The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued a proposed rulemaking, which will be published in the Federal Register next week, to implement the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (WRTL). The FEC has put forth two alternative proposals and seeks comments on many questions; asking, "Does WRTL II require the Commission to revise or repeal any portion of its definition of express advocacy?" Both alternatives would establish safe harbors for grassroots lobbying communications based on the analysis of the specific ads at issue in the WRTL case. The deadline for public comment will be October 1, 2007 and the FEC will hold a hearing on October 17, 2007 with a final rule by the end of November. Bob Bauer discusses how ambitious this timeline is. Check back for an analysis on the proposed rulemaking from OMB Watch. Read the FEC press release here and the proposed rulemaking here.

In June the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released the October 2002 "Presidential Advance Manual" which outlines instructions for staff to deter potential protestors from President Bush's public appearances. The Washington Post is just now reporting on the manual the ACLU obtained as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech.

It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route." . . . To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says

As reported last month, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) plans to issue a proposed regulation some time in August in light of the June Supreme Court ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. The Washington Post now discusses the intricacies of doing so. The FEC is likely to use the Court's opinion as a guide to make clear when an ad is permitted issue advocacy, and when an ad crosses the line into electioneering. The article discusses a debate that has unfolded between two election law specialists, Robert Bauer and Richard Hasen.

How the FEC will tilt is hard to predict, [Richard] Hasen said, especially because the commission is in some disarray, with a vacancy, a member whose tenure has expired and four who are awaiting Senate confirmation. Any new regulations require the votes of at least four members to take effect.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) now reports that President Bush is expected to sign the lobbying and ethics reform bill, S.1. "The officials, who asked not to be identified, told BNA that Bush still believes the measure is 'far from perfect,' but he is not likely to veto it when congressional Democratic leaders send him the measure in September. " This comes after earlier suggestions that the President may veto the bill. The bill is expected to be sent to the White House shortly after Labor Day. And if possible, check out this BNA ($$) special report, "New Rules for Lobbyists and Lawmakers," which analyzes S.1 section by section. And this Washington Post editorial, 'Expected to Sign.'

The Campaign Legal Center has updated its side-by-side comparison of the lobbying reform bills.

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$) the lobbying and ethics bill, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, is being further delayed until September because of concerns that President Bush may veto it. Your reaction may now be excuse me, a veto, after all this time? According to the article, a White House spokeswoman said the White House is reviewing the bill and there are some concerns with the provisions on earmarks, the revolving door, and the higher payments for air travel by federal officeholders and candidates.

Other sources said Democratic leaders are delaying sending the enrolled, final bill cleared by Congress to Bush in order to ensure there would be a chance to vote to override a veto, should it occur. If the measure were sent to the White House now and vetoed, it might not be returned to Congress for an override vote because lawmakers are adjourned until after Labor Day.

Reportedly the administration is concerned because Senators and excutive officials including the vice president would face a two year ban on direct lobbying after leaving office. The White House is also concerned with a provision that would require presidents running for re-election to pay charter air rates for campaign travel on Air Force One. All parties should make sure this bill becomes law, despite the debate on whether or not the earmark provisions go far enough. Hopefully the reform measure will become law shortly after Congress returns from recess and any suggestions of a veto are quickly dissipated.

The Friday Aug. 3 OMB Watch panel on the pros and cons of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) bright line rule for campaign activities for charities and religious organizations has gained some press attention. From BNA Money and Politics: ($$)

During an OMB Watch forum on the pros and cons of bright line rules for campaign activities, attorneys said they are often left not knowing how to advise their clients on taking positions on political candidates, other than to say "be wary," and that caution is keeping some charities from achieving their core mission. The panel suggested that the nonprofit sector should come together to formulate draft rules to present to IRS that would make clear that exempt organizations cannot lose their tax exemption for engaging in prohibited political activity, although they could still be subject to excise taxes if they cross the line.

Friday's discussion successfully prompted a constructive discussion on whether the nonprofit sector would benefit from a bright line rule that defines what is and is not prohibited partisan intervention in elections. Four lawyers who specialize in nonprofit issues discussed these issues in great detail and discussed the problems that arise with the current "facts and circumstances" test which allows the IRS to apply their interpretation of the standard on a case by case basis. A suggested strategy was for the nonprofit sector to put forth and promote a bright line test because the IRS is unlikely to provide clarity otherwise. "The time is ripe for a small group of charitable practitioners to develop a draft rule referencing Internal Revenue Code Section 4965 and Section 162, Marcus Owens, an attorney with Caplin & Drysdale, said." The Wisconsin Right To Life Supreme Court decision was also addressed and its possible implications for 501(c)(3) organizations.

And from the coverage in the Chronicle of Philanthropy: ($$) "But panelists at an Aug. 3 forum organized by OMB Watch, a Washington advocacy group, said the tax agency's increased enforcement is stifling legitimate political discussions by nonprofit groups because the agency has yet to offer clear definitions about what is off limits. 'We really don't know how to comply with the ban on partisan political activities,' said Kay Guinane, director of OMB Watch's Nonprofit Speech Rights Program. 'The uncertainty surrounding these rules makes our job difficult."

And read this article on the panel from the latest Watcher.

Well now that the lobbying and ethics bill is awaiting the President's signature, many are now asking how much the legislation will actually change the way business is done. An article from today's Washington Post is appropriately titled, "Draining the 'Swamp' Is Not So Easy." For example, now that lobbyists can't buy dinner for a member of Congress, will this only force them to spend more money at political fundraisers instead?

Government watchdogs and ethics lawyers generally agree that the bill would shed new light on the Washington influence game but wonder how those who don't play ball would be found and punished. Without an effective bureaucracy for managing the flow of new disclosures provided by the law, they say, the legislation won't mean much.

And the New York Times reviews the concerns now being expressed among lobbyists and their exposure to increased risk.

By requiring them to certify the good behavior of their employees, the law puts lobbyists at new legal risk and could subject them to new pressure from prosecutors. And new centralized disclosures of lobbyists' campaign contributions, fund-raising activities and even their achievements — in the form of Congressional earmarks in spending bills — make it only easier for federal investigators to paint unflattering portraits of lobbyists' influence.

This afternoon, the Senate passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, by a vote of 83-14. Among the significant reforms included in the bill are the following earmarks disclosure requirements:

• all earmarks in bills, resolutions, conference reports and managers' statements must be identified and posted on the internet at least 48 hours before a vote
• Senators must certify that they and their immediate family will not financially benefit from any earmarks they've requested
• new earmarks in a conference report -- i.e., not approved by either House -- are now subject to a 60-vote point of order

As OMB Watch wrote in a release yesterday, the bill mandates "important earmark disclosure ... that, for the first time ever, will allow the public to view the sponsors of congressional earmarks on the Internet." In fact, the debate surrounding the bill has prompted members of Congress to go further on their own -- two dozen of them began posting their earmarks requests this spring, also a first and close to unthinkable as recently as a year ago.