Clark Hill Political Law Alert

 

 

September 1, 2010


FEC Adopts Revised Coordinated Communications Regulations with Broadened Conduct Prong; Also Approves Stricter Rule Defining Federal Election Activity

 

The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") approved revised regulations on August 26, 2010 that will have a major impact on the ways in which individuals, corporations, labor unions, and independent political groups may go about funding political advertisements in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond.  The revised regulations, addressing "coordinated communications," stem from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Shays v. FEC ("Shays III"), where the court of appeals requested clarification or struck down several portions of the FEC's coordination regulations implementing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA").  The amended regulations also address and borrow language from the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. ("WRTL") and Citizens United v. FEC ("Citizens United").

 

The revised coordination rule specifically addresses independent and outside spending on political advertising, and what sort of subject matter and activity constitutes coordination with a federal candidate's campaign committee that would trigger FEC regulation.  Since 2002, the FEC has applied a three-prong test to determine whether a communication, i.e. an independent expenditure or independent political advertising on federal elections, is a coordinated communication, and therefore subject to the FEC's contribution and expenditure limitations and prohibitions.  If a communication satisfies all three prongs: (1) payment; (2) content; and, (3) conduct, it is deemed a coordinated communication, and subject to FEC coordination regulations.  The content prong of this test has been the subject of the most controversy and litigation since its adoption in 2002, and is the primary focus of the current changes.  Proposed changes to the conduct prong were also up for debate in this rulemaking, but remain unchanged. 

 

Shays III Decision

 

The Court of Appeals in Shays III stated that the FEC's 2006 revisions to the content prong of the coordination regulation, namely its decision to apply "express advocacy" as the only content standard for communications outside 120 days before a state's Presidential primary through the general election, and 90 days before a primary and general congressional election, ran "counter to BCRA's purpose."  The court was concerned that by applying the express advocacy test outside the 90/120 day time windows, a test focused solely on communications containing so-called "magic words," such as "vote for," "elect," "support," "defeat," and "reject," it would allow candidates, individuals, and independent groups to circumvent the contribution and expenditure limitations and prohibitions of BCRA.  Accordingly, the Shays III court directed the FEC to craft a content standard that is more inclusive than "express advocacy" to apply to communications outside the 90/120 day time frames.

 

Revised Content Prong

 

In response to the Shays III court's directive, the FEC has added an additional standard to the content prong of the coordination test.  The new standard applies to any public communication that is the "functional equivalent of express advocacy," i.e., a communication "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate."  Such language is borrowed directly from the test employed and articulated by Chief Justice Roberts in the Supreme Court's WRTL opinion and applied most recently in the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.  The standard is a broader interpretation than the strict "express advocacy" test, and applies to communications at all times before a federal primary or general election, whether they be inside or outside the 90/120 day windows. 

 

The FEC explicitly rejected adopting a content standard to cover public communications that promote, support, attack, or oppose a political party or a clearly identified Federal candidate, referred to as the "PASO standard."  Campaign finance reform advocates had pushed vigorously for adoption of the PASO standard during the FEC's open comment and hearing period, but this proposal did not garner the necessary support of four Commissioners.

 

"Functional Equivalent of Express Advocacy" Content Standard in Practice

 

Although the FEC's revised coordination rule broadens the scope of the content of independent communications that may constitute coordination, and therefore trigger FEC regulation, it avoids bright-line guidance or examples of what sort of communications actually satisfy the test.  Instead, it cites only the Supreme Court's decisions in WRTL and Citizens United, and the Court's objective application of the "functional equivalent" test to the specific communications in each case-WRTL's television and radio ads urging voters to contact their senators, which the Court concluded were not the "functional equivalent of express advocacy," and Citizens United's production and dissemination of Hillary, The Movie, which the Court determined was "equivalent to express advocacy." 

 

Because the FEC has limited its guidance to the few examples addressed in these Supreme Court decisions, it remains to be seen what sort of communications will or will not satisfy the new "functional equivalent" content standard for coordinated communications.  Consequently, individuals, corporations, labor unions and independent groups seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights this fall and beyond by funding independent expenditures should do so prudently, and after consulting counsel familiar with the applicable FEC regulations and case law.

 

FEC Approves New Definition of Federal Election Activity by 6-0 Vote

 

At the same August 26, 2010 meeting, the FEC approved by a 6-0 vote a stricter definition of Federal Election Activity ("FEA") than in its previous FEA regulation.  These new rules are effective on December 1, 2010.  FEA is state and local political party campaign activity that requires the use of Federal funds (so-called "hard money") within the FEC's limitations and prohibitions.   The revised rule stems from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in Shays III, where the court of appeals remanded the previous definitions of "voter registration activity" and "GOTV activity" (Get Out the Vote Activity), back to the FEC for revision and clarification because of alleged loopholes enabling potential circumvention of the FEA requirements of BCRA. 

 

The FEC's revised rule requires that state and local political parties use

"hard money" to pay for "voter registration activity" and "GOTV activity" aimed at urging, encouraging, or assisting potential voters to register to vote or to vote, "regardless of whether the message is delivered individually or to a group of people via mass communication."  The new FEA rule is stricter than the previous rule in that the former regulations covered only registration and GOTV activity aimed at individual potential voters.  The new rule means that state and local political parties' mass voter registration drives or communications must now be paid for with solely "hard money."

 

For further information regarding the topics discussed in this update, please contact your Clark Hill political law attorney.

 

The Washington Capitol Dome was constructed between 1855 and 1866, more than 50 years after the first Congress was held in the building. Designed by Thomas U. Walter, the fourth architect of the Capitol, the current (second) dome was built to better suit the Capitol building which had been expanded due to the growth of the United States and the size of the United States Congress.

cspies@clarkhill.com
Office: (202) 572-8663
Fax: (202) 572-8683

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Clark Hill
Clark Hill PLC is a full service law firm that provides business legal services, government & public affairs, and personal legal services to our clients throughout the country. With offices in Arizona, Illinois, Michigan and Washington, DC, Clark Hill has more than 200 attorneys and professionals.

 

For more information on Clark Hill PLC,
please visit clarkhill.com or call 800.949.3124

 

 

Safe Unsubscribe

This email was sent to jhenderson@clarkhill.com by sjohn@clarkhill.com.

Clark Hill PLC | 500 Woodward Ave | Suite 3500 | Detroit | MI | 48226