FEC ActivityThe Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the government agency charged with enforcing the nation's federal election laws. In addition to crafting rules to implement election laws, the Commission investigates and punishes violations of the laws.
The Legal Center participates in regulatory proceedings and other matters before the FEC. Commonsense Ten, Club for Growth and the FEC’s Deregulation of Corporate Money in Politics Recent Club for Growth and Commonsense Ten Advisory Opinion Requests to the FEC raise important questions of both substance and process. When and how is it appropriate for an administrative agency to decide not to enforce statutes and regulations that have not been invalidated by any court? DISCLOSE Opponents FEC Implementation Criticisms Unfounded Misinformation about the DISCLOSE Act continues to be circulated by opponents of the bill. One criticism has been that the timetable would be too short for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to implement the legislation. Doing so is not the Herculean task critics maintain. Ignore the Noise; Focus on the Reality With all the kerfuffle around the DISCLOSE Act, it is important to remember why this measure is necessary in the first place. 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC which opened up virtually bottomless corporate and union treasury funds for spending on political advertising. Much of the new influx of money is expected to be laundered through shady groups with patriotic names or even trade associations. Why We Need DISCLOSE If further proof was needed as to the desperate need to pass the DISCLOSE Act to curb money laundering in federal elections, it was provided today by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In essence the Commission refused its General Counsel’s recommendation to investigate what appeared to be a clear violation of federal disclosure requirement laws. Self-Proclaimed Advocacy Group Citizens United Seeks Media Exemption from FEC to Hide Donors Today the Campaign Legal Center, together with Democracy 21, filed comments with the Federal Election Commission regarding the Commission’s two alternative draft responses to an advisory opinion request by Citizens United seeking the “media exemption” from federal campaign finance disclosure laws for its “documentary” filmmaking (Draft Advisory Opinions 2010-08). The Commission is scheduled to consider this matter at its meeting tomorrow, June 10. Talk about “Hypocrisy”!!: CCP's Secret Funding Unrefuted by Poorly Researched Diatribe The Center for Competitive Politics is clearly quite sensitive about anyone pointing out that they reveal nothing whatsoever about their sources of funding. Nonetheless they cannot deny the facts, try as they may to obscure them. While throwing up a lot of smoke and in essence shouting "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", they got their facts wrong in attacking the Campaign Legal Center for pointing out the fact that CCP is anonymously funded. Challenges to Campaign Finance and Disclosure Laws Multiply After Citizens United Ruling from Roberts Court The attention drawn by the Citizen United decision has obscured the many additional challenges to existing campaign finance laws – including challenges to simple donor disclosure requirements – that are making their way through the lower courts in the hope of finding a sympathetic audience before the Supreme Court. These challenges are a part of a systematic, long-term litigation offensive mounted by deep-pocketed interests who are opposed to any type of regulation of political spending. Trevor Potter Testifies on DISCLOSE Act On May 11, 2010, Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter testified before the Committee on House Administration regarding the legislative response to the Supreme Court’s activist ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Potter discussed the DISCLOSE Act and offered suggestions for modifying the legislative language in anticipation of inevitable court challenges. Unburdened by Reality at the FEC: ‘Soft Money’ Loophole Created for Redistricting Efforts Late Friday the FEC released an advisory opinion declaring that redistricting activities are not “in connection with” elections. With this denial of reality, federal candidates and officeholders can now solicit 'soft money' to fund political party litigation in the post-2010 Census redistricting battle. 8 Years, 2 Lawsuits, and 3 Rulemakings for FEC to Get ‘Soft Money’ Provision Right It only took eight years, two lawsuits and three rulemakings for the FEC to properly implement a BCRA provision banning ‘soft money’ fundraising by federal candidates and officeholders. While this final rule is a good one, it’s unfortunate that it took eight years to get it. And it’s even more unfortunate that there are other BCRA implementing rules the Commission still hasn’t gotten right eight years after passage of the law. |
|