Source: http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/comment-fec-van-hollen-independent-expenditure-petition
Timestamp: 2014-03-12 06:29:28
Document Index: 110978690

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 434', '§ 434', '§ 434', '§ 434', '§ 434', '§ 434', '§ 434']

Comment to FEC on Van Hollen Independent Expenditure PetitionAugust 22, 2011Money in PoliticsDisclosure The Brennan Center for Justice submitted a comment to the Federal Election Commission urging it to revise its independent expenditure reporting requirements in line with Rep. Chris Van Hollen's petition.
Robert M. KnopAssistant General CounselFederal Election Commission999 E Street, N.W.Washington D.C. 20463
The current regulation unduly narrows which, if any, underlying contributors a person filing a report has to identify, in contravention of the clear language and purpose of the law. Federal law requires that entities making independent expenditures disclose “each person . . . who makes a contribution” of over $200 to the entity, 2 U.S.C. § 434(b)(3)(A); see id. § 434(c)(1), and “each person who makes a contribution in excess of $200 . . . for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure.” 2 U.S.C. § 434(c)(2)(C). These provisions mandate the identification of all contributors of more than $200 to the entity making independent expenditures, whether or not those contributions are specifically earmarked for a particular independent expenditure.
In adopting 2 U.S.C. §§ 434(c)(1) and (b)(3)(A), Congress chose to require that the true source of the funds spent to influence the outcome of elections through independent expenditures be revealed to the public. It mandated disclosure not only of the name of the entity engaged in independent expenditures, but also the identification of the entity’s underlying donors who contribute over $200. These provisions aim to, inter alia, protect against scenarios in which a group using an anodyne name can serve as a front for the interests of its contributors, whose identities remain veiled. Even the more limited statutory language in 2 U.S.C. § 434(c)(2)(C) calls for more disclosure than is required by the regulation. Section 434(c)(2)(C) contains language similar to that found in the FEC regulation, but with a small yet substantively important difference. The federal law requires the identification of those contributing for the purpose of furthering “an” independent expenditure, while the FEC regulation requires only the identification of those contributing for the purpose of furthering “the reported” independent expenditure.
The substitution of the definite article “the” for the indefinite article “an” means that the filer only has to reveal the identities of its underlying donors who have earmarked their contributions for one specific independent expenditure. The indefinite article in the law captures any donations made to support the organization’s independent expenditures; it does not require that the donor intend to support a particular independent expenditure. In contrast, the language of the regulation only requires the identification of any donor who contributes specifically to support “the reported” independent expenditure. In its current form, therefore, the regulation fails to require disclosure of donors that the statute plainly reaches: even if a donor contributed to an entity making independent expenditures with the intent or knowledge that the contribution would be used to support independent expenditures, the regulation would not require disclosure unless the donor earmarked her donation to support one specific independent expenditure. Unsurprisingly, few donors earmark their contributions in this way, and many entities making independent expenditures refrain from reporting these donors. This allows donors to contribute while concealing their identities, despite the statutory provision requiring the disclosure of “each person …who makes a contribution” of over $200 to the entity, 2 U.S.C. § 434(b)(3)(A); see id. § 434(c)(1). In the absence of a regulation that adequately implements unambiguous provisions of federal law, secret unreported spending in our elections is proliferating. This defeats the purpose of Congress’s carefully crafted policy on disclosure of campaign spending, which—as the Supreme Court recognized in Citizens United—aims to provide “transparency [to] enable[] the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” 130 S. Ct. at 916. The Commission should initiate a rulemaking, and should adopt regulations that implement the law as it is written. Entities and persons that have the right to engage in independent expenditures to influence elections also have the legal obligation to disclose the source of their funding. The public has a First Amendment interest in receiving that information. The Commission’s existing regulation obstructs that constitutionally vital goal, and defeats the Congressional mandate. We urge the Commission to initiate a rulemaking and adopt the proposed regulation set forth in the Petition.
J. Adam SkaggsSenior CounselDemocracy Program
Elizabeth KennedyCounselDemocracy Program
Van Hollen v. FEC 8/01/12 IssuesVoting Rights & Elections