Is this big? This seems big.. Legal types - advice on FEC release...

[Coexist]

This seems to state the FEC is requiring organizations to disclose the names of donors if they fund ads? Is that correct?

Press release dated today, 07/27/2012:

FEC Statement on Van Hollen v. FEC

WASHINGTON – On March 30, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Van Hollen v. FEC, Civ. No. 11-0766 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2012), found that the Commission regulation at 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) is invalid. That regulation, which was adopted in 2007 and governed electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations, required that their donors be disclosed only if their donations were “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” The district court found that this limitation on disclosure contravened Congress’s intent and noted that the Commission’s pre-2007 regulation “did not add an intent requirement.” Van Hollen, No. 11-0766, slip. op. at 25 n.8 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2012). On April 27, 2012, the district court vacated the regulation at 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) and reinstated the Commission’s prior regulation at 104.20(c), which was promulgated on December 17, 2002 and was in effect until December 25, 2007. Van Hollen, Civ. No. 11-0766 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2012).

Both the district court, in its April 27 ruling, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Van Hollen, No. 12-5117 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2012), denied motions by defendant-intervenors Center for Individual Freedom and Hispanic Leadership Fund to stay the district court’s order pending appeal.1

The Commission is providing this public statement outlining how it will comply with the district court’s opinion and order pending the appeal of the case:

Effective March 30, 2012, persons making disbursements for electioneering communications should report “the name and address of each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more to the person making the disbursement, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year.”

(emphasis mine)

Is that what it is saying? And what will this mean?

[yodermon]

1. kick

[NYC_SKP]

2. It seems big.

http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/national_world/political-groups-fight-for-spending-secrecy/article_73914d1c-a53a-5ada-9212-592a4d79c31e.html

[Coexist]

3. this makes me think it may be big...

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2012/05/dc-circuit-denies-emergency-stay-in-van-hollen-suit-against-fec.html

[Coexist]

4. anyone?

maybe its not...

[wilsonbooks]

5. Even if the higher courts uphold there is no mention of penalties.

They might choose to have their hands slapped and continue to do as they have.