network.

According to the FEC site, “The Commission discussed and voted on two draft Advisory Opinions but did not reach consensus on either draft. In its request, Facebook asked whether its small, character-limited ads qualify for the ‘small items’ or ‘impracticable’ exceptions from the disclaimer requirements of the Act and Commission regulations.”

According to the FEC, an “impracticable exception does not apply to Facebook’s ads” because Facebook determines the size of the ads itself and is not limited in space by the medium. The commission says there are technological solutions for providing the necessary disclaimers. Citing the California Fair Political Practices Commission‘s regulations regarding ads, the FEC said the solution may be found by using “roll-over displays,” placing disclaimers on landing pages, or by “other technological means.”

The Hill reported today on the issue in: “Both parties back Facebook’s request for waiver on campaign ads” by Gautham Nagesh. As the article points out, “Facebook will continue to sell ads to candidates and campaigns and … [c]andidates such as President Obama have already begun running campaign ads on the ubiquitous social network.”

Here is the FEC page with links to the advisory opinion drafts.