Blog — Supreme Court
During a public hearing this week FEC Commissioner Lee Goodman accused CREW of trying to regulate the Internet through a proposal to treat certain advertisements run on the Internet the same as identical ads run on television. Commissioner Goodman simply is wrong about CREW’s aims. CREW seeks to close a loophole in campaign finance law, a loophole Commissioner Goodman is ignoring even as groups are exploiting it to secretly spend millions of dollars to influence elections.
CREW’s proposal involves disclosure of “electioneering communications” — paid advertisements run within 60 days of a general election that mention a candidate by name but do not explicitly advocate voting for or against the candidate. Under current law, groups that spend more than $10,000 a year to make and run these ads on over-the-air, cable, or satellite television must report this spending to the FEC, but the rules do not apply to ads run on the Internet.
As a result, an outside group that pays $1 million to run an electioneering communication on television must disclose that spending, but if the same group pays the same $1 million to run the same ad exclusively on the Internet, none of that spending needs to be disclosed to the public.
Aware of this loophole, outside groups increasingly are paying for electioneering communications posted exclusively on the web, streaming video sites, Facebook, and other Internet-based media. The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, for example, which reported spending more than $7.5 million in 2014 on independent expenditures urging voters to reelect Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or vote against his opponent, also spent $750,000 on a digital ad campaign, most of which ran between September 26, 2014 and Election Day. None of these ads were disclosed to the FEC, and other groups similarly exploited the loophole in 2014.
CREW recently suggested the FEC should examine whether the language of the law can be construed to cover electioneering communications carried on the Internet. CREW further proposed the FEC encourage Congress to expand the law to cover electioneering communications transmitted over the Internet in future legislative recommendations.
At an FEC hearing Wednesday, Commissioner Goodman said CREW would have the FEC “expand regulation of Internet communications that merely mention candidates,” and gave as an example an issue ad that had been previously placed on YouTube and was left up through the beginning of the 60-day window before an election. In a subsequent interview, Commissioner Goodman went further, calling CREW’s proposal “an insidious regulatory scheme” that would require “anyone who communicates about policy issues on the Internet within 60 days of an election” to file expenditure reports about communications on YouTube or a blog and force groups that do so to disclose all of their donors. These contentions are in line with Commissioner Goodman’s propensity to characterize as “censorship” every suggestion the FEC have an open discussion about how to treat political activity on the Internet.
Commissioner Goodman is mistaken about the intent of CREW’s proposal. The goal is to close a loophole in disclosure laws, not censor speech about issues on the Internet.
CREW is aware that applying the current electioneering communications rules to Internet ads, without changes, could impact individuals and groups producing and placing issue ads on the Internet. The law’s $10,000 threshold, however, should exclude nearly all the individuals posting these kinds of advertisements. There would be no regulation, and no censorship, of the Internet activities of these individuals. Moreover, there is no reason to expect Congress or the FEC would not make changes to the electioneering communications rules — written for television and radio ads — before applying them to Internet ads. Gathering information about an issue and tailoring a response to it is the point of a legislative process or rulemaking proceeding, and any new statute or rule should be drafted carefully to address the different characteristics of placing ads on the Internet.
FEC Chair Ann Ravel suggested last year the FEC should examine whether and how to update campaign finance rules to deal with changes in technology and communication that are revolutionizing how campaigns are run. CREW agrees. Those changes have opened up a loophole in disclosure of electioneering communications. The intent of CREW’s proposal is to close that loophole, not censor the Internet.
More Blog Posts
Disclosing the sources of political spending is critical to deter corruption, help voters evaluate campaign messages, and hold elected officials accountable. Read More ›
January 15, 2015 | 501c Groups, Advertisements, Campaign Finance Reform, Elections, Federal Agencies, Federal Election Commission (FEC), Legal, Super PACs, Supreme Court, Citizens United decision, McCutcheon v. FEC, Reforming the FEC
"Issue advertisements" funded by Americans for Prosperity are the latest examples of Koch brothers-associated groups lying about political involvement. Read More ›
September 3, 2014 | Advertisements, Corruption, Elections, Federal Agencies, Federal Election Commission (FEC), Supreme Court, Citizens United decision, McCutcheon v. FEC, Transparency, Koch Brothers, Senate Members, Mary Landrieu
D.C. attorney David Zvenyach just made it much harder for the U.S. Supreme Court to secretly revise its opinions. Read More ›
CREW will be hosting a panel of money-in-politics experts to discuss political activity by tax exempt groups, whether the First Amendment limits political activity, and much more. Read More ›
It appears that campaign contributors now have yet another way to wield influence without leaving many fingerprints. Read More ›
A complex money laundering scheme to fund political activities without disclosing the source of the funds reveals several important facts about the current state of dark money and campaign finance laws. Read More ›
October 30, 2013 | 501c Groups, Campaign Finance Reform, Elections, Financial, Disclosure, Organizations, American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security, States, California, Supreme Court, Citizens United decision, McCutcheon v. FEC, Koch Brothers