Van Hollen sues FEC over campaign disclosure
Rep. Chris Van Hollen sued the Federal Election Commission Thursday in an effort to strengthen disclosure requirements for groups that buy television advertisements in the final days of an election.
Known as “electioneering communications,” the ads became a central issue in the 2010 midterm election as millions of dollars of largely untraceable money flowed into close congressional races across the country. The spending, which benefited Republicans more than Democrats, became more widespread after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban on corporations engaging in the practice.
But Van Hollen noted that the Supreme Court case did not address disclosure requirements. In the lawsuit, he argues that the FEC has crafted its rules so that groups that pay for the ads can avoid disclosing donors. The lawsuit was filed Thursday in federal court.
“We have found that the requirements in existing law have been significantly loosened by the FEC’s interpretation,” the Montgomery County Democrat said in a statement. “The lawsuit I am filing today seeks to restore the statutory requirement that provides greater disclosure of the donors who provide funding for electioneering communications. If this standard had been adhered to, much of the more than $135 million in secret contributions that funded expenditures in the 2010 congressional races would have been disclosed to the public.”
The spending became a focal point for Democratic ire last year, including for President Barack Obama. Groups like American Action Network and Americans for Job Security spent millions on campaign ads in close congressional races without disclosing funders. Some of that money was funneled into Maryland’s First Congressional District last year to attack Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil, who ultimately lost the seat to Republican Rep. Andy Harris.
Electioneering communications include broadcast ads that air 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election. The ads may mention a candidate’s name, but do not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate.
Several groups that relied on the spending last year criticized the action.
The lawsuit is less about legal issues and "more a crass political maneuver that aims to exempt his labor union allies from the scrutiny he wants to heap on his opponents," Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads, said in a statement. "He doesn't want campaign reform, he wants gerrymandered campaign reform."
A spokeswoman for the Chamber of Commerce characterized the suit as a continued attempt by the White House to "ferret out and punish political foes." She tied the lawsuit to a draft White House executive order floated this week that would require companies seeking government contracts to disclose whether they had contributed to political ads.
"Along with the president’s draft [executive order], Rep. Van Hollen’s actions against the FEC are just another method to make sure the witch hunt can be completed before the next election," the spokeswoman, Blair W. Latoff, said in a statement.
A spokeswoman for the FEC said the agency does not comment on pending lawsuits.
Separately, Van Hollen asked the FEC on Thursday to write tougher rules for “independent expenditures,” another form of third-party campaign expenditures in which outside groups may expressly advocate for a candidate’s election. Independent expenditures can be made at any point in an election cycle.
Van Hollen led the campaign arm of House Democrats in the last election. He also led an unsuccessful effort to strengthen campaign disclosure requirements in Congress after the Supreme Court decision.
“The two actions taken today by Representative Van Hollen seek to ensure that nonprofit groups and others making campaign expenditures will not be able to keep the donors funding their activities hidden from citizens and voters in the future,” Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said in a statement. The Washington-based campaign finance watchdog group is representing Van Hollen in the case.
Comments
So Van Holland is not concerned about disclosing how much far left fringe groups like Code Pinko and Media Matters and other Soro's funded groups spend?
Van Holland is a far left fringe crackpot.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2011 3:41 PM
If Mr. Van Holen spnt half as much time on creating jobs as he obviously does on geting re-elected we would be better off than we are. He is the poster boy for Term Limits. Throw all of them out.
Posted by: Wrrnjns | April 21, 2011 3:51 PM
Van Holland - Congress does backroom deals all the time and as a hypocrite you want ads to be more open? Clean your own house first, chump.
Posted by: Cal | April 21, 2011 4:26 PM
Cal, Anonymous and Wrrnjns are all apparently unable to read what the article actual says and are instead substituting their own political ideologies and agendas for actual facts!
If you want to spend money on political ads, I think it's only fair that people know where the money is coming from and who's REALLY behind the ad. No matter what your political leaning, the truth is the truth is the truth and Maryland deserves it.
Posted by: JusticeDemon | April 21, 2011 4:57 PM
Cal, Anonymous and Wrrnjns are ALSO apparently unable to read that the lawsuit benefits BOTH political parties and has about as much to do with Media Matters and George Soros as it is about the Koch brothers and far right organizations. God bless Mr. Van Hollen.
Posted by: Woodie | April 21, 2011 5:32 PM
Why are politicians so afraid of citizens expressing their opinions?
Posted by: Howard Citizen | April 21, 2011 5:34 PM
WAAAAHHHH!
If Mr. Van Hollen would spend as much time addressing the problems of his constituents who live in 'Occupied' Montgomery County, as he does trying to enhance his personal status, within the Congress, the county would be a much more fiscally sound place to live and work.
Posted by: Mike | April 21, 2011 6:45 PM
justice and woodie - you are so politically biased that you missed my whole point - Congress needs to clean up their acts before they worry about other disclosures. Are you 2 brain dead?
Posted by: Cal | April 21, 2011 7:33 PM
Suppose Van Hollen is concerned about all the illegal foreign donations to Obama's campaign that the campaign purposefully allowed?
Suppose the press cares?
No, I don't think so either.
Posted by: anon | April 22, 2011 5:54 AM
Woodie and Demon, anything Van Hollan does will only benefit him or his party. He would never do anything to benefit his opposition. He is a partisan ideologue pigressive who has voted with and for the fraud we have running this country into the 3rd world nation he wants to "fundamentally transform" it into.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2011 8:40 AM
Why would any citizen NOT want full disclosure of the people and corporations/unions backing these groups that pay for this usually biased and half-truthful hate campaigning? I mean disclose EVERYONE .. not the worthless front groups, but the real names of the real financial backers. Why are they allowed to hide? Are they afraid their support will back fire on them or are they really ashamed? Full disclosure no matter who you are, what typr of organization you are, with real names and real contributing amounts. Until this happens our elections will still be bought by the one with the most money; not the best ideas!
Posted by: afmcalax | April 22, 2011 9:04 AM
Van Hollen is a total party hack hypocrite and the sooner he's gone the better.
Typical Democrat that the "wise" voters of the People's Socialist Republic of Maryland keep sending to DC. Embarrassing in the least.
Plus every time I've seen him on TV with his lips attached to Pelosi's posterior I question his manhood. If he was not so destructive I might find it within myself to feel sorry for him. Almost...
Posted by: Mark | April 22, 2011 9:09 AM
This left winger should spent more time trying to figure out how we're going to get out of debt than who's donating money to whos campaign. The dems are doing the same dam thing. Did you ever hear of Code Pinko and Media matters. Wake up stupid. I can't beleive he was elected.
Posted by: ccd | April 23, 2011 1:38 PM