[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31430-31441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15497]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

[Notice 2009--10]


Web Site and Internet Communications Improvement Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission (the ``FEC'' or 
``Commission'') has adopted an initiative to seek public comment on how 
to improve all aspects of how the Commission discloses information to 
the public on its Web site and through the use of Internet 
communications. While the FEC, which was first constituted in 1975, 
continually engages in ongoing efforts to improve all aspects of how 
the Commission discloses information through the Internet, with a 
primary focus on its Web site, the FEC has never before sought formal 
public comment on the means by which the Commission discloses 
information to the public.\1\ As part of these efforts, the Commission 
is seeking written comments and will conduct a public hearing on ways 
the Commission can improve how it communicates to the public using the 
Internet and, specifically, how it can improve its Web site to ensure 
that the FEC Web site is a state-of-the-art resource for disclosure of 
information to the public including (1) disclosure of campaign finance 
data, (2) information about Federal campaign finance laws, and (3) the 
actions of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2003, the FEC began a Web site redevelopment project that 
resulted in a redesign of both the appearance of the site as well as 
the production process. The revised Web site went live in 2004 and 
the FEC continually seeks and receives input on how to improve the 
Web site. This initiative will provide the first forum for formal 
public comments to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comment from all segments of the public, 
including representatives of political committees, Federal candidates 
and officeholders, members of the media, authors, students of all ages, 
members of the academic community, and advocacy groups.
    In addition to comments from the public, the Commission 
specifically seeks comment from those with relevant technical 
expertise, including technical advisors, consultants, researchers, 
other governmental and non-governmental agencies, non-profit entities 
and commercial vendors to assist with the Commission's efforts to 
improve the how it uses the Internet to disclose information to the 
public and particularly efforts to improve the FEC Web site. Such 
advice and information may include recommendations to the Commission 
for (1) expanding the Web site's disclosure features, (2) improving the 
information available on the Web site and ways in which that 
information is organized, and (3) maximizing the benefit of current and 
anticipated technology related to Web site services.
    The Commission's policy regarding which documents are placed on the 
public record from closed enforcement, administrative fines and 
alternative dispute resolution cases is outside the scope of this 
initiative, and the Commission is specifically not seeking comments 
with respect to this issue. See Statement of Policy Regarding 
Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and Related Files, 68 FR 70426 (Dec. 
18, 2003). The Commission plans to conduct a separate hearing with full 
opportunity for public comment on the issue later in the year.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2009. A public 
hearing will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, July 29-30, 2009, from 
10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, 
NW., 9th floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC 20463. Anyone seeking to 
testify at the hearing must file written comments by the due date and 
must include in the written comments a request to testify.
    Format for Comments and Addresses: All comments must be in writing, 
must be addressed to Mr. Robert Hickey, Staff Director, and must be 
submitted in either e-mail, facsimile, or paper copy form. Commenters 
are strongly encouraged to submit comments by e-mail to ensure timely 
receipt and consideration. E-mail comments must be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#365f5b46445940535053555f584253445853427650535518515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef86829f9d80998a898a8c86819b8a9d818a9baf898a8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>. If e-mail comments include an attachment, 
the attachment must be in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word 
(.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to (202) 208-3333. Paper 
comments must be sent to Mr. Robert Hickey, Staff Director, Federal 
Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All 
comments must include the full name and postal service address of the 
commenter or they will not be considered. The Commission will post all 
comments on its Web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/hearings/internethearing.shtml shortly after they are received.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Biersack, Special Assistant to 
the Staff Director for Data Integration, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20463, (202) 694-1658 or (800) 424-9530. The Commission's Web site 
can be accessed at http://www.fec.gov. Technical information related to 
the FEC's Web site, including hardware, software, capacity and 
functionalities can be found at http://www.fec.gov/pages/hearings/internethearing.shtml.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Hearing Goals

    The FEC is an independent regulatory agency with responsibility for 
administering, enforcing, defending and interpreting the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq., 
available at http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf) (FECA). The 
Commission is also responsible for administering the Federal public 
funding programs for Presidential campaigns and party conventions. This 
responsibility includes certifying and auditing all participating 
candidates and committees, and enforcement of the public funding laws. 
The Commission strives to discharge its statutory mandate by (1) 
facilitating public disclosure of campaign finance activity, (2) 
providing information and policy guidance to the public, media, 
political committees, Federal candidates and officeholders, and 
election officials on the FECA and Commission regulations, (3) 
encouraging voluntary compliance with all of the FECA's requirements, 
and (4) investigating alleged violations of those requirements and 
seeking civil penalties and other remedies when necessary to enforce 
the law.
    The FEC's Web site is increasingly the Commission's primary vehicle 
for sharing with the public campaign finance disclosure data, 
educational materials related to Federal campaign finance laws, the 
development and implementation of new rules and regulations, Advisory 
Opinions, and closed enforcement actions. Accordingly, the FEC's Web 
site and how the Commission uses the Internet to disclose information 
to the public is critical to the Commission's mission.
    In 2008, the Commission received over 5.2 million visits to its Web 
site, or approximately 14,200 per day, an increase of over 50% from the 
year before. During the 24-month 2008 election cycle, the Commission 
received, and disclosed on its Web site, approximately 140,000 
financial disclosure reports from nearly 8,000 political committees. 
These reports contained the equivalent of 11.7 million pages of 
financial data, disclosing

[[Page 31431]]

approximately $8.3 billion in political contributions and spending 
related to Federal elections.
    The Commission anticipates that the trend of increased traffic 
coming to the Commission's Web site will continue as more users seek 
access to information about the Federal campaign finance laws and about 
how Federal campaigns are financed. To improve the Web site's 
usefulness to the public, the Commission is seeking, through this 
proceeding, ways to provide the public with more timely information, as 
well as ways to make its Web site more user-friendly, more educational, 
more analytical, more accessible, and more interesting.
    Among the topics on which the Commission requests comment are those 
discussed below. The list is not exhaustive, and the Commission 
welcomes input on ways in which the Commission can make improvements to 
the means by which the Commission discloses information to the public 
through the Internet, and in particular on the Commission's Web site.
    However, as indicated above, the Commission's policy regarding 
which documents are placed on the public record from closed 
enforcement, administrative fines and alternative dispute resolution 
cases is outside the scope of this initiative but will be the subject 
of a separate hearing with full opportunity for public comment later in 
the year.

II. Introduction

    The Commission recognizes that having an abundance of information 
available on its Web site is of little use if the information is not 
organized in a way that makes it easily accessible and understandable. 
Accordingly, it is vital to the public interest that the Commission's 
Web site be written and organized from the point of view of a potential 
user who seeks information from an agency. Although the agency's Web 
site must be citizen-focused, with a general public audience in mind, 
it must, at the same time, provide information to specialized audiences 
about specific areas of interest. In each case, whether a visitor to 
the Commission's Web site seeks general information or very specific 
data, the Web site should be organized in a visitor-friendly, intuitive 
fashion. Information should be easy to extract and it should be 
presented in a clear, logical and appealing manner that is easy to read 
and understand whether displayed on the screen, or when printed in 
hardcopy format.

