The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reversed a lower court ruling and rejected the challenge from Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) concerning a Federal Election Commission (FEC) rule about reporting of electioneering communications or advertisements picturing or naming candidates within 60 days of an election. In doing so, the federal appeals court upheld the FEC rule requiring public reporting only of donors who earmark contributions for the ads.

Van Hollen and other campaign finance disclosure advocates argued the rule was too narrow and did not conform to a 2002 law prohibiting “soft money” in federal elections.

On December 17, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) elected Matthew Petersen as its chairman and Steven T. Walther as its vice chairman for 2016.

Peterson has been a commissioner with the FEC since 2008 and Walther has been a commissioner since 2006. Each previously served as both chairman and vice chairman. They are two of the four commissioners serving with expired terms. Normally, each member serves a six-year term with a rotating chairmanship among the members with no member serving as chairman more than once during his or her term.

On October 29, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will make public a new version of the FEC website. The beta version being unveiled will be a functioning prototype in its first stage of development, according to an FEC press release. The FEC will be asking for public feedback on the new website, which will also include new search functions and improved access to legal materials. A link to the beta version will be available on the Commission’s existing website.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is seeking public comment on new campaign finance regulations addressing disclosure of independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The FEC is also seeking comment on new rules addressing solicitations of corporate and labor organization employees and members, independence of expenditures made by independent expenditure-only political committees and accounts, and election-related spending by foreign nationals.

Comments may be submitted electronically at http://www.fec.gov/fosers, referencing REG 2015–04, and must be submitted on or before October 27, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Congress to restructure the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

House Resolution 2391, The Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Act, would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the number of members of the FEC from 6 to 5. The bill would also revise the method of selection and the terms of service of members of the commission and alter the powers of the commission between the chair and the remaining members.

The sponsors of the bill are Jim Renacci (R-OH), Derek Kilmer (D-WA), Lou Barletta (R-PA), and John Carney (D-DE).

On June 22, 2015, a lawsuit was filed against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking the court to direct the FEC to find the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has made and accepted prohibited in-kind contributions when hosting presidential debates.

The plaintiff, Level the Playing Field, alleges the CPD violated 11 C.F.R. §110.13 by “staging candidate debates in a partisan manner and without pre-established, objective criteria.”

The lawsuit asserts, “[T]he CPD has rigged the rules governing who can be in the debates to ensure that no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican nominees will ever be invited to the debates. … [T]he CPD’s use of millions of dollars of corporate money to provide free televised campaign appearances to the Democratic and Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates violates [the Federal Election Campaign Act] – by making illegal corporate contributions to political candidates; by making illegal corporate campaign expenditures; by accepting illegal corporate campaign contributions; and by failing to disclose its contributions and expenditures.”

Level the Playing Field (LPF) is a nonprofit entity describing its purpose as the promotion of reforms allowing “for greater competition and choice in elections for federal office, particularly for the presidency and vice presidency.” Joining LPF in the lawsuit are the Green Party of the United States, the Libertarian National Committee, Inc., and Dr. Peter Ackerman.

Photo of a 2008 presidential debate stage by Ericci8996 on Wikimedia Commons.

Grand Fork Democrats in District 43 have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against state Republican officials and a political action committee (PAC) for receiving foreign campaign contributions. Gov. Jack Dalrymple, state Sen. Lonnie Laffen, and the ND Oil PAC each reported receiving contributions from individuals with Canadian and/or United Kingdom addresses.

The complaint cites federal law and regulations prohibiting contributions from foreign nationals in federal, state, or local elections. North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger has said he believes federal laws under the FEC apply to federal candidates, but do not apply to in-state, nonfederal candidates.

Democratic leaders also filed a request for an attorney general’s opinion on the interplay between federal and state law regarding foreign campaign contributions.

On February 11, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will hold a public hearing regarding proposed rules in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC.

More than 30 witnesses have been scheduled to testify, including James Bopp, Jr. and Dan Backer, counsels for the McCutcheon case, and Shaun McCutcheon himself. A complete list of scheduled witnesses is available here.

The hearing, scheduled to begin at 8:15 a.m., is expected to last until at least 4:00 p.m.

On February 3, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) published its price index adjustments for expenditure limitations and lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold in the Federal Register. The lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold has increased to $17,600 for 2015 from $17,300 in 2014. This threshold amount is adjusted annually.

Federal law requires authorized committees of federal candidates, leadership political action committees (PACs), and political party committees to disclose contributions bundled by lobbyists and lobbyists’ PACs.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has published the 2015-2016 election cycle contribution limits, which have been indexed for inflation. As required by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the FEC must adjust certain contribution limits every two years.

The individual and nonmulticandidate PAC contribution limit to federal candidates has increased from $2,600 to $2,700 for both primary and general elections, allowing for a total of $5,400 for a federal candidate.

