Your web browser is not supported You're using Internet Explorer, some features might not work. Please switch to another browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge for a better experience.


An official website of the United States government Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Federal Election Commission | United States of America Calendar
           Glossary
          Search
              Search


Menu
      Home
      Campaign finance data
        All data
            Raising
            Spending
            Loans and debts
            Filings and reports
            Candidates
            Committees
            Bulk data
            Campaign finance statistics
        Find elections. Search by state or ZIP code
          Look up contributions from specific individuals
      Help for candidates and committees
        All compliance resources
            Guides
            Forms
            Dates and deadlines
            Trainings
        Learn about electronic filing
          Find and contact your committee's analyst
      Legal resources
        All legal resources
            Advisory opinions
            Enforcement
            Statutes
            Legislation
            Regulations
            Court cases
            Policy and other guidance
        Search across legal resources
          Search guidance documents
      About
        All about the FEC
            News and announcements
            Commission meetings
            Mission and history
            Leadership and structure
            Reports about the FEC
            Careers
            Working with the FEC
            Contact
        Introduction to campaign finance and elections


- Home
- ›
      FEC Record: Regulations
- ›
      Public hearings on coordinated communications

FEC Record: RegulationsPublic hearings on coordinated communicationsMarch 1, 2006 On January 25 and 26, 2006, the Commission held public hearings concerning proposed changes to its coordinated communications regulations, resulting from the court decisions in Shays v. FEC. Specifically, the Court of Appeals in Shaysfound that the Commission had not sufficiently justified the 120-day time frame contained in the content prong of its three-prong coordination test. In response, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comments on possible changes to the time frame and to other aspects of the content prong, as well as possible amendments to the conduct and payment prongs of the coordination rules Commenters1 agreed that the Commission should create a brightline regulation and balance effective regulations with First Amendment rights. There was disagreement, however, as to the time frame those regulations should cover. Some who appeared, such as Jan Baran and Joseph Sandler, preferred to keep the current 120-day time frame and revise the Explanation and Justification to reflect evidence that most communications with the purpose of influencing a federal election are distributed within 120 days of a primary or general election. Those distributed outside that period tend to be financed by candidates’ own campaigns. Others argued that the 120-day time frame is inadequate because some ads distributed more than 120 days before a federal election are likely to be for the purpose of influencing that federal election. Therefore, if those ads are paid for by someone other than a candidate and are coordinated with a candidate, they should be regulated as coordinated communications. Other commenters, such as Robert Bauer, Cleta Mitchell and Donald McGahn, sought to apply the 30- and 60-day periods that currently govern electioneering communications. They argued that regulating communications during the 30-day period before a primary election and the 60-day period before a general election best reflected congressional intent to restrict only communications made for the purpose of influencing an election. Others argued that there were deficiencies with this proposal because many such communications fall within the gap between the proposed primary and general election periods and in the time frames prior to these periods. Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics offered an alternative “tiered system” of regulation that focuses on the identity of the entity paying for the communication and the content and timing of the communication itself. They argued that their proposal best dealt with groups with different objectives and levels of participation and also prevented circumvention of the law. Others felt this proposal was confusing and complicated. Many commenters focused on the lack of evidence regarding when candidates and others distribute communications that are election-related. Given that only one cycle has passed since the current coordinated communication rules were instituted, some felt that meaningful trend analysis was impossible. Karl Sandstrom noted that even if trends could be found, the regulations that are promulgated could influence the behavior that follows, indicating that it would be difficult to base a decision on such evidence. Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics compiled an extensive list of ads that were run in the previous election cycle, but the commenters could not agree on what conclusions should be drawn from this evidence. The commenters devoted a significant amount of time to discussing possible safe harbors to protect certain actions. Nearly all agreed that a safe harbor should be created to protect communications in which federal candidates endorse nonfederal candidates, as long as the endorsement does not promote, attack, support or oppose the election or defeat of the endorsing federal candidate or his or her opponent. Another safe harbor sought by party groups was an amendment to, or elimination of, the common vendor standard. The common vendor conduct standard is satisfied where an entity paying for a communication uses the same vendor as used by a candidate or political party committee during an election cycle and that common verndor transmits material information about the candidate or political party committee campaign to the entity paying for the communication. Many commenters argued that this common vendor rule is burdensome for vendors and committees alike. Some argued that the rule is applicable for an unnecessarily long period, as long as six years in the case of senate campaigns. Other groups were skeptical of this interpretation and believed decreasing the time period to, for example, 60 days, would encourage circumvention of the law. For more information about the NPRM or public hearings, visit our website at where audio recordings of the public hearings are available, as well as the original NPRM text, public comments and the January 2006 Recordsummary. 1 The commenters at the public hearings were: Jan Witold Baran, Chamber of Commerce; Robert F. Bauer, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Donald J. Simon, Democracy 21; Marc E. Elias, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; Paul S. Ryan, The Campaign Legal Center; Laurence E. Gold, AFL-CIO; Thomas J. Josefiak, Republican National Committee; Steve Hoersting, Center for Competitive Politics; Joseph E. Sandler, Democratic National Committee; William J. McGinley, National Republican Senatorial Committee; Cleta Mitchell, Foley & Lardner, LLP; Brian G. Svoboda, Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee; Ellen R. Malcolm, EMILY’s List; Karl J. Sandstrom, Association of State Democratic Chairs; Michael B. Trister, Service Employees International Union; Margaret McCormick, National Education Association; Donald F. McGahn II, National Republican Congressional Committee; and Lawrence M. Noble, The Center for Responsive Politics.
 Author
          Carlin Bunch


Read next: FEC website offers podcasts
 Related: Explore campaign finance data »


This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public. The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.


About
          Careers
          Press
          Contact
   Privacy and security policy
          Plain language
          Accessibility statement
          Strategy, budget and performance
 No FEAR Act
          Open government
          Protected Voices
          USA.gov
          Inspector General
 FOIA
          OpenFEC API
          GitHub repository
          Release notes
          FEC.gov status


Federal Election Commission
 The FEC's Twitter page
            The FEC's YouTube page Sign up for FECMail
 This information is produced and disseminated at U.S. taxpayer expense.


Hide glossary Glossary Search terms