III. The Primary Users of the Commission's Web Site

    In order to ensure that the Commission's Web site adequately serves 
those who seek information from the Commission, the Commission must 
properly identify who its primary users or viewers are, including 
potential users who access campaign finance information from other 
sources either by choice or because they do not know about the 
Commission's Web site. These users may include members of the general 
public, prospective voters, prospective Federal candidates and 
officeholders, representatives of registered political committees such 
as committee treasurers, members of the media, including bloggers and 
the more specialized trade media, and members of the academic 
community, including policy institutes and advocacy groups. Users also 
include State and local election officials and officeholders, members 
of the legal profession, teachers and students, as well as other 
academics and librarians. The Commission seeks comment from each of 
these diverse audiences on whether the Commission's Web site is 
presently meeting their specific needs and about ways in which the 
Commission uses the Internet to disclose information to the public and 
the Commission's Web site can be improved to better serve these needs. 
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there may be 
other audiences in addition to those listed above that may seek 
information from the Commission's Web site. If so, how well does the 
current Web site serve those audiences, and what improvements can be 
made to serve them better?

IV. What Tasks Do the Commission's Primary Customers Perform Most Often 
on the Web Site?

    Different audiences seeking information from the Commission's Web 
site search for distinct categories of information and perform diverse 
tasks when accessing the Web site. For instance, members of the general 
public might be seeking a range of information that could span from 
accessing contribution and expenditure data related to a recent or 
upcoming election to seeking information about the $3 IRS income tax 
form check-off that provides funding for the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund. A political committee might seek more specialized 
information such as guidance regarding the Commission's software 
package that committees use to electronically file their campaign 
finance disclosure reports or seek information about the laws that are 
applicable to the committee's activities. A political committee also 
might seek information about the requirements or procedures for filing 
an advisory opinion request with the Commission and guidance about 
whether a question they have is appropriate for an advisory opinion 
request. Similarly, a political committee or a member of the public 
might seek information about the requirements or procedures for filing 
a complaint alleging a violation of the campaign finance laws or 
regulations. Members of the media may be interested in an entirely 
different set of information, such as background on the FECA or perhaps 
news about the Commission's most recent actions.
    The Commission seeks public comment on what tasks or operations are 
conducted by visitors to the Commission's Web site and specifically 
about how different audiences may seek to perform these functions 
differently.

V. How Can the Commission Improve the Way Its Web Site Is Organized?

    The Commission has endeavored to design and organize the 
information on its Web site in a cogent, rational, and intuitive way. 
The Commission seeks comment from users of the Commission's Web site 
about the visitor experience. Is navigation of the Commission's Web 
site intuitive? If not, in what specific ways can it be more intuitive? 
Are the ways that users navigate each page on the FEC's Web site 
adequately consistent across the Web site? If not, where do these 
inconsistencies exist? For example, do similar items on different pages 
appear in the same location and have the same appearance and wording? 
Do navigation items of the same type appear the same way and perform 
the same functions across the Web site?
    Do users consider the Commission's current homepage to be 
sufficiently useful? If not, in what ways could it become more useful? 
Are visitors easily able to find what they are seeking? The 
Commission's current homepage is relatively static with almost no 
content on the homepage changing from day-to-day. The only dynamic 
content on the homepage is a crawl across the bottom of the page, which 
is changed, on average, every other week to announce the latest 
important news from the Commission. In addition, the homepage includes 
interactive maps to provide users with immediate access to disclosure 
data. Are these disclosure maps appropriately located on the homepage? 
Is the homepage too static? Should the homepage list ``headlines,'' 
``hot topics,'' or ``most requested

[[Page 31432]]

information'' that could be updated daily or weekly? Or is it best to 
leave the homepage uncluttered, serving as a top-level directory that 
allows viewers to access information though available links?
    The Commission's Web site is currently organized by the type of 
information that is available, such as ``Campaign Finance Reports and 
Data'' or ``Law and Regulations.'' Is the information available on the 
Commission's Web site organized in a logical sequence? If not, how can 
it be better organized? Are visitors easily able to ascertain what to 
do next in their task?

a. Portals

    In contrast to the manner in which the Commission's Web site is 
currently organized, should the Commission's homepage serve as a 
``start task'' page, asking visitors what task they seek to perform, 
which would then take visitors to a task-based portal specifically 
tailored to the user's specific task? If so, what should be the topics 
of these ``start task'' pages? Alternatively, should the Commission's 
Web site be organized by categories of frequent users and have separate 
portal pages for different audiences based on those visitors' needs? Or 
should the Web site first ask the user what category of user he or she 
falls under (e.g., member of the general public, political committee 
representative, Federal officeholder) and then offer the user a focused 
portal based on the types of tasks most frequently performed by users 
in that category? Is there sufficiently different content to justify 
dividing the Web site into isolated user-portals? What is the 
likelihood that organizing the Web site in this way could lead to 
confusion among new or infrequent visitors? What other costs might such 
a reorganization entail?
1. The General Public
    Should there be a portal page for members of the general public? If 
so, what information or utilities should be available on such a page? 
What links to other information would be most helpful for members of 
the general public or others seeking general campaign finance 
information?
2. Political Committee Representatives
    Should there be a portal page designed specifically for those 
seeking information on behalf of a registered political committee, such 
as committee treasurers, that would offer direct access to the 
resources that are most useful for committee treasurers and other 
committee representatives? If so, what resources should be included on 
such a page? Should a portal page for political committee 
representatives include a link to a focused set of frequently asked 
questions (FAQs)? Should there be separate portal pages for different 
types of political committees such as party committees, corporate or 
labor organization connected committees (which are often referred to as 
Separate Segregated Funds or Political Action Committees), or 
nonconnected committees?
3. Federal Officeholders and Prospective Candidates
    Should there be a portal page designed specifically for Federal 
officeholders and prospective Federal candidates? If so, what resources 
should be included on such a page? Should there be a separate portal 
page for candidates, different from one for current officeholders? 
Should there be different portal pages for House, Senate and 
Presidential candidates and officeholders? If so, what different 
content should be on each of these pages? Should a portal page for 
Federal officeholders and prospective Federal candidates include a link 
to a focused set of frequently asked questions (FAQs)? Should such a 
portal page provide procedural guidance for persons, committees or 
other entities who are subject to FEC proceedings such as audits and 
enforcement actions?
4. Media
    Should there be a portal page designed specifically for members of 
the media? If so, what resources should be included on a media portal 
page? Should there be a separate portal page for the general media, 
different from one for the trade media? Should there be a separate 
portal page for members of the foreign media? If so, what different 
content should be on each of these pages? Should a portal page for 
members of the media include a link to a focused set of frequently 
asked questions (FAQs)?
5. Academic Community
    Should there be a portal page designed specifically for members of 
the academic community? If so, what resources should be included on an 
academic community portal page? Should there be a separate portal page 
for students, different from one for professors? Should there be a 
separate portal page for policy institutes? If so, what different 
content should be on each of these pages? Should a portal page for 
members of the academic community include a link to a focused set of 
frequently asked questions (FAQs)?
    Are there audiences other than those outlined above for whom the 
Commission should consider designing a separate portal? If so, for 
which audiences should the Commission design such portals? 
Alternatively, should the information be organized in some other way?

