Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate (H.R. 6061 and S. 3681) to revise the outdated presidential public campaign financing system.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 Federal Election Commission (FEC) had on the agenda advisory opinion requests from the Club for Growth and Commonsense Ten for its July 15 meeting, but the agency has put them off for now. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), the FEC has given itself a July 21 deadline to respond to the requests, which could set guidelines for the reporting of independent campaign expenditures. BNA reports that, "the commission is considering issuing amended reporting forms for independent expenditures. The new forms could take into account the legal parameters established by court decisions handed down over the last year, such as by allowing a filer to check a box if it is collecting large contributions for independent campaign expenditures."

Club for Growth and a new group called Commonsense Ten asked for FEC rulings verifying that after recent court rulings, independent political organizations can accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and unions. The requests also ask for guidance on reporting requirements. Reportedly, the FEC is receiving many similar questions. The Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions upheld disclosure requirements, but did not detail how reporting requirements would apply to activities that were previously illegal.

After announcing plans in April to issue a series of rulemakings, the FEC has failed to write any new rules or adopt policies. The advisory opinion requests allow the FEC to provide some guidance. However, if there FEC would go forward with a full rulemaking process, there is not enough time for new rules to be in place before 2010 election.

On July 6, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Georgia, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a motion to intervene in Georgia v. Holder, the state of Georgia's challenge to the Voting Rights Act. Georgia filed suit against the U.S. Department of Justice because it wants the federal government to allow it to verify each voter's citizenship before allowing an individual to vote.

The Justice Department has declined to approve it under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act over concerns that it unfairly targets minority voters.

Section 5 requires all or part of 16 states, including nine states in their entirety, to seek federal approval before changing election rules or procedures due to past laws and practices that discriminated against and disenfranchised racial minorities.

"The suit says if the federal court declines to approve Georgia's voter verification process, it should declare Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional," according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The civil rights groups are intervening to protect the rights of minority voters. "The many U.S. citizen minority voters in Georgia who were incorrectly flagged as non-citizens under the state's voter-verification procedures can attest to the fact that discrimination in voting continues and the need for Section 5 remains," said Laughlin McDonald, of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, in a press release.

POLITICOreports that House Democrats have reached an agreement with the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the DISCLOSE Act. "The NRA had objected to some of the disclosure requirements for the new campaign finance proposals, and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed."

The new agreement would exempt from the disclosure requirements organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states, and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations.

Last week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said, "There are a number of very legitimate concerns that have been raised by (c)(4) and other organizations as to whether they have large membership rolls."

Reportedly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still opposes the bill. However, it could come to the House floor this week.

This new agreement exempts a subset of larger groups, while smaller advocacy groups still have to comply. This is interesting, considering the purpose of the bill was to bring transparency to the spending of primarily larger corporations.

Meanwhile, even if the DISCLOSE Act passes, the group Citizens United would be exempt from the disclosure requirements. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) voted 4-1 on June 10 that the 501(c)(4) group is eligible for the media exception to campaign finance law, exempting it from disclosure requirements as a media organization. Therefore, Citizens United will not have to publicly disclose the names of donors funding its films.

Citizen United argued that it should be considered a media organization because it primarily produces films. Since 2004 Citizens United produced and distributed 14 documentaries and has more films in production. According to documents filed with the FEC, the group "will receive a royalty, commission, or other fee from the broadcasters each time on of its films is ordered for viewing."

The Campaign Legal Center along with Democracy 21 filed comments which state, "This is a bold face effort by Citizens United to circumvent the disclosure laws that the Supreme Court found were constitutionally applicable to the organization. And the vehicle for this circumvention are the so-called 'documentaries' produced by Citizens United that, in one case, the Court labeled 'a feature-length negative advertisement' that expressly advocated against a candidate."