[EL] question about disclosure rules as interpreted by the FEC

[Paul Ryan]

Rick,

The electioneering communication reporting requirements are irrelevant with respect to any/all types of registered political committees.  As the Commission explains on p. 38 of its guide for nonconnected committees (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nongui.pdf):

"A communication that qualifies as a reportable expenditure or an independent expenditure is not an electioneering communication. 100.29(c)(3). Any communication paid for by a federal PAC with federal funds is an expenditure and, therefore, not an electioneering communication."

This FEC interpretation is based on the exception to the definition of "electioneering communication" for any "communication which constitutes an expenditure or independent expenditure under this Act," at 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(ii).

A super PAC reports on either a monthly or quarterly schedule and reports all of its receipts and disbursements, itemizing receipts/contributions above $200.

Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 14
Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal<http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg>
Become a fan on Facebook<http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:53 PM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] question about disclosure rules as interpreted by the FEC

Some time back, the three Republican FEC commissioners took the position that only a limited set of contributions funding electioneering communications need to be disclosed.
>From the Washington Post:<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR2010091507844.html>
The Republican commissioners said they interpreted the regulations to mean that a donation only needed to be reported if it was for the specific advertisement included on the disclosure form. That means that even if Adelson had given money to run advertisements generally, his name wouldn't be required to be disclosed unless he directed his money toward specific ads.
So I'm trying to get a handle on how this split on the FEC affects what is ultimately disclosed to the FEC.  My question is this: how would the extent and/or timing of disclosure be different between these two hypothetical cases:

    Case 1: Contributor gives money to group, asking it to be used for electioneering communications attacking Senator x, who is running for reelection.

    Case 2: Exactly the same as Case 1, except Contributor names a specific ad attacking Senator x, to be broadcast at a specific time on a specific television station.

 I'm particularly interested in whether if a contributor gives money to a Super PAC (registered with the FEC) as opposed to to a 501c4, whether the contribution to the super PAC in Case 1 gets disclosed---when and how.

Thanks.

Rick
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120323/e7f5ba52/attachment.html>