VI. User-Experience/User-Friendliness

a. Plain Language

    Best practices for government Web sites mandate that a typical user 
of the Commission's Web site should be able to understand the Web site 
content after only one reading--the content should be in plain 
language. See http://www.plainlanguage.gov. Ideally, users should not 
need to spend time ``translating'' difficult, wordy text. Plain-
language writing saves users time and reduces the burden placed on the 
public. The Commission has worked to meet these goals and seeks comment 
on whether the language used on the Commission's Web site is accessible 
and easy to read. Can first-time or novice users understand information 
on the Web site easily? If not, please provide specific examples from 
the Commission's Web site of language that is not easily understood.

b. Accessibility to Users With Special Needs

    Should content on the Commission's Web site be revised in order to 
make the content more accessible to users with special needs, such as 
persons with disabilities? Is information on the Commission's Web site 
easily accessible through browse aloud text readers for visually 
impaired users? Should the Web site have alternative pages for users 
with low literacy or for foreign-language speakers?

c. Help Functions

    Another important aspect of whether a Web site is sufficiently 
user-friendly is the directions provided to users when they cannot find 
the information they are looking for. The Commission's Web site 
currently has pages providing a list of Frequently Asked Questions 
(FAQs) and ``Quick Answers,'' to help users find the information they 
are seeking. Are these sections of the Web site useful? Should the Web 
site have a special help section that would guide users to the 
information they are seeking? Would a ``first-time user guide'' be 
helpful? What information might a first time user guide include that 
would make it different from the FAQ?

[[Page 31433]]

    Should the Web site have a ``contact us'' section that would allow 
users to either send an e-mail to Commission staff or provide a staff 
telephone directory for users who are still not able to access the 
information they seek? Web site users can also send questions and 
feedback about the Web site through e-mail communications to 
``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0b785828d818e81878592a0868583ce878f96"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="590e3c3b343837383e3c2b193f3c3a773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>.'' Is this service sufficiently responsive and 
informative? Should questions and feedback be made public?
    Is the Commission sufficiently receptive to suggestions made 
through e-mails and phone calls? Have those who have made comments or 
suggestions received responses from the Commission? Have the responses 
been satisfactory? If not, why not?
    Should the Commission develop a blog to facilitate a conversation 
about the substance and techniques used by staff to disclose campaign 
finance data? Should the Web site host other blogs or user groups? If 
so, what topics should they cover? Should the Web site host user groups 
where users can interactively discuss substantive areas of campaign 
finance law and Commission procedures?

VII. Search Engines

a. General Search Engine

    The Commission maintains various search engines on its Web site. 
The general search engine (``General Search Engine'') is located on the 
Commission's homepage and returns pages and documents from all portions 
of the Commission's Web site other than the contents of three self-
contained databases (i.e., the disclosure database, the Advisory 
Opinion database, and the enforcement database), which can be accessed 
through the specialized search engines that are discussed below. In 
addition to a basic search function which allows users to conduct a 
simple word search, the General Search Engine also has an ``advanced 
search'' function that allows users to enter search terms or phrases 
and find results with (1) all of the words, (2) the exact phrase, (3) 
any of the words, as well as results without a specific search term or 
phrase.

b. Specialized Search Engines

    In addition to the General Search Engine, the Commission's Web site 
contains three specialized search engines that allow users to search 
only within a specific portion of the Commission's Web site.
1. Disclosure Database Search Engine
    The disclosure database search engine (``Disclosure Database Search 
Engine'') allows a user to search only within the contribution and 
expenditure data filed by registered political committees. The 
Disclosure Database Search Engine includes a search for summary data 
for candidates and Political Action Committees/Party Committees, as 
well as searches for detailed data for individual contributors, 
political committees, and candidates.
2. Advisory Opinion Search Engine
    Another specialized search engine allows users to limit their 
search to information about Commission Advisory Opinions. Specifically, 
the Advisory Opinion Search Engine (``AO Search Engine'') allows users 
to search by (1) search terms, including words and phrases, (2) 
advisory opinion number, (3) requestor name and (4) year. Additionally, 
the advanced search function of the AO Search Engine allows users to 
search using more specific criteria.
3. Enforcement Query System
    Finally, the Commission's Web site contains a third specialized 
search engine, known as the Commission's Enforcement Query System 
(``EQS''). This system allows a user to search for information about 
completed Commission enforcement cases. Specifically, EQS allows users 
to search within a database containing documents related to completed 
Commission enforcement cases (including complaints, responses, 
conciliation agreements and Commissioner statements of reasons) by key 
words or by information about the cases (e.g., case number, name of 
respondent, name of complainant, statute or regulation alleged to have 
been violated).

c. Search Engine Improvements

    The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's search 
engines are sufficiently intuitive and responsive. If not, in what ways 
can the Commission's search engines be modified to make them more 
useful? Are the features of the Commission's search engines 
sufficiently sophisticated, robust and flexible to offer suggested 
choices to a user of words, spellings and phrases based on a user's 
query? Are the ``advanced search'' functions useful to viewers who wish 
to conduct more refined, focused searches to achieve more relevant 
results? Are search results displayed in an easy-to-read format both 
when displayed on the screen and when printed in hardcopy format? If 
not, in what ways can the visual and printed presentation of the 
materials be made more useful and appear more professional? Are search 
results relevant and comprehensive? Are the most relevant results 
listed first? Is there adequate help available on the Web site to 
assist visitors who are unfamiliar with or unskilled at using search 
technology? Do the search engines produce swift results? The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether the Commission's search engines should 
produce a link for the output of each search that users could then 
include in e-mails and on their own Web sites that would allow others 
to instantly access the results of a search.
    Should a user be able to make a single query that would 
simultaneously search through the entire Web site, including the 
specialized databases? Should a user be able to selectively choose 
which databases are accessed through a given query? For instance, 
should a user be able to simultaneously query information only from the 
Advisory Opinion database and the Enforcement database with a single 
search? What search functions would be most useful to users?
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission's Web 
site should have other specialized search engines in addition to the 
Disclosure Database Search Engine, the AO Search Engine and EQS. If so, 
what information should be accessible through such specialized search 
engines? For example, should the Web site have a specialized search 
engine devoted to Commission regulations and rulemaking documents such 
as Notices of Proposed Rulemakings and Explanations and Justifications? 
Should there be a specialized search engine devoted to information and 
documents related solely to the Commission's litigation matters?

VIII. Commission Function and Organization

    The Commission's Web site has an ``About the FEC'' section that 
includes information about the FECA, the Commission's mission and 
history, and an organizational chart including a description of each of 
the offices and divisions within the Commission. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether its Web site provides adequate information about the 
Commission's jurisdiction, mission, and internal structure. If not, 
what additional information should be included? The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether the Web site provides adequate information 
about how the Commission is organized (i.e., the responsibilities of 
each Office and Division within the Commission). What information do 
other Federal agencies provide on their

[[Page 31434]]

Web sites about jurisdiction, mission and organization? Is this 
information useful? If yes, how so? Are there other Federal or non-
Federal government agencies, or other non-governmental entities that 
maintain Web sites that could serve as a model for the FEC? If so, 
which agencies and what aspects of their Web sites? Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether the Web site should contain a staff 
phone and e-mail directory to make it easier for the public to contact 
Commission staff directly.

