Search

The article focuses on the political life of U.S. Representative Tom DeLay. The vast bulk of DeLay's spending so far has been on an ever-growing team of A-list lawyers, which includes a former state attorney general, an ex-congressman and Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, and two Texas investigators. Behind the scenes, however, DeLay is fighting for his political life. He has spent well over $1 million on a legal, public-relations, and political offensive that has all the hallmarks of a high-dollar election campaign. He could win the legal battle but lose the political war. He could escape criminal conviction but face fresh ethics investigations.

This article reports that even as the U.S. House leaders push campaign finance legislation to the back burner, a federal appeals court has ordered the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) to write tougher political money rules. The July 15, 2005 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia signals that the courts are moving to the front line in the ongoing campaign finance wars. The recent ruling tightens the screws on the FEC as it scrambles to rewrite a long list of controversial regulations that two courts have now determined were too lax. It also puts pressure on the U.S. Congress and the administration to fill several vacancies on the six-member commission, which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

The article focuses on the steps taken by the U.S. government for campaign spending. In theory, the Supreme Court settled the dispute over spending limits in its landmark 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo ruling. The court upheld caps on contributions, which still stand, but found that limits on campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment. Attempts to re-impose limits were struck in court. But in 1997, Vermont enacted severe limits on how much state candidates could spend per election, $300,000 for a gubernatorial candidate, $4,000 to $6,500 for state Senate candidates.

On the surface, the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC's) decision to postpone crafting new rules for politically active interest groups seems eminently reasonable. Not to mention that the FEC received more than 150,000 letters, mails and faxes from lawyers, party officials, activists and lawmakers. This overload of public comment, a record for the commission, was partly what prompted FEC General Counsel Lawrence Norton to recommend that commissioners delay their rulemaking by ninety days. Several proposed rules on the table were rejected to delay action.

When the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) gathered for a public meeting on February 18, 2004, commissioner Ellen Weintraub apologized that she and her colleagues could not shed more light on the new campaign finance rules. Conflicting news reports and interpretations of what the FEC did only underscore the many uncertainties still clouding the campaign finance debate. The FEC cleared up a couple of key questions with its recent advisory opinion, demanded by the conservative activist group Americans for a Better Country. Politicians and campaign finance experts were watching closely to see whether the FEC moved to drastically restrict the activities of outside groups that spend soft money on election-related activities.

The article states that the U.S. Ethics Chairman Doc Hastings and ranking member Alan Mollohan, Democrat-West Virginia, have ended their six-month standoff over staffing. The panel officially known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct might finally get down to business. The recent deal between Hastings and Mollohan paves the way for the committee to hire a nonpartisan staff director and to begin investigating the ethics controversies that have been piling up at its door. These include allegations involving Majority Leader Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as several members of the U.S. House accused of travel abuses.

This article reports that the U.S. House Administration Committee's approval of a bill that substantially loosens restrictions on political parties looks like a clear win for House Republicans. But if House Republicans approve the bill, which is dubbed the 527 Fairness Act of 2005, democrats might score a political win of their own. The bill includes a long list of provisions that would make it easier for big donors to shower money on political parties, political action committees and candidates.

The article informs that for opposite reasons, leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill, Washington D.C., have hurriedly embraced new rules for Washington's least-loved political players--lobbyists. Democrats see lobbying overhaul, at least in part, as a matter of political opportunity. Republicans, by contrast, are motivated by a sense of political danger. Both are responding to fallout from the ethics cases involving U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as recent disclosures involving congressional travel.

