BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that yes, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is considering how to respond to the Supreme Court ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. Commission Chairman Robert Lenhard said that he and his fellow commissioners did not have anything to say yet about the decision, but they expect to have an announcement soon.

The FEC has struggled in the past with the question of whether and how to write a regulation protecting grass roots lobbying messages from BCRA restrictions, but has been unable to reach a consensus. The new Supreme Court opinion, which provides guidance about which ads the Court views as constitutionally protected, could provide an impetus for a new effort to write an FEC regulation on the issue. It remains far from clear, however, whether the five current FEC commissioners will be able to agree on what such a rule should look like. The FEC tried to tackle the issue last year in response to a request for a rulemaking from a wide range of politically active organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and several others. But the commission put off final action, as Democratic commissioners argued that the FEC should wait to see how the courts ruled.

The article notes the FEC's actions last August denying an exemption for certain ads that address specific legislation or policy. Last year's FEC proposal was put forward by Republican FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky who is now facing a controversial Senate confirmation. Von Spakovsky argued that the exemption would preserve First Amendment rights to petition the government, while ensuring that messages were not express electoral advocacy.

As already noted, Republicans will only go along with naming conferees for the ethics and lobbying bill if the Senate takes up the Senate electronic filing bill along with an unspecified amendment. According to BNA Money and Politics, ($$) that amendment likely deals with lifting controls on political party coordinated spending to help candidates. This item has already been introduced as a separate legislative proposal, S.1091, the Campaign Accountability Act of 2007 which would "repeal the limitation on party expenditures on behalf of candidates in general elections." Because Democrats have not seen the amendment they have not agreed to vote on it.

Observers closely following the progress of the lobbying and ethics bill suggested that McConnell could be seeking to score a victory for a piece of legislation favored by Republican as a condition for allowing the lobbying and ethics bill--a major Democratic priority--to move toward final passage. Alternatively, Republicans might be seeking to soften some of the more controversial provisions of the lobbying and ethics bill itself, such as tough new restrictions on the "revolving door" between government service and lobbying or new disclosure requirements for lobbyists' "bundled" campaign contributions.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is wondering why the GOP is refusing to name conferees.

It's not clear what games might be under way. Are K Street lobbyists staging a last-ditch fight against finally disclosing their fund-raising clout with lawmakers? Are Republicans trying to foil Democrats from delivering on their campaign promises last year for credible reform?

CQ ($$) reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) has blocked the appointment of Senate conferees on the lobbying and ethics bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to name conferees Tuesday afternoon, but Republicans objected at McConnell's request, saying they would only allow action if promised a vote on a bill to require electronic filing of campaign finance reports (S. 223).

As the Senate stalls on the legislation, House and Senate staffers are working behind the scenes to work through several major sticking points before each chamber names its conferees. One major obstacle in the lobbying bill appears to be "revolving door" rules aimed at preventing members of Congress and senior staff from immediately cashing in on K Street with high-paying lobbying jobs after they leave Capitol Hill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) received a letter yesterday from reform groups on her leadership involving recent House Lobby and Ethics reform legislation. A similar letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). The letter calls on the Democratic leaders to keep the strong provisions in their respective bills intact so that numerous changes do not weaken the bill during the upcoming conference report. The groups express concern for the bundling provision, maintaining the disclosure by lobbyists of their fund-raising events, and disclosure of lobbyists bundling contributions. Groups that signed the letter include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

Meanwhile, the Hill reports on a possible recommendation for changes to the House Ethics enforcement process. A provision of the proposal would require groups to reveal their donors if they file ethics complaints. And now many groups have expressed opposition to the donor disclosure measure.

A BNA Money and Politics ($$) story reminds observers of the "pending campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics issues faced by the 110th Congress with no sure end in sight." The FEC nomination hearing highlighted this. Apparently, a Senate vote on the FEC nominees could still be weeks or even months away. If the three FEC recess-appointed commissioners are not confirmed by the end of this session of Congress in December, they will have to leave the agency, leaving the FEC in a presidential election year without enough commissioners to operate. The article further comments on the stalled lobbying and ethics legislation which is waiting for a House-Senate Conference Committee.

Election and ethics attorney Kenneth Gross warned "that there is no administrative agency to write clear rules about how to comply with new restrictions. There is no agency regulating lobbying similar to the FEC in the function that it provides for interpreting campaign finance laws in particular cases, he indicated. That means someone who wants to take advantage of an exception in the rules--such as giving a gift or buying a meal based on personal friendship--may have trouble being assured that the decision will not be questioned at some point."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can require public employee labor unions to get consent from non-members before using their dues for political activities and lobbying. Justice Antonin Scalia said the law does not violate the union's First Amendment rights. Now, many are eager to use this ruling to make predictions for the outcome of the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case which will be decided by the end of the month. And from the Washington Post, "Alito Calls Free-Speech Limits 'Dangerous' as Court Considers Cases."

The House bill also dropped a Senate restriction on all lobbying activities--not just direct contacts--during this "cooling-off" period. The House bill also does not contain changes in Senate ethics rules that were addressed in the Senate version of the reform legislation. The rules changes include new restrictions on earmarks, secret Senate "holds," and private aircraft travel by senators. While these measures have been expected to be included in a final bill, they will not take effect until the final version is enacted.

Another issue is whether or not any changes will be made to the House ethics enforcement process, as recommendations are awaiting from a special task force. According to CQ ($$), one such recommendation would be to let anyone, not just a member, file an ethics complaint. Another proposal would be to create a panel of four people that would review complaints and decide whether or not the cases are serious enough for a full investigation by the ethics committee.

Meanwhile, Norman Ornstein writes this opinion piece in Roll Call ($$) reviewing the overall process of the House passing a lobbying and ethics bill.

The lobbying reform was tough. Its journey was tortuous. It is a sad reality that if the reform package had been decided in a secret ballot vote, it would have gone down. Way too many Members do not want to discomfit their lives with embarrassing inconveniences such as disclosure of fundraising connections or to dilute or delay any future gravy train for post-Congress employment in the lobbying world — a world where half of all retiring Members of Congress now go.