IX. Data Accessibility

a. Current Interactive Maps

    The FECA requires accurate and comprehensive public disclosure by 
Federal candidates and political committees of all contributions and 
expenditures. Information about these contributions and expenditures is 
included in the Commission's disclosure database along with millions of 
other itemized disbursements, receipts and other payments.
    Since 2007, the Commission homepage at www.fec.gov has included 
interactive maps, which provide users with immediate access to 
contribution and expenditure information for Presidential, Senate and 
House candidates. Through these maps, users can access the amount of 
funds raised by State, cash-on-hand, and the distribution of 
contributions by amount. Furthermore, users can access lists of 
contributors by name, city, and amounts of contributions within the 
first three digits of any zip code. Users can also obtain a detailed 
list of information about how candidates spend their money, including 
the payee name, purpose, date and amount of each campaign expenditure. 
Although the Web site allows users to sort the detailed list of 
expenditures by each category listed above, the Web site does not 
currently provide separate aggregated amounts for each category. For 
instance, a user cannot access an aggregated number for the amount a 
candidate has spent on political advertisements. Would the addition of 
this feature be useful?
    The House and Senate map allows the user to select candidates for 
comparison using bar charts to display such financial categories as 
contribution and disbursement totals, debts and cash on hand. It also 
presents itemized contributions and disbursements by category and 
includes links to images of reports filed by the candidate and the 
candidate's committees.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether these interactive maps are 
useful. How can they be improved? Are there other types of interactive 
maps or charts that users would find interesting or educational? In 
what other ways can campaign finance data be made available in a more 
user-friendly and interactive way?

b. Sorting of Data

    The Commission seeks comment on ways in which the Web site should 
allow users to sort the campaign finance data. For example, should the 
Web site allow users to sort the data (1) by date or a range of dates, 
(2) by types of committees (e.g., candidate committees, party 
committees and corporate and labor organization connected committees), 
(3) by candidate, (4) by contributor (e.g., name, address, zip code and 
employer), or (5) alphabetically? What other ways should the Web site 
allow users to search for or sort the data?
    The Commission is aware that other Web sites also provide access to 
the FEC's campaign finance data. For example, some of these Web sites 
permit users to sort contribution data into how much has been raised by 
a candidate or political committee over time, such as on a quarterly, 
monthly, weekly or daily basis. For expenditures, some of these Web 
sites allow users to sort campaign spending into categories, such as 
administrative costs, campaign expenses, fundraising costs and media 
costs. One Web site allows users to sort contributor information in a 
number of ways, including by name, address, zip code, employer and 
contribution amount (e.g., $200 or less). Additionally, this Web site 
allows a user to sort contributor information into top donors, top soft 
money donors, and top Political Action Committee (PAC) categories. This 
same Web site allows users to sort data into other categories, such as 
candidate-to-candidate giving, quality of disclosure and source of 
funds (e.g., individual contributions, PAC contributions and candidate 
self-financing). Other Web sites identify top contributors, top 
recipients, top contributing states and top bundlers.
    Should the FEC's Web site allow users to sort campaign finance data 
in ways similar to these other Web sites? If yes, which sorting options 
would be useful and why? Do these other Web sites allow users to sort 
the data in any other useful ways? If so, in what ways and should the 
Commission's Web site also provide these functions?
    Should the Commission's Web site allow users to access election-
related information other than campaign finance data, such as the 
number of votes a candidate received in a prior election? After each 
Federal election the Commission has historically compiled and published 
election results in a document entitled Federal Elections, which is 
made available on the Web site. See http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/electionresults.shtml. Is it appropriate for the Commission's Web site 
to provide access to election-related data that are outside the 
Commission's direct jurisdiction (e.g., studies and government reports 
other than campaign finance data)? If not, why not?

c. Compilation, Presentation and Analysis of Data

    The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission 
should facilitate compilation, presentation and analysis of the 
campaign finance data. What types of additional analysis of the data 
would be useful? Should the Commission provide tools for users to be 
able to generate their own graphs, charts and maps based on the data 
they have accessed?
    Should the Commission permit the storage and presentation of search 
or sort results? Additionally, should the results from the most popular 
queries be presented on the Web site for others to view? If yes, should 
these queries be posted anonymously or should the user be asked for 
permission before his or her query is posted? If the Commission's Web 
site allows users to access election-related information that is 
outside the Commission's direct jurisdiction, such as the number of 
votes a candidate received in a prior election, should the Commission 
allow users to sort these data interactively and facilitate 
compilation, presentation and analysis of these data in relation to 
campaign finance data? For instance, should the Commission's Web site 
allow users to calculate the amount spent by a candidate on a campaign 
relative to the number of votes that candidate received in the 
election?

d. Availability of Raw Data

    The FEC currently provides the ability to download in bulk form, on 
a daily basis, campaign finance data from all electronic filings 
received earlier that day. Is this process useful? Are there changes or 
enhancements to this process that would be useful? For example, should 
the Commission provide ``real-time'' access to the bulk data as soon as 
it is filed throughout the day? Also, should the Commission allow users 
to download only a designated portion of the data?
    The Commission also currently makes selected raw data available for 
download via File Transfer Protocol (FTP). These files reflect both 
``as

[[Page 31435]]

amended'' snapshots of itemized individual contributions to committees 
and receipts and disbursements where both parties to the transaction 
are registered with the FEC. Is this general approach valuable? If not, 
what other alternatives are available? Does the benefit that comes from 
reducing duplication and other complexities inherent in the raw data 
the Commission receives justify the time delays required for the FEC to 
do this work? Are there other categories of financial activity that 
should be included in this system--e.g., details of spending, debts, 
etc.? Should specific types of activity (like independent expenditures 
or electioneering communications) be available as separate files rather 
than as part of a larger set?
    The Commission seeks comment on what improvements can be made to 
the methods that the Commission uses in making raw campaign finance 
data available through its Web site. For example, are the data 
currently available in an adequate format that permits users to 
aggregate, segregate, or otherwise manipulate and analyze the data? 
Should the Commission develop a different format for the data that is 
more consistent with current data dissemination practices such as XML 
(Extensible Markup Language) or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation)? 
Also, should the Commission provide open-source public Application 
Programming Interfaces (APIs) so that other Web sites can download the 
data more easily? In what other ways can the Commission facilitate the 
syndication by other Web sites of data yielded from a search?
    The Commission also seeks comment on what improvements can be made 
to the way the Commission makes data related to amendments to committee 
reports available to the public. Are those who access campaign finance 
reports able to easily separate data in reports that have been amended 
by a reporting committee from the data contained in the report that was 
originally filed? If not, what would be a better and more 
understandable way to present that information?

e. Data Storage

    Does the Commission need to restructure the way that campaign 
finance data are stored? For example, although a complete set of bulk 
raw data is available for download, the Commission's official COBOL-
based database is currently published in a fixed width format that only 
allows for up to 35 characters in the column containing data about each 
contributor's occupation and employer. In other words, a user searching 
campaign finance data on the Commission's Web site will only see the 
first 35 characters of information (which includes letter, numbers, 
symbols, as well as spaces between words) about a contributor's 
occupation and employer and, as a result, this information is often 
truncated, thereby providing incomplete information to the public. One 
observer estimates that this limitation causes a loss of over 20% of 
the occupation and employer information that should be otherwise 
accessible through the Commission's disclosure database. See Federal 
Election Commission, Hearing on Agency Practices and Procedures (Jan. 
15, 2009) (statement of Clay Johnson, Sunlight Foundation), available 
at http://www.fec.gov/law/policy/enforcement/2009/01141509hearingtranscript.pdf.
    Although the Commission anticipates releasing a software update 
shortly that will resolve the truncation issue described above, are 
there other examples of information that is missing or incomplete in 
the Commission's disclosure database? The Commission invites comment on 
ways the Commission could provide the public with access to fully 
complete disclosure data.

f. Timeliness of Data Availability

    Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's 
data are made available in a timely manner. Although electronically 
filed disclosure reports are available to the public immediately after 
they are filed, currently the data contained in those reports are 
reviewed by Commission staff before they are made available through 
queries and data files on the Commission's Web site. This staff review, 
which standardizes the data through such steps as (1) assigning 
transaction codes, (2) splitting joint contributions reported from 
married couples, and (3) adding missing committee identification 
numbers, can take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to complete. 
Should the data be made available to the public even before the 
Commission staff has had time to conduct its review? What risks exist 
in releasing potentially inaccurate or incomplete data? What are the 
implications of releasing unreviewed data followed by a second release 
of the same data in a modified format? Are there risks of confusion 
with such an approach? If so, what measures could be implemented to 
avoid such confusion?

