If you are concerned about the Federal Election Commission's pending decision on whether small donor contributions should be counted toward public financing (the issue is pertinent to the John Edwards campaign, but you don't have to support Edwards to be concerned about the integrity of the public financing system and ActBlue's rightful role in that,) the public comment period ends today at 12pm EST.

Some background from Ben Smith at The Politico:

In a draft opinion that the Federal Election Commission is set to consider Friday, the FEC staff says that contributions to Edwards through the innovative fundraising site ActBlue aren't matchable under campaign finance law.

$4.3 million in contributions to Edwards were at risk of not being eligible for matching.

Adam B breaks down the FEC's reasoning:

So here's the problem -- as you know by now, not everything is matchable.  The main category is "contributions over $250", but also listed in the regulations regarding the list of sources for funds that can be matched is the explicit statement that for a check to be matchable, it must be "written on a personal, escrow or trust account representing or containing the contributor's personal funds."  And, what's worse, listed among those sources of funds which are explicitly not-matchable are

Contributions in the form of a check drawn on the account of a committee, corporation, union or government contractor even though the funds represent personal funds earmarked by a contributing individual to a Presidential candidate;

And ActBlue is, indeed, a committee that's writing checks which represent personal funds earmarked by a contributing individual to a Presidential candidate.

This interpretation of the law is literalistic and not in keeping with the spirit of the law at all, so if you would like to send the FEC a message, do so before 12pm EST today.

You can send your comments to FEC Secretary Mary Dove via e-mail to mdove@fec.gov, via fax to (202) 208-3333 or through the Edwards campaign web tool. Adam B posted his letter to the FEC over at dailyKos and invites us to crib from it.

You can check out other people's comments to the FEC HERE.

This week, Project Vote's new report, "Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters" was featured in McClatchy Newspapers and AlterNet reports. Download the report here.

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Two controversial news items this week potentially impact the course of election law before the 2008 election. First, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide upon the constitutionality of voter ID laws, one of the country's most hotly debated issues with a deeply partisan divide. Second, the names of Federal Election Commission nominees have been sent to the full Senate this week, including a key player in  promoting the so-called "voter fraud epidemic," Hans von Spakovsky - and civil rights groups are not happy.

The Federal Election Commission has dismissed complaints that two Internet bloggers violated campaign finance laws by advocating for certain candidates.  [ruling can be found here]

The decision upholds previous FEC rulings that blogs fall under a media exemption prohibiting regulation of news stories, commentaries and editorials in both traditional and online format.

The commission ruled unanimously Tuesday that Kos Media, LLC, which operates the liberal blog DailyKos, and Michael L. Grace, whose blog reportedly advocated the defeat of Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., in the last election, did not violate any laws by creating and publishing such content. In doing so, it rejected the claim that blogs with distinct political leanings should be regulated as political committees.

the fec decided that "Activity on the DailyKos website does not constitute a contribution or expenditure that would trigger political committee status."

In his interview with CNN over the weekend, this is how Fred Thompson explained his imminent plans to get into the presidential race:

We're gonna be getting in if we get in, of course we're in testing the waters phase, legality, we'll be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we'll be in traditionally when we get in.

Why the weird double speak? Because he knows the rules that govern "testing the waters" and he knows he's breaking them. As I wrote here, the Federal Elections Commission actually has fairly strict rules for what constitutes testing the waters and what doesn't.

An individual may conduct a variety of testing-the-waters activities. Certain activities, however, indicate that an individual has decided to become a candidate and is no longer merely testing the waters. Under these circumstances, the testing-the-waters exemption would no longer apply. For example, the exemption does not apply if the individual:

    * Raises funds in excess of amounts reasonably required for exploratory activity or amasses funds to be used after candidacy is established;
    * Conducts activities over a protracted period of time or shortly before the election;
    * Uses public political advertising to publicize his or her intention to campaign;
    * Makes or authorizes statements that refer to him or her as a candidate; or
    * Seeks ballot access.

How has he broken these rules? Let us count the ways here, here, here, here and here. Lane Hudson does a great job of tearing down Thompson's ridiculous  "testing the waters" facade in the complaint he filed with the FEC yesterday. Help him out by calling the FEC directly at (800)424-9530 and demand that they investigate Grandpa Fred.

Adam B over at dailyKos has an excellent breakdown of the lengths to which the Fred Thompson campaign is going to have its campaign finance cake and eat it too. You'll recall that in May, Thompson announced he was entering a "testing the waters" phase. What does this mean exactly?

According to the FEC:

Before deciding to run for federal office, an individual may first want to "test the waters" -- explore the feasibility of becoming a candidate. For example, the individual may want to travel around the state to see if there is sufficient support for a possible Senate candidacy.

An individual who spends money only to test the waters (but not to campaign for office) does not have to register as a candidate under the election law.

The FEC is also quite specific about just what constitutes passing from the "testing the waters" phase to "campaigning for office," and Adam B documents the myriad ways in which Thompson, by any objective measure, appears to be breaking these rules in order to extend the testing the waters phase so as to avoid having to declare his fundraising to the FEC (not to mention he wouldn't want to miss all those Law & Order royalty checks!)

   *  If you raise funds in excess of amounts reasonably required for exploratory activity or amass funds for use after candidacy is established; (check and check)
    * If you conduct activities over a protracted period of time (or shortly before an election); (check)
    * If you make or authorize statements that refer to yourself as a candidate. (check, check and check)

What makes this ploy particularly brazen is that Thompson had been a champion of campaign finance reform in the 90s:

Thompson sponsored and worked alongside Sen. John McCain as one of the few Republicans who pushed for passage of campaign finance reform in 2001. At the time the bill was passed, Thompson issued a press release declaring, "The McCain-Feingold bill will restore a campaign finance system that has become more loophole than law."