The article reports that for activists bent on getting big money out of politics, the recent push to rein in so-called 527 groups could end in either triumph or disaster. The skirmish over 527 legislation, in fact, is emerging as a pivotal moment in the ongoing campaign finance wars. On the one hand, groups such as Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center now enjoy powerful new Grand Old Party allies on Capitol Hill and in the White House. On the other, some of the 527-related measures on the table would actually relax restrictions on large contributions and roll back strict limits enacted with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The article reports that when U.S. Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith granted an interview early last month to C-Net News.com on the subject of looming new Internet restrictions, his comments had the same effect as jostling a hornet's nest. Thousands of Internet defenders have signed a petition to U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) and lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced legislation to protect the Internet from campaign finance limits. The furor has died down somewhat now that the FEC has actually come out with its proposed regulations, which are fairly narrow.

The article reports that as accusations of ethical lapses mount against U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Democrats have moved quickly to capitalize on what could prove a potent political issue. Two liberal groups, the Campaign for America's Future and the Public Campaign Action Fund, last week unveiled an anti-DeLay advertising campaign costing $100,000. The Campaign for America's Future spot accuses DeLay of using the Terri Schiavo case to distract attention from his ethics troubles.

This article reports that Senate Rules Chairman has never disguised his antipathy toward attempts to change campaign finance rules. As Senate majority leader in the late 1990s, the chairman moved swiftly and aggressively to scuttle campaign finance legislation brought to the floor by the chairman said he is very concerned about the growth in unregulated spending by the activist interest groups known as 527s, which spent more than$ 400 million in last year's election. Such groups would still be free to run ad campaigns and conduct get-out-the-vote drives, as they did in the last election, but they would have to do it with hard money.

The article reports that there has been plenty of controversy over whether so-called 527 groups skirted the law when they poured hundreds of millions in soft money into the recent election, and whether or not stricter rules are needed. But another, more basic question cries out for an answer: Were unregulated outside groups effective? Pro-Democratic activist groups such as America Coming Together spent millions on voter identification, door knocking and get-out-the-vote activities, yet by law they were barred from coordinating in any way with Democratic Party officials.

The article presents information about the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC has long been the agency that everybody loves to hate, but lately attacks on it have been particularly vitriolic. Senator John McCain, has assailed it as a "rogue, disgraceful" agency, and called on two of the six commissioners to resign. Senator Russell Feingold, recently declared that it "sometimes seems like our mission in life is to clean up the mess that the FEC has made" And Representative Christopher Shays, said of the FEC commissioners: "They're almost anarchists. They don't want the law to work."

The article presents information about elections in the United States. There have been so many voting machine breakdowns, botched primaries and ballot-related lawsuits in recent months that it's anyone's guess whether election reforms enacted two years ago have actually done any good. But no matter how the system operates this fall, things are likely to seem much worse than they actually are. That's because an unprecedented number of activists, campaign workers and lawyers will be watching closely. Many citizens are still angry about the Florida 2000 recount, and political players expecting a close race are mindful that even a few hundred votes could make the difference.

The selection of Senator John Edwards, of North Carolina, for the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket comes as little surprise to anyone who has been keeping an eye on his manic pace of fundraising over the past few months. Since John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race in March, he has pulled in hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates through direct mail, Internet appeals and personal appearances around the country. A top beneficiary, of course, was Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who tapped Edwards as his running mate last week.

With Election Day just five months away, a growing number of election officials, civic groups and computer experts have zeroed in on voting machine problems as the most dangerous minefield ahead. Touch-screen voting machines, in particular, have come under fire as vulnerable to hackers, lacking a paper trail and subject to malfunctions and breakdowns. Many public officials argue these so-called Direct Recording Electronic systems should not be used unless they can produce a voter-verifiable paper trail.

The article focuses on the campaign finance of the Democratic Party in the U.S. for the Presidential elections in the year 2004. Senator John Kerry, presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, has netted $43 million in March 2004, compared to $26 million collected by Bush. Bush still has $86.6 million in cash on hand, compared with $32 million for Kerry. Both candidates noticeably boosted their fundraising from contributors of $200 or less in the past three months. Bush and Kerry each raised 34 percent of their contributions from small donors in the first quarter of the year 2004. In the last quarter of 2003, by contrast, Bush raised 23 percent of his money in small checks; 25 percent of Kerry's fourth quarter take came from small donors.