X. Educational Materials

    The FEC publishes various types of educational materials, all of 
which can be accessed on the Commission's Web site. These materials 
include (1) brochures (brief summaries of particular provisions of the 
law or descriptions of the Commission's programs and procedures), (2) 
Campaign Guides (compliance manuals for committees registered with the 
Commission), and (3) The Record (the Commission's monthly newsletter). 
The Commission also maintains a ``Tips for Treasurers'' page on its Web 
site with timely tips and reminders to help political committee 
treasurers meet their obligations under the law. The Commission also 
offers an electronic subscription service, FECMail (available at http://www.fec.gov/info/fecmaill.shtml), which provides subscribers with 
personalized e-mail updates on the latest Commission news and 
information.

a. Brochures

    The Commission publishes several educational brochures all of which 
are made available to the public free of charge. Electronic versions of 
these brochures are also available on the Commission's Web site. These 
brochures offer brief summaries of particular provisions of the law or 
describe FEC programs and procedures. These brochures are available in 
both HTML and PDF formats at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/brochures.shtml and examples of covered topics include (1) Advisory 
Opinions, (2) Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures, 
and (3) Public Funding of Presidential Elections. The HTML versions of 
the brochures include interactive links for cited statutes, regulations 
and Advisory Opinions.
    The Commission seeks comments on whether both the printed versions 
and the electronic versions of the brochures are user-friendly and ways 
in which they can be improved. Should the Commission continue to 
publish both printed and electronic versions of the brochures? The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should develop 
brochures on additional topics and, if so, which topics should be 
covered.

b. Campaign Guides

    The Commission publishes campaign guides, which serve as compliance 
manuals for Federal political committees. Electronic versions of these 
guides are available at http://www.fec.gov/info/publications.shtml#guides. Separate guides are available for (1) 
Congressional Candidates and Committees, (2) Political Party

[[Page 31436]]

Committees, (3) Nonconnected Committees and (4) Corporations and Labor 
Organizations. The electronic versions of these guides include all 
supplements to date, summarizing relevant post-publication rules and 
opinions. The Commission seeks comment on whether the printed versions 
and electronic versions of these guides are sufficiently educational, 
understandable, and presented in a user-friendly manner and, if not, 
how they can be improved. For example, should important terms be linked 
by hypertext to other sources available on the Web site, such as links 
to the text of a cited rule, an Advisory Opinion or court decision? In 
what other ways can these guides be improved? Should the Commission 
continue to publish both printed and electronic versions of the guides? 
More generally, does the Web site contain sufficient guidance about 
complying with the Commission's reporting requirements? Does the Web 
site contain sufficient information about complying with contribution 
limits and other provisions of the FECA? In not, what additional 
information would be useful?

c. The Record Newsletter

    The FEC publishes a monthly newsletter, The Record, which is 
automatically sent electronically to all political committees and is 
also available through the Web site. The Record is designed to be a 
useful resource for anyone interested in the most recent developments 
in Federal campaign finance law and at the Commission. Each month, The 
Record contains the latest information on reporting deadlines, 
regulations, advisory opinions, court decisions and other FEC actions. 
Can The Record be improved and, if so, how? Is The Record a useful 
resource for all of the audiences that access the Commission's Web 
site? Should the Commission produce a different version of The Record 
for different audiences? For instance, should there be an edition of 
The Record specifically targeted to representatives of political 
committees and a different edition targeted to members of the general 
public?

d. Commission Calendar

    The Commission's homepage currently provides a link to a Commission 
calendar that includes information about Commission public meeting 
dates, Commission hearing dates, significant filing deadlines and 
educational programs, as well as other information. Should the 
Commission include other categories of information? If so, what 
information should be included? For example, should the calendar 
include significant dates related to pending litigation including a 
schedule of oral arguments?

e. Materials for the Media

    Currently, the media section of the FEC's Web site is designed as a 
tool to help members of the media find information quickly and easily. 
This section contains the Commission's latest press releases and 
campaign finance information, as well as background information and 
reference materials. This section also contains a link to a ``Weekly 
Digest'' that includes items such as (1) public actions taken by the 
Commission for the previous week, (2) interesting events occurring at 
the Commission regardless of formal actions being taken, (3) important 
items of litigation, and (4) a schedule for the upcoming weeks. Users 
may also subscribe to the FECMail service to receive alerts through e-
mail when new press releases are posted. The Commission seeks comment 
on ways in which the media page of its Web site and the press release 
subscriber service can be improved.
    The Commission seeks comment on all of these educational materials. 
Are these materials useful and, specifically, are they useful for 
members of the general public? If not, how can the Commission make the 
materials more useful? Are these materials updated in a timely manner? 
Should these materials cover additional topics that would help the 
general public better understand the campaign finance laws and the role 
of the Commission?
    Should the Commission create educational materials unique to its 
Web site? For instance, the Commission is developing e-learning content 
for its Web site, including instructional videos and interactive 
presentations intended to supplement the FEC's existing educational 
materials. By offering this content on the Commission's Web site and 
via YouTube, the Commission hopes to expand access to its educational 
materials and thereby increase compliance with Federal campaign finance 
laws. The Commission seeks comment on what topics would be most useful 
for its e-learning materials and what is the best way to make these 
materials available to the public.
    Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should create other interactive materials that would permit 
the public to submit questions through its Web site, for example, using 
live chat. Should the Web site host a chat room for viewers to engage 
each other on issues related to the FEC and campaign finance? The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it should provide other types 
of educational materials. For example, the Commission currently sends a 
weekly ``Tip for Treasurers'' to subscribers though an RSS (Really 
Simple Syndication) feed. Should the Commission make available 
additional RSS feeds? Should the Commission post answers to questions 
submitted by the public through its Web site?
    Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
proactively use social media in order to reach new audiences and engage 
the public? For example, should the Commission use Facebook, Wikipedia, 
Twitter or Second Life? Would the use of such social media assist the 
Commission in its educational outreach? If yes, how should the 
Commission use these social media?

XI. Educational Programs

    The Commission sponsors a number of conferences each year, both in 
the Washington, DC area and around the country, where Commissioners and 
FEC staff conduct a variety of instructional workshops on campaign 
finance law. Each conference has programs that are tailored to a 
specific audience (e.g., House and Senate campaigns or corporations and 
their PACs). Typically, the Commission sponsors five of these 
conferences each year and the conferences often sell out well in 
advance. Should the Commission hold more conferences each year? Should 
the conferences be held in additional locations around the country? If 
so, where?
    Should the Commission make audio or video recordings of these 
conferences available through its Web site? Would participation by 
conference attendees be affected by recording conferences? If the 
Commission records conferences, what technology should the Commission 
use? Should the Commission make available live streaming of the 
conferences? Should users be able to download the recordings from the 
Web site? Should users be able to order audio tapes, CD and DVD 
recordings? Should the Commission seek to provide Continuing Legal 
Education (CLE) credit for attorneys who attend these courses and for 
users who access the audio or video recordings of the programs? Should 
the Commission seek to provide Continuing Professional Education (CPE) 
credit for Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) who attend these courses 
or who access the audio or video recordings?
    In addition to the conferences, should the Commission offer other 
tele-conferences, PowerPoint presentations

[[Page 31437]]

or online courses or discussion forums? If so, what topics should be 
covered? How frequently should live programs be offered? After the live 
programs are over, should the Commission continue to make the materials 
from these programs available? If so, for what period of time should 
they remain available?