Not to mention who he has working with him now to do it up right:

With the help of a former FEC chairman on Thompson's payroll, the ex-Tennessee senator is evading, at least for now, the requirements of the campaign finance system that he helped reform. In the words of an attorney associated with another campaign, Thompson is "playing footsie" with the campaign rules.

But the Thompson campaign seems prepared for resistance. As one campaign official told The Politico:

one way the former senator may push back against calls for him to show his money is to file with the Internal Revenue Service as a section 527 political organization, a section that includes political parties.

[snip]

"If we file with the IRS, that'll take the wind out of the sails of their disclosure argument," the official said.

Touché, unnamed campaign official. Touché.

Update [2007-7-17 3:1:49 by Todd Beeton]: Looks like the heat was too much for the Thompson camp to take. Geez, if he caves this easy now, imagine if he wins the nomination. This could get fun.

...on July 31 the "Friends of Fred Thompson" committee will go public with that information when it files a report of contributions and expenditures through June 30 with the Internal Revenue Service, according to Burson Snyder, a Thompson spokesperson.

As I typed this, C-span was airing the joint FBI and DOJ press conference on the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).

What a parade! Count 'em! 15 crowing officials are crowded around the podium patting themselves on the backs for all their hard work on the two year investigation of one lone African-American Democrat, caught with $90,000 in his freezer.  
And connections to  Nigeria.  
Wow! Well that looks and sounds pretty scary doesn't it?
Requiring 15 Justice officials to huddle together in.. tri-UMPH?

Of course it's still ongoing and they can't discuss too many details, like the timing, but hey it's The Bush Show.

This is one of those important yet excessively procedural issues that will dramatically improve the information bloggers can get access to. Please take action. - Matt

For those who've been following the push to make Senate candidates file their FEC reports electronically just like everyone else, you'll recall that the March 14 hearing on the Feingold-Cochran bill went really well, with the speakers unanimously in support of this simple reform.  Even the Hon. Robert Byrd, the defender of Senate tradition, is set to become the 32nd co-sponsor of this simple, bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation.  As the National Journal notes:

It's not every day that senators get to vote on a bill that's as simple, sensible and non-controversial as the one now pending before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

Here's what the so-called Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act would do:

• It would save the federal government hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
  
• It would polish up the Senate's public image, which remains badly tarnished by recent lobbying scandals.
  
• It would vastly improve public disclosure, and help voters make better-informed choices on Election Day.
  

Indeed, the bill makes so much sense that it's hard to fathom why it's gone nowhere since its introduction more than three years ago. Not a single senator has publicly opposed the legislation, and numerous newspapers have endorsed it. As Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., put it during a recent hearing on the legislation: "This bill is as close to a no-brainer as you can get in this area."

Which, of course, means it's time for the Republicans to try to mess it up at tomorrow's scheduled mark-up hearing.

I'm finally emerging from my errands. Let me say this: any of you goody-two-shoes out there who favor campaign finance reform have never had to file a disclosure document with the FEC. I hate this stuff--it is like doing your taxes five extra times every year. This is almost single-handedly changing my views on campaign finance reform.

Anyway, enough of my whining. Here are some other items that have caught my eye:

• TX-23: Does Ciro have more of a chance than previously thought? I wrote earlier today that if Latinos are 45% or more of the electorate next week, he probably wins. As it turns out, Latinos actually make up 65% of the new district, according to the census, not 55% as previously though. An enterprising commenter at Swing State Project discovered this little fact. The odds are still against Ciro, but it does give me more hope than before.
  
  
• Mars: Turns out there is still liquid H2O on Mars. Awesome! Combine this with the talk of a permanent Moon base, and I growing excited about the notion of space travel again. Let's throw in at least one massively improved Hubble telescope and get back to exploring the stars. I know that when Bush rolled out the idea of going to Mars it was a crude political ploy to try and make him look visionary or something, and to district people from other problems. However, I do really like the idea of a permanent Moon base, and of going to Mars. Here is to hoping that one day soon the federal government can return to sound fiscal footing and then seriously pursue bold policies of discovery and wonder such as these. I think accomplishing either a permanent Moon base or a manned mission to Mars would be fantastic for both the country, and for humanity as a whole. The more bold moves we take to test the very limits of our abilities, the more we will learn about what we can accomplish.
  
  
• Iraq Study Group: Senator Feingold states what desperately needed to be said on the Iraq Study Group on Countdown tonight. Check out Crooks and Liars for the video, and Dailykos for the transcript. I do love that man.
  
  
• Obama: Digby, Pastor Dan, and Armando all comment on my Obama piece from Monday night. All are very sustentative, and worth a read. Democrats leaders of all types should read about this stuff, as it deals with the very heart of the notion of how we create a positive image for our party, stay unified, and seize the natural governing majority mantle. I will keep writing about this throughout the week, once I am freed from my FEC induced haze.
  
  
• Adwatch: Why can't political ads look this good? Seriously. It would make a nice ad for a progressive candidate and a progressive message.
  
  
• 2008: Kucnich might run again. I don't think he was exactly a very effective spokesperson for the left-wing of the party last time, but progressives are not exactly in abundance among the current crop of candidates. Still, I think his platform would have done a lot, lot better in 2004 if there was a more impressive candidate--even another member of the house--running on it.
  
  Markos has the latest, unstuffed, Dailykos straw poll. I know it was unstuffed because the percentages did not change form beginning to end. He also has his first cattle call. I generally agree with what he writes. I am not sure how I would separate what I see as clearly the top tier of Clinton, Edwards and Obama right now, as those three are very tight. I also think Richardson needs to be up with Clark in the second tier. Otherwise I think his rankings are on target.

This is a late-night thread. Discuss these and other topics.