When former Democratic Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont abandoned his presidential bid in February, an urgent question facing Democrats was whether they could cash in on the Dean fundraising magic. The fear was that the $52 million Dean collected, much of it from an army of first-time Internet donors, might prove to be money only he could raise. Sen. John Kerry still lags far behind U.S. President George W. Bush in fundraising, but he netted $43 million in March, compared to $26 million collected by Bush.

In unveiling his new political organization last week, former Vermont Democratic Governor Howard Dean spoke passionately about the importance of low-dollar campaign donors. Dean declared at a rally last March 18, 2004 in Seattle to announce his new group, Dubbed Democracy for America, the organization will work to defeat U.S. President George Bush, support Democratic candidates, promote progressive policies and even organize community service projects. What Dean didn't discuss was that his new group also has a soft money arm that will be free to collect unlimited, unregulated contributions.

When it comes to squeaker elections and ballot box errors, Representative Rush Holt knows what he is talking about. In his 1998 congressional race, a county clerk's error led at least one newspaper to prematurely declare Holt the loser on Election Day. In 2000, he won by a mere 653 votes and only after he had yet again been declared the loser. That helps explain why Holt is at the head of a small but growing movement on Capitol Hill to protect voting machines from fraud and security breaches. Holt has rounded up 125 co-sponsors on a bill that would, among other provisions, require all voting machines to produce an actual paper record by Election Day 2004. After the 2000 presidential election recount, many state election officials embraced touch-screen and other computerized voting machines as a cure-all.

When the Supreme Court upheld the new Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in December 2003, election lawyer and former FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter bemoaned the "pervasive cynicism" that greeted the ruling. Political parties are having collecting "hard" money that is subject to contribution limits, now that soft money has been banned. The federal party committees raised a bit over $300 million in 2003, a sizable chunk more than the $267 million collected in both hard and soft money combined in 1999, the year before the previous presidential election. At the same time, predictions of a "shadow" Democratic Party that will dump $300 million or more into voter registration, ads and get-out-the-vote activities remain just that--predictions.

What started as a spat between a Republican U.S. House of Representatives member and a cluster of progressive groups has escalated into a battle royal over the new campaign finance rules. At issue is whether a bevy of new, tax-exempt political organizations is illegally raising and spending soft money to influence this year's election. Prompted by complaints and questions from all sides, the Federal Election Commission has launched a new round of rulemaking that could substantially change the rules for outside interest groups, particularly so-called 527 groups which enjoy tax-exempt status as political organizations under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Service Code.

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean will not take public money or observe voluntary spending limits in his Democratic campaign for the White House. Yet Dean's decision to go it alone signals far more than the inevitable demise of the presidential public financing system. His announcement heralds a significant shift that is helping define the 2004 election: the importance of Internet fundraising. Dean's early success as a fundraiser--he has raised in $25 million so far, much of it in contributions of less than $100--comes thanks in large part to his Internet savvy.

The article focuses on the U.S. Quarterly campaign finance reports which were due October 15, 2004 but it could be weeks before anyone knows how much Senate candidates have raised recently. The U.S. Senate candidates still mail tens of thousands of pages of paper records the day they are due to the secretary of the Senate, which then sends them to the U.S. Federal Elections Commission to manually punch into the computer. It is a system that delays public access to campaign finance reports for up to a month, according to a recent report by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.

Quarterly campaign finance reports were due on October 15, but it could be weeks before anyone knows how much U.S. Senate candidates have raised recently. That's because sitting and aspiring senators--alone among all politicians seeking federal office--are exempt from electronic filing mandates. Presidential, House and even state and local candidates in 20 states file electronically, as do all but a couple of the national party committees. That means their receipts and expenditures are made public almost instantly and can be electronically searched and analyzed.