XII. Legal Research

a. Enforcement Query System

    Materials related to closed enforcement cases including Matters 
Under Review (MURs), which is the formal name for a matter under 
Commission investigation, and closed Alternative Dispute Resolution 
(ADR) cases are available on the FEC's Web site at the tab entitled 
Enforcement Query System (EQS). See http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs. Through EQS, Web site visitors may access the Commission's 
enforcement documents, including complaints, responses, conciliation 
agreements and Commissioner statements of reasons, using key words or 
phrases or by basic information about these cases (e.g., by name of 
complainant or respondent, or by case number). Users can also search 
cases by the type of violation alleged to have occurred. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether the query choices are sufficiently robust. Do 
users find it easy to search closed enforcement cases by the type of 
violation alleged to have occurred? If not, in what ways can EQS be 
improved to facilitate these types of searches? Is it easy to search by 
both the type of violation alleged to have occurred and the legal 
citation? Are the search results accurate? If not, what are the 
inaccuracies?
    Once a user has located a specific MUR or ADR case through a query 
of EQS, the system currently does not allow the user to then share 
direct access to all the documents associated with that particular MUR 
or ADR case with another user through a specified Uniform Resource 
Locator (URL) or hyperlink. Rather, users must be instructed to go to 
the EQS query page where the user would then run a new query using the 
MUR or ADR case number in order to access the relevant documents. 
Should EQS provide a function that would allow users to link directly 
to a specific MUR and ADR case? If so, what would be the best way for 
EQS to provide such a function?
    The Commission was constituted in 1975 and closed its first MUR in 
January 1976. At the present time, MURs that closed after January 1, 
1999 are available on EQS. MURs from 1976 to 1998 are presently 
available only on microfilm at the Commission's Public Disclosure Room 
in Washington, DC. However, the Commission is in the process of 
digitizing the microfilm in order to make documents from all closed 
MURs available online. Are there any particular ways the Commission can 
make online access to these newly added MURs more user-friendly? For 
instance, the Commission intends to use optical character recognition 
to ensure these documents are text searchable. Are there other ways EQS 
can be improved?
    The EQS system does not currently contain any information regarding 
the Commission's Administrative Fines program. The Administrative Fines 
program covers violations of FECA section 434(a), 2 U.S.C. 434(a), by 
committees that file their disclosure forms late, or do not file at 
all. See 11 CFR Part 111, Subpart B. Should the Commission include on 
the EQS system documents related to the Administrative Fines program? 
Would including Administrative Fines documents in EQS assist political 
committees in fulfilling their reporting responsibilities under the 
Act?

b. Advisory Opinion Search Engine

    The Commission's Web site currently allows searches of advisory 
opinions (AOs) from 1975 to the present, including searches of certain 
documents associated with all AOs issued by the Commission since 1999, 
such as requests, public comments, and concurring and dissenting 
opinions. Links to all of these related documents are available for AOs 
issued since 1999. Would it be helpful if the Commission were to 
include documents related to AOs issued prior to 1999? The Commission 
has recently completed an upgrade of the AO search system, resulting in 
enhanced search functionalities and flexibility in displaying and 
sorting search results, as well as improved navigability, and new 
features, such as the ability to display all search hits in results and 
an option to display PDF documents full-screen.
    The Commission seeks comment on the recently upgraded AO Search 
Engine and whether the expanded AO query choices are sufficiently 
robust. Are results accurate? Do they clearly and accurately reflect 
when an AO has been superseded by a change in the law or by a 
subsequent AO? In what ways can the Web site's AO search capabilities 
be improved? Should the documents in the AO search database include 
annotations?

c. Litigation Documents

    The Commission brings enforcement suits in U.S. District Courts 
when matters are not satisfactorily resolved through the administrative 
enforcement process and sues to enforce administrative subpoenas. The 
FEC is also involved in defending lawsuits, which generally fall into 
the following three categories: (1) Lawsuits contesting the 
Commission's dismissals of administrative complaints under 2 U.S.C. 
437g(a)(8); (2) petitions seeking review of Commission decisions 
regarding the Presidential public funding program; and (3) civil suits 
challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the FECA and the 
validity of the Commission's regulations. Materials related to 
litigation are currently available on the Commission's Web site and are 
divided into four sections. The section entitled ``Selected Recent and 
Ongoing Litigation'' provides links to materials related to recent 
litigation involving the FEC. ``Major Campaign Finance Court 
Decisions'' identifies key court decisions relating to the campaign 
finance law and provides links to materials related to those decisions. 
There is also an ``Alphabetical Index of FEC Court Cases'' that lists 
pending and past FEC cases alphabetically with links to summaries and, 
for some cases, to court opinions and other documents, such as the 
filed briefs. Finally, the Web site includes a ``Subject Index for FEC 
Court Cases'' that lists pending and past FEC cases by subject matter 
with links to summaries and, for some cases, to court opinions and 
other documents.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether the information is 
sufficiently complete and user-friendly. Are there pleadings, orders 
and court opinions that impact the Commission, the FECA, and the 
public, that are not found on the Web site? For example, the Web site 
currently contains only pleadings that were filed by the FEC or by 
parties aligned with the FEC. Should the Web site also provide access 
to pleadings filed by opposing parties? Are the documents timely posted 
and adequately indexed? Are the documents easy to locate and search? 
Should the Web site contain summaries of cases and opinions? Should the 
Web site contain links to the court opinions for every pending and past 
case?

d. Rules, Statutes and Policy Statements

    The FEC promulgates rules (also known as regulations) that 
implement the FECA and other statutes. The Commission's Web site 
currently provides access to the Commission's

[[Page 31438]]

regulations, as well as a variety of legal resources, including the 
text of the FECA and other relevant statutes. See http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/cfr.shtml; http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml.
    Currently, a compilation of all the Commission's rules is available 
in a single PDF file on the Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/cfr_2009.pdf. The Web site also provides a link to the Government 
Printing Office's (GPO) Web site where a user can access each rule 
individually, both in PDF and text formats. See http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_09/11cfrv1_09.html. Are the 
Commission's rules easy to find? Can the Commission's rules be printed 
easily? What improvements can the Commission make in making its 
regulations available and accessible to the public?
    Whenever the Commission promulgates a new regulation it also adopts 
an Explanation and Justification (E&J) providing detailed information 
about the new rule. All of the Commission's E&Js are available on the 
Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/cfr.shtml and are organized both 
by citation (by Part, rule number, and title) and chronologically (by 
date of adoption). Are the E&Js organized in a useful way? If not, how 
should they be organized? Should they be organized by related subject 
matter? Are the E&Js easy to locate? Once located, are they easily 
searched?
    Similarly, is the text of the FECA and other relevant statutes easy 
to find on, and print from, the Commission's Web site? The FECA is 
often amended though the passage of other statutes such as, most 
recently, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 
(HLOGA), Public Law 110-81, 121 Stat. 735 (2007). Are these statutory 
amendments to the FECA easy to find? If not, how can the Commission 
make them more accessible? Should the Commission provide annotated 
versions of its rules and of the FECA that discuss court interpretation 
or promulgation history, or cross-reference Advisory Opinions, 
enforcement matters and litigation?
    The Commission also makes its policy statements available on the 
Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml. The policy statements 
address such issues as (1) Best Efforts to Collect Contributor 
Information, (2) Self Reporting of Campaign Finance Violations (Sua 
Sponte Submissions), and (3) Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to 
Embezzlement. Are the policy statements organized in a useful way? If 
not, in what other way should they be organized?

e. Rulemakings

    Documents relating to recent (starting from 2007) and ongoing FEC 
rulemakings are listed by topic in reverse chronological order on the 
Commission's Web site, with new rulemakings added to the top of the 
list. See http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml. Documents 
related to older rulemakings (1999-2006) are also available on a 
Rulemakings Archive page at http://www.fec.gov/law/RulemakingArchive.shtml. Are the Commission's rulemakings easy to find? 
Is the information related to each rulemaking organized in a useful 
way? If not, how should they be organized? Should the Rulemakings 
Archive page include proceedings from prior to 1999? Is there 
additional information related to Commission rulemakings that would be 
useful to include on the Web site?