The limits on contributions by individuals to national party committees has increased from $32,400 to $33,400 per calendar year. Individuals may now contribute $100,200 per calendar year to committees of a national political party for presidential nominating conventions, to committees of a national political party for preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings, and to committees of a national political party for the construction, purchase, renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more buildings for party headquarters.

Lobbying

“Republican Congress Lures Lobbyists Back to Capitol Hill” by Megan Wilson for The Hill

“Mollis Adopts Hearing Officer’s Decision that Corso Engaged in Unregistered Lobbying Related to 38 Studios” by Jennifer Bogdon for Providence Journal

Campaign Finance

“Secretive Nonprofits Flourished – and Succeeded – in 2014 State Elections” by Reity O’Brien for The Center for Public Integrity

“Who Wants to Buy a Politician?” by Binyamin Appelbaum for New York Times

“New FEC Chief on ‘Dark Money’ Mission” by Dave Levinthal for The Center for Public Integrity

“Ethics Commission Hits Former Candidate, Treasurer with $43,000 Fine” by Emily Alpert Reyes for Los Angeles Times

“PA Supreme Court: Law firm can forgive U.S. Rep. Bob Brady’s 2007 debt” by Chris Brennan for Philadelphia Daily News

“State High Court to Take up Doe Cases Centered on Walker’s Campaign” by Patrick Marley for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Ethics

“Payouts to McCrory, Sanford from Mortgage Broker Raise Ethical Questions” by Michael Biesecker and Mitch Weiss (Associated Press) for Charlotte Observer

Elections

“Jeb Bush’s Decision to Explore Presidential Bid Scrambles the 2016 GOP Field” by Matea Gold and Philip Rucker for Washington Post

Legislative Issues

“Message to Lawmakers: Say what you really think” by Alan Greenblatt for Governing

On November 25, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled corporations and labor organizations making electioneering communications are required to disclose all donors making contributions over $1,000. Under 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9), the Federal Election Commission’s regulation ruled invalid, disclosure was only required when made explicitly for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.

In Christopher Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission, the Court found the commission’s regulation “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law” and “an unreasonable interpretation of the [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)].” 52 U.S.C. § 30104(f)(d)(E)–(F) of the BCRA does not require any preconditions for when to disclose donors making contributions over $1,000.

The Court ruled the commission’s regulation “serves to frustrate the aim of the statute because the introduction of a subjective test to the reporting regime creates an exception that has the potential to swallow the rule entirely. A donor can avoid reporting altogether by transmitting funds but remaining silent about their intended use.”

The case was brought in 2011 by U.S. Rep. Christopher Van Hollen.

Lobbying

Arizona: “Lobbyists Aid Campaigns of Doug Ducey, Fred DuVal” by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Rob O’Dell for Arizona Republic

New York: “Mayor’s Old Pal Wins New Biz as Lobbyist” by Chris Bragg for Crain’s New York Business

Oklahoma: “Rule Change Will Allow Lobbyists to Spend More on Oklahoma Lawmakers” by Rick Green for The Oklahoman

Campaign Finance

“The Cost of Campaigns” by Clyde Haberman for New York Times

“Campaign Finance Officials Aim to Cure the Paper-Obsessed Senate through Crowd-sourcing, Algorithms” by Nancy Scola for Washington Post

“FEC Deadlock Keeps Internet Free from Broadcast Campaign Ad Regulations” by Stephan Dineen for Washington Times

Connecticut: “In Connecticut Race, a Loophole Lets Party Money Flow for a Kennedy Scion” by Alison Leigh Cowan for New York Times

Kansas: “A Kansas Group’s Push to Oust Judges Reveals a Gap in Campaign Finance Rules” by Robert Faturechi for ProPublica

Ethics

Florida: “Palm Beach County Considers Changes to Ethics Rules” by Andy Reid for South Florida Sun Sentinel

Pennsylvania: “Federal Grand Jury Reviewing Liquor Control Board Violations, Sources Tell Trib” by Kari Andren for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Political Advertising

“As Bottle Bill Politics Hits Supermarket Aisles, Shoppers Have Mixed Reactions” by Shira Schoenberg and Carolyn Robbins for MassLive.com

The State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) used unusually strong language while asking the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to prevent the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (CDSCC) from using federally designated funds for a state race. The state party has requested an advisory opinion from the FEC approving the use of funds in a federal campaign account to pay for a mailing encouraging the reelection of Gov. Dannel Malloy.

In a letter to the FEC, signed by all five members, the SEEC denounced the inquiry stating it would violate both the letter and spirit of state campaign finance laws. In response, the CDSCC argued it is simply seeking clarification where federal and state laws are in conflict.

Federal law requires certain “federal election activity,” potentially including mailings, be paid for with a minimum of 15 percent federal funds whereas Connecticut law requires state candidates be supported exclusively with state funds. The CDSCC believes, should its reading of the law be confirmed, federal law will preempt state statutes and the use of federal funds will be required.