California's recall battle will end with today's balloting, but the lawsuits over how votes are cast and counted are bound to continue, in the state and around the country. Already, democrats in the state are gearing up for a possible post-election legal challenge. They're raising money to help pay for any legal action that strikes them as necessary in the event of a close election and dispatching poll watchers to keep an eye peeled for evidence of ballot box irregularities. Such legal dramas will likely be replayed in other states as the 2004 election unfolds. After ballot box controversies roiled the 2000 presidential election, U.S. Congress pledged swift action to help states upgrade long-neglected election systems and machinery.

As the one-year anniversary of the new campaign finance law approaches, political players are just beginning to get a sense of how the new rules will play out. The best example of the dramatic changes under way comes from a coalition of liberal activists, who announced recently that they would spend tens of millions in the coming election on a massive, get-out-the-vote and voter education drive. A PAC dubbed America Coming Together (ACT) will collect hard money, subject to federal limits, and soft contributions from the likes of financier George Soros. A separate "527" political committee dubbed America Votes will act as an umbrella group, coordinating the activities of ACT and a long list of labor, civil rights, environmental and women's groups. To critics of the new campaign finance law, the formation of ACT and America Votes confirms their fear about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, that it will decimate the parties while strengthening ideological groups.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the verge of upholding the strictest campaign finance laws. There will be plenty of feverish speculation over whether today's oral arguments bode well or poorly for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. And a final ruling is expected by year's end. The law may well survive a constitutional challenge, only to be ignored by political players who face little threat of punishment from the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC). FEC commissioners met a tight schedule for issuing BCRA regulations. But the law's authors were so incensed by the regulations that they've taken the unprecedented step of suing the FEC. In July, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recommended replacing longtime Democratic Commissioner Scott Thomas with Robert Lenhard, who as associate general counsel to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees joined in the constitutional challenge to the BCRA.

Complaints about Kansas-based Westar Energy Inc. have been reported by Democrats. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe have called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether the company was promised relief from federal regulations in exchange for donating about 56,000 dollars to Republican candidates. Dean and McAuliffe complained to Attorney General John Ashcroft after newspapers 'Kansas City Star' and 'The Washington Post,' disclosed that internal Westar e-mails had described a plan to win "participation" in the energy bill of President George W. Bush administration, in exchange for contributions.

The article reports that three U.S. judge federal panel's recent campaign finance ruling is made a vast store of controversial sealed documents public.The documents, including reams of sensitive, internal memos from top party officials and lobbyists.The court case challenging the new election law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, generated a mammoth legal record running 100,000 pages. The record also includes plenty of testimony from party leaders about the working of restriction on soft money, and from interest groups about how the issue ad restrictions would squelch free speech.

The three-judge federal panel has ruled on the constitutionality of the latest campaign finance law, attention is shifting to the U.S Supreme Court.Both defenders and opponents of the law, known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, have cast the lower court's ruling in a favorable light.They see ruling by U.S. District Judges Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and Richard Leon and U.S. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson as a signal that the high court, too, will find constitutional problems with the law.In fact, the real legal fight over the case, which is known as McConnell v. FEC, has just begun.

Describes flaws in the U.S. public financing system aimed to provide federal matching funds to presidential candidates in the primary campaign. Structural problems involved in public financing system; Attempt of Campaign Finance Institute to reform the presidential election rules; Efforts of the U.S. Federal Election Commission to revive public finance system.

Reports on the delay in a decision to be taken by a federal panel of judges on the constitutionality of revised political fund raising rules in the U.S. Questions raised by the panel of judges during the public hearing on political fund raising rules; Factors that led to the delay in the hearing; Deadline scheduled for the hearing.