XIII. Electronic Filing of Disclosure Reports

    Since 2001, almost all political committees have been required to 
file reports and statements electronically with the Commission (the 
requirement to file electronically does not currently apply to Senate 
candidate committees). Political committees generally must file all 
reports and statements electronically if their total contributions or 
total expenditures exceed, or are expected to exceed, $50,000 in a 
calendar year. See 11 CFR 104.18. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether the Commission's electronic filing system is easy to use, 
particularly for first-time users. The Commission seeks comment on ways 
in which the Commission's electronic filing system can be improved, 
such as whether the Commission's electronic filing software, FECFile 
(available at http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/FECFileIntroPage.shtml), is 
sufficiently user-friendly and whether the Commission has provided 
sufficiently clear instructions to help filers use the software.
    FECFile is the Commission's electronic report filing software 
application designed to run on Windows platforms that enables filers to 
record and track information required for reporting to the Commission 
and to securely submit these data to the Commission electronically. 
Have filers been able to use the FECFile software on computers with the 
latest Windows operating systems such as 64-bit Vista? Should FECFile 
be modified to also operate on a MAC platform? The Commission is aware 
that several commercial vendors also offer other software packages that 
political committees can use to record and track financial information 
that can then be reported to the Commission. See http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/software.shtml. The Commission seeks comment on ways in which 
FECFile can be improved. What functions are not available through the 
use of FECFile that are available through commercial software packages 
(e.g., drop-down windows that would offer a choice of acceptable 
descriptions of purpose for particular reported disbursements)? Should 
FECFile be modified to include those functions? Is FECFile as flexible, 
intuitive and helpful as commercially available software packages? If 
not, in what ways is it less flexible, intuitive or helpful?
    In order to file electronic disclosure reports using FECFile, a 
user must obtain a password (whether for the first time or as a 
replacement of an old password) by faxing or mailing a request letter 
to the Commission. If the request letter is sent on behalf of a 
political committee, the letter must be signed by the committee's 
treasurer. A member of the Commission staff then calls the requester 
and provides a password over the phone. Should the Commission allow 
users to request a first-time password electronically through the Web 
site? Should users also be able to electronically change their 
passwords, or create new ones when an old password is forgotten? If 
yes, what security measures should the Commission put in place to 
ensure that passwords are only provided to authorized persons?
    The Commission has not made public the source code for the FECFile 
software package. If the Commission made the source code for FECFile 
public, this would allow others to develop modifications to the 
software on their own. Would this be useful? If so, how?
    Generally, the Commission seeks comment on whether providing 
FECFile software to filers is the best approach to facilitate the 
electronic filing process. Are there alternative approaches that would 
better serve this function, such as using instead a Web-based report 
filing system that would not require reporting committees to use 
separate specialized software?
    With respect to the existing FECFile software package, can novice 
users easily input the required information? If not, what types of 
common problems do users encounter? User manuals, Frequently Asked 
Questions (FAQs), and other documents to assist FECFile users are 
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/support/index.shtml. Are these materials sufficiently helpful to FECFile users? 
In

[[Page 31439]]

what ways can the materials be improved? Should focused guidance be 
available for each data entry space and should the guidance be 
accessible by clicking in or near that data entry space? If there are 
problems that FECFile users are unable to resolve, does the Commission 
provide adequate technical support? If not, what are the current 
deficiencies and how can these be addressed?
    Additionally, because it is common for electronically filed 
disclosure reports to contain missing, incomplete or even inconsistent 
data, the Commission's staff is often required to reconcile the data 
before it can be useful to the public. The Commission invites 
suggestions on ways in which the Commission might be able to mitigate 
the work currently required by Commission staff to reconcile the data. 
For example, should the Commission's electronic filing system 
automatically prevent filers from submitting reports with missing, 
incomplete or inconsistent data and at the same time inform the filer 
of the deficiency and suggest ways in which the report can be corrected 
thereby allowing the filer to know in advance that there is a problem 
and provide information about possible solutions?
    The Commission currently makes available a set of programming 
tools, including electronic filing specifications requirements and 
validation software, for vendors to use in developing their own 
commercial software packages. Are these tools useful? How can they be 
improved? Should the Commission employ a more rigorous certification 
standard for commercial software? Are new or more rigorous software 
standards for commercial software packages advisable to prevent filing 
of reports with missing, incomplete or inconsistent data, or do current 
standards need to be better enforced? How can the Commission ensure 
that changes do not unfairly burden candidates, especially less well-
funded challengers?

XIV. Electronic Filing of Other Documents

    The Commission interacts with the public, the media, political 
committees, and other entities through a variety of means. The above-
described electronic filing system, which resulted in improvements to 
the Commission's filing procedures, is one such means. The Commission 
seeks comments on whether the use of electronic ``portals'' for filing 
purposes could improve the Commission's procedures in other areas.
    For instance, in rulemaking proceedings, although the Commission 
currently allows comments on proposed rules to be submitted by e-mail, 
should the Commission allow electronic filing of petitions for 
rulemaking and for comments in rulemaking proceedings through its Web 
site? If so, should the Commission move to an entirely online system 
for filing of petitions for rulemaking and for comments in rulemaking 
proceedings, such that paper versions of comments and rulemaking 
petitions submitted by the public would no longer be accepted?
    Similarly, should the Commission implement a system for electronic 
filing of advisory opinion requests? Should the Commission also 
implement a web-based electronic filing system for commenting on 
advisory opinion requests and draft advisory opinions, whereby comments 
could be filed directly through the Commission's Web site either by 
entering text on the Web site or by uploading a file? If so, should the 
Commission mandate the electronic submission of all documents submitted 
by members of the public in connection with advisory opinions, such as 
advisory opinion requests, comments on advisory opinion requests, and 
comments on draft advisory opinions?
    The Commission's Web site currently provides information to the 
public regarding the procedures for filing a complaint with the 
Commission. At the present time, however, all complaints must be 
submitted on paper by mail or in person. Respondents are provided with 
notices of complaints pursuant to the provisions of the Act, but 
currently all responses also are submitted by hard copy. The Commission 
seeks comments on whether it should accommodate electronic filing of 
complaints and responses. Should the Commission allow electronic filing 
of complaints and responses to substitute for paper copies? Rather than 
allowing for permissive electronic filing, should the Commission 
mandate electronic filing for complaints and responses? Given that FECA 
requires that all complaints be signed and sworn by the person filing 
the complaint, would an electronic signature, or even the use of a user 
account and password, satisfy this statutory requirement? When the 
Commission communicates with respondents, such as sending notifications 
of reason-to-believe or subpoenas for documents, should the respondent 
be encouraged to submit answers and documents by e-mail or, 
alternatively, through a web-based submission form? Also, should the 
Commission accept conciliation agreements that contain an electronic 
signature by electronic means?

