Advocacy Groups Battle Over Rules on Political Ads

Nonprofit and advocacy groups are battling to influence how the Federal Elections Commission interprets a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down campaign-finance rules restricting some television and radio political advertising.

The commission will hold a hearing on October 17 on the June ruling, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, which said nonprofit groups, businesses, and labor unions may broadcast issue-related ads mentioning a candidate for federal office in the period just before an election — as long as they are not designed to seek votes for or against the candidate.

The federal agency has issued a notice laying out two approaches to interpreting the decision, which exempts such ads from provisions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain-Feingold Act.

One approach would require groups that spend more than $10,000 on issue ads mentioning a candidate to report all of their donations that exceed $1,000, or set up a separate fund for the ads and disclose those donors. Those are the same reporting requirements that apply to nonprofit groups, businesses, or labor unions that place ads to influence an election.

But critics say that approach would invade donor privacy and violate the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling.

“[We have] long maintained the position that rights to free speech and association would be seriously compromised if public disclosure of donors were made a condition for engaging in advocacy with respect to public policy,” Independent Sector, a coalition of big nonprofit groups and foundations, says in comments submitted to the Federal Elections Commission.

“On a practical level it leaves a nonprofit with two bad choices: either disclose donors for the entire organization, or have the difficult job of separate fund raising for the [special] fund,” OMB Watch, a government-watchdog group, says in its comments.

But groups that are fighting to limit the influence of money on political campaigns favor the second approach, which would not change the reporting rules. They argue the Supreme Court did not deal with that part of the law.

The court provided “specific, narrow guidelines” to allow genuine issue ads close to elections, but did not “comment directly or indirectly on the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements,” the public-interest groups Common Cause, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG argue in joint comments.

The Supreme Court case involved ads placed by Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, just before the 2002 state primary asking people to urge Senator Russ Feingold, who was a candidate for reelection, to stop a Senate filibuster on federal judicial nominations.

Other comments on the election commission’s notice can be viewed on the agency’s Web site.