Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate (H.R. 6061 and S. 3681) to revise the outdated presidential public campaign financing system. Seeking to encourage smaller individual contributions, the bill would match small contributions of $200 or less with public funds at a 4-to-1 ratio. Participating candidates would limit the contributions they receive from an individual to no more than $1,000 per person for the primaries and $500 for the general election.

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), it "would provide that any contributions raised by lobbyists and special interest groups for a presidential candidate would not be matched with public funds. It also would require campaigns to disclose the names of each person who bundles contributions totaling more than $50,000 for a presidential candidate and the total amount bundled."

Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, "said the new legislation would eliminate spending caps for publicly financed candidates in order to address the practical problems faced after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

The concerns about the Court decision have begun to play out as the Los Angeles Times reports, Democratic leaders "estimated that more than $300 million has been budgeted for the campaign by a group of 15 conservative tax-exempt organizations." An increase in such spending will be occurring across the political spectrum. For example, the Service Employees International Union has budgeted $44 million for campaign spending. It was also reported last week that five of the largest health insurers have been discussing financing a new nonprofit group to influence congressional races. In addition, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that several coal executives are seeking to gain from Citizen United by forming a 527 group to help elect coal-friendly candidates.

Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission has posted video on YouTube that explains how groups can now spend an unlimited amount of funds. The video discusses issues related to independent expenditures, all of the changes to the campaign finance laws, and how to file forms.

The Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act passed the House to establish a task force to strengthen enforcement of rules for federally registered lobbyists. Originally, the bill was the Fees on Lobbyists Act. It would have set up registration fees and fines for lobbyists' late filings to fund enforcement. However, the bill was amended to simply create the Lobbying Disclosure Enforcement Task Force.

The bill, H.R.5751 replaces the U.S. Attorney with the Attorney General (AG) as the recipient of referrals of cases under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). The task force will investigate and prosecute possible LDA violations. The bill also calls on the AG to make recommendations on LDA enforcement.

We have previously reported on the lack of enforcement of the LDA. Usually, lobbyists who do not comply with registration requirements face no repercussions. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH). She issued a press release which stated that the task force, "will go after lobbyists who engage in shoddy reporting practices and hide behind ignorance of the law."

"When Americans on Main Street try to cheat or break the law, there are repercussions; but for years, there was no way to hold lobbyists accountable for games they play with their disclosures."

With a vote of 57-41, the Senate voted against proceeding to debate the DISCLOSE Act, S. 3628. The bill will likely not be addressed again before the August recess.

No one was expecting the Democrats to gain the needed votes, and perhaps, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought it up to make a point. As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, "Now we get to see who in the Senate thinks there's too much corporate influence and too much special-interest money that dominate our elections and who doesn't."

The bill was definitely not perfect, but regardless, disclosure rules are certainly needed after Citizens United. As Professor Rick Hasen notes; "Enhanced disclosure is especially needed now that the FEC has voted to allow corporations, labor unions and other entities to make unlimited contributions to independent expenditure committees. We have never had the situation before on the federal level where people, and now presumably corporations and labor unions, could make large - indeed unlimited - contributions to fund independent expenditures."

A New York Times editorial warns; "The starter's gun went off last week in the squalid new race for unlimited campaign cash." For more information on the developments at the Federal Election Commission (FEC), read this article from the latest Watcher.

According to the Washington Post, "Supporters vowed to try again after the August recess, arguing that changes are possible to attract GOP support. But Tuesday's vote effectively quashes any chance of enacting new disclosure requirements for the 2010 elections, which are likely to include hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures by outside groups and corporations."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring the DISCLOSE Act (the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act) to the Senate floor before the August recess. It was introduced in April by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to mitigate the effects of the January U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The DISCLOSE Act is meant to increase disclosure requirements for election-related spending and restrict such activity by government contractors and foreign-controlled companies.

According to the National Journal, Reid's plans to bring the Act to the Senate floor is "a sign some observers believe indicates Dems are willing to allow the bill to die at the hands of a GOP filibuster."

National Journal also notes that, up to this point, Reid and other Democrats have not been able to convince a Senate Republican to sponsor the legislation. Democrats were targeting Scott Brown (R-MA), but he recently announced that he will oppose the legislation.

Senate observers and aides told National Journal that Reid promised Van Hollen and Schumer that "he would bring the DISCLOSE Act to the floor."

While aides say that Reid is committed to having the votes to pass the Act, "Senate observers said Reid may fulfill his promise by bringing the bill up for a cloture vote regardless of whether he has the votes or not," according to National Journal. "If Reid doesn't hit the 60 votes required to end debate, he may simply drop the bill and move on to another of his priorities."

On June 24, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act by a close, largely party-line vote of 219-206.