XV. Commission Meetings

    Audio recordings of public Commission meetings are generally 
available on the Commission's Web site within 48 hours after a meeting. 
See http://www.fec.gov/audio/audio.shtml. The Commission currently does 
not create video recordings of its public meetings. The audio 
recordings are available in an MP3 file format, which can be played 
through a user's preferred software such as Windows Media Player, Real 
Player, or QuickTime. The Commission also makes these audio recordings 
available as podcasts, which are automatically sent to a user once a 
user signs up for the podcasts on the Commission's Web site. The URL 
for the Commission's podcasts is http://www.fec.gov/audio/fec_audio.xml.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether these audio recordings are 
useful. Should they be made available in different formats? If so, 
which formats? Should the Commission make live audio streaming of its 
meetings available as well?
    Should the Commission make available video recordings of its 
meetings? If so, should a live stream of the video be made available or 
is a recording sufficient? What technology should the Commission use to 
provide access to video streaming of its meetings?
    In addition to audio and video recordings, should the Commission 
make available written transcripts of its open meetings? If yes, would 
it be appropriate for the Commission to charge for access to such 
transcripts?

XVI. Technical Issues

a. Software and Operating Systems

    The Commission seeks comment on a number of technical issues 
relating to its Web site, including URL naming conventions, the use of 
metadata, Web site accessibility, formatting, and hardware.
    The Commission uses a number of URL naming conventions in 
designating names for the pages on its Web site. For example, the 
Commission uses lower case letters and has set a number of directories 
related to major categories of information available on the Web site. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether it is using appropriate URL 
naming conventions for the pages on its Web site.
    The Commission also seeks comment on other aspects of data receipt 
and presentation. For example, what metadata standards should the FEC 
use and why? The Commission also seeks comment on how easily its Web 
site can be accessed by the public. Is the

[[Page 31440]]

Commission's Web site accessible using different web browsers, such as 
Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari or Google Chrome? Also, is 
the Commission's Web site accessible using different operating systems 
and at different connection speeds? Is the Commission's Web site 
accessible using recently released versions of operating systems such 
as 64-bit Vista? What can the Commission do to ensure that its Web site 
remains accessible as new technology becomes available?

b. Hardware

    The Commission also seeks comment on the type of computer hardware 
the Commission uses to support its Web site. The Commission currently 
uses load-balanced Sun Fire servers running Solaris 10 with Webserver 
Apache. Are these servers the best hardware for a Web site such as the 
FEC's? If not, why not and what kind would serve the public better? 
What innovations or advancements are anticipated in the near future? In 
what ways can the FEC plan for such advancements?

c. File Formatting

    The Commission also seeks comment on its Web site formatting and 
printability. The Commission currently uses Adobe Dreamweaver for Web 
site development. Is Dreamweaver the best software available for 
development of a Web site such as the FEC's? If not, why not and what 
software would serve the public better now and in the future?
    Are the Commission's Web site pages formatted properly to allow for 
easy printing? Should the Commission employ a ``printer friendly'' 
function on its Web site? If so, on which pages?
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether documents are made 
available in formats that are easy to access, such as HTML (Hyper Text 
Markup Language), XML (Extensible Markup Language), Microsoft Word or 
PDF. For example, are there adequate links to the downloadable free PDF 
viewer provided? Is page download time for PDF documents quick enough, 
especially for scanned documents? Finally, should large documents be 
made available for viewing and printing by smaller sections or 
chapters?

XVII. Maintenance of Content

    The Commission updates its Web site on a daily basis by adding new 
information, updating old information and removing obsolete 
information. Examples of these changes include guidance about new 
statutes and regulations. The Commission seeks comment about whether 
information is added, updated and deleted in a timely manner. If not, 
what would be a reasonable time period within which information should 
be added, updated or deleted? Is the information on the FEC's Web site 
current? Are users easily able to see whether a page is current? For 
example, should each page on the Commission's Web site provide 
information about the ``date posted'' or ``last reviewed'' to allow 
viewers to assess whether the information is current? Should the 
Commission maintain archived versions of the Web site so that users can 
access information that was available in the past? If so, how should 
the Commission make archived versions of the Web site accessible?
    When new information is added to a Web site it is important to 
ensure that the new information is not duplicative, or worse yet, 
contradictory to information that is already available. Additionally, 
it is vital that links are updated to ensure that viewers can access 
the information they seek. The Commission seeks comment on whether its 
Web site contains contradictory or erroneous content. Are links on the 
Commission's Web site maintained properly?
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether, and if so, how often, 
it should conduct a content review of the entire Web site to ensure 
that online content is accurate, relevant, mission-related and written 
in plain language.

XVIII. Privacy Policy

    Federal agencies are under an obligation to protect the privacy of 
the American people when they interact with their government. 
Accordingly, agencies are required to have clear privacy policies and 
to post those policies on their Web sites. The FEC's privacy policy is 
available at http://www.fec.gov/privacy.shtml. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether its privacy policy is appropriate and adequate.

XIX. Implementation of Changes

    After the Commission reviews the written comments filed in response 
to this notice, as well as the testimony from witnesses at the hearing, 
the Commission will consider implementing improvements to the ways in 
which the Commission uses the Internet to disclose information to the 
public, including changes to the Commission's Web site. Once the 
Commission implements such changes, what is the most effective way for 
the Commission to inform the public about those changes? For example, 
should the Commission provide a link on the homepage to a guide 
regarding changes? Should the Commission issue a press release? Are 
there other ways the Commission should inform the public once the Web 
site is updated?

XX. Customer Satisfaction & Future Improvements

    The Commission currently receives comments and suggestions 
regarding its Web site through e-mails sent to the Commission's Web 
Manager (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9ae9c9b949897989e9c8bb99f9c9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcebd9ded1ddd2dddbd9cefcdad9df92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>). Currently, the Commission has no other 
method of measuring the usability of its Web site or customer 
satisfaction. Thus, the Commission seeks suggestions on ways in which 
the Commission could measure usability and customer satisfaction. For 
example, should the Commission conduct focus groups? Should the 
Commission conduct online surveys? Should the Web site host blogs in 
which users could provide feedback? Should these blogs be made 
available to the public? Are there any privacy concerns that the 
Commission should be aware of that are associated with conducting 
online surveys?
    Going forward, the Commission seeks comment on how it may most 
effectively review and make further Web site improvements. Also, the 
Commission seeks comment on the most effective way to solicit and 
receive further feedback and suggestions. Is the Commission's use of 
the Webmaster e-mail address sufficient? Should the Commission 
proactively solicit additional feedback from the public? Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should post user comments and 
suggestions on the Commission's Web site. If so, should the Commission 
also post actions taken by the Commission in response to such comments 
and suggestions?

XXI. Recommended Resources

    Are there private resources such as research centers, academic 
institutions, or technical experts and consultants, available that the 
Commission might not be aware of that could assist the Commission in 
implementing improvements to the ways in which the Commission discloses 
information to the public and improvements to its Web site in the most 
expeditious and efficient manner possible? If so, what are those 
resources and how can the Commission access them? Are those resources 
available from commercial entities or non-profit organizations? Are 
there other government agencies that maintain Web sites that the 
Commission should try to emulate? If so, which agencies and why?


[[Page 31441]]


    Dated: March 25, 2009.
Steven T. Walther,
Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

    Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the 
Federal Register on Thursday, June 25, 2009.
[FR Doc. E9-15497 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>