The article focuses on the U.S. Federal Election Commission's (FEC) recent bid to tighten up the rules for so-called leadership, PACs, which has stung and angered many lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Several GOP lawmakers recently protested to the FEC that such member-run PACs perform a valuable function by donating seed money to open-seat and challenger candidates. But the FEC would do officeholders a big favor if it wrote some new rules to clear up this murky area of campaign finance law. Once operated by a handful of congressional leaders, member-run PACs no longer really deserve to be called "leadership" PACs.

Reports that the U.S. Congress hopes to resolve all problems related to voting systems reform with the approval of Help America Vote Act, signed by President George W. Bush on October 29, 2002. Replacement of outdated voting system; Alleged disagreement of the U.S. Congress to approve funding for the project; Constraints of time for replacement of the systems.

Reports on deliberations of legislators on a finance bill in the U.S. Details of the bill; Financial secrecy disputes that might arise after the bill is passed; Justice Department's support of the bill.

Reports that charitable groups in the U.S. have urged House Republican leaders to reverse the changes made in ethics rules. Changes made in the rules with regard to rights of lawmakers; Concerns of House Ethics Committee chairman Joel Hefley over the rules; Implications of the rules on corporate charity.

Reports on speculation over the validity of the 2002 campaign finance law Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, in a court hearing in the U.S. Clauses of the law; Demands made by judges from defendants of the law; Other cases of campaign finance laws where the ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court.

Focuses on the election reform legislation under discussion in the U.S. House of Representatives. Role of polling problems in Florida in instigating the legislation; Problems associated with the voting systems and equipment acquired by Florida; Concerns of some senators over the requirement in the bill related to voters who register by mail; Other concerns of the senators.

Reports on the response of election campaign reform advocates regarding the U.S. Federal Election Commission's (FEC) rules interpreting the law on soft-money ban. Details of the law; Agency's favoring of state parties on soft money raising and spending; Argument in favor of the law by the reform advocates.

Reports the passage of a law on political spending in the U.S. Approval of an amendment opening areas of undisclosed political spending; Aim of the amendment; Insertion of the amendment in a taxpayer rights bill.

Focuses on the discharge petition on campaign finance reform by the House of Representatives in the United States. Reasons for the discharge petition; Implications of the discharge petition to House Republican members; Response of the public to the discharge petition on campaign finance reform.

The new campaign finance law banned soft money last year, but one would never know it to look at the big corporate checks now received at the 2004 national party conventions. Officials planning the Republican National Convention say that they already have raised about $60 million to help pay for their four-day campaign in New York City. As in the days before the soft money ban, both conventions will be underwritten by huge, unregulated corporate and labor contributions. United States

By moving to stay its campaign finance decision, a three-judge federal panel in the U.S. has certainly helped clarify which rules will govern the election cycle of 2003. Political players will not have to wrestle with three sets of rules, as some had feared following the May 1, 2003 ruling on the new law's constitutionality. The high court will decide what to do no earlier than February 5, 2003. But the lower court's stay of its own decision, which upheld parts of the new campaign finance law while striking others, has hardly ended the confusion over rules.

Reports on the use of door-to-door or other kind of personal appeal to win voters instead of costly television advertisements in the U.S. for the House and Senate elections for the year 2002. Reasons for turning to personal appeal techniques for electioneering; Organization of local campaign based on volunteers; Advantages of television in electioneering.

Focuses on the deliberation of campaign funds reform bill in the United States. Optimism of Matt Keller, legislative director of Common Cause, on the passage of the legislation; Tactics used by John McCain, senator, to block the approval of the bill; Provision on candidate advertising.

Examines the impact of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the campaign finance reform legislation in Washington. Provision of the bill; Efforts of Meehan Shay to gather 218 signatures on the discharge petition; Move to avoid a House-Senate conference committee.

Reports the impact of the increase of electronic mail messages regarding anthrax on the Congress in Capitol Hill, Washington D.C. Source of anthrax information; Use of secure identification system for file accession; Issues on congressional web pages.

The article discusses various aspects of election campaign finance disclosure rules in the U.S.