On May 13, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) voted to delay for 90-days action on a proposed new rule extending federal regulation to independent political committees. House Administration Committee Chair Robert Ney (R-OH) immediately set and held a hearing May 20, to shed some light on what questions and issues Committee members have about the rule, and what action the FEC might take at the end of the 90-day period. All agreed that no action on the rule is likely to take effect this year. Ney opened the hearing by noting that donors are likely to start giving to independent groups sympathetic to Republicans (see related article). Ney, who opposed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), said the blame for the state of the law rests with its drafters, not the FEC. Rep. John Mica (R-FL) expressed disappointment with the FEC's decision, calling the amount of money likely to be spent on this year's election "obscene". Ranking Committee member John Larson (D-CT) expressed concern about the risk of corruption arising from independent political committees, and the role of 501(c) organizations because they do not disclose their donors. During testimony by four FEC Commissioners, two commissioners, Michael Toner (R) and Scott Thomas (D), defended their proposal that was rejected by the Commission May 13. The Toner-Thomas proposal was more limited than the original proposed rule, but would still have significantly extended the FEC's regulatory authority to groups whose "major purpose" is influencing federal elections, and that "promote, support, attack or oppose" federal candidates. These thresholds are undefined, and such a rule could have proven to be too vague and overbroad. Both Toner and Thomas argued that regulation of independent groups must go beyond the express advocacy standard, which required an explicit statement urging votes for or against federal candidates. Thomas said the current rules that allow groups to split their regulated and unregulated funds based on a ratio using the express advocacy standard must be changed. FEC Vice-Chair Ellen Weintraub (D) defended the 90-day delay in the rulemaking, citing concerns about the impact the Toner-Thomas proposal would have on nonprofits, who have a right to criticize the government, even during an election season. She also expressed concern about the proposal‰€ªs lack of definitions for the terms "major purpose" and "promote, support, attack or oppose." FEC Chair Bradley Smith (R) also defended the delay, noting that BCRA did not change the definition of a regulated political committee and the Supreme Court did not address the question in its opinion upholding the law. He believes the FEC does not have the authority to go beyond the express advocacy standard for independent groups. However, he said the FEC could act on the allocation rules. After the testimony Rep. Larson again raised the issue of 501(c) groups, asking if there is a corruption problem that needs to be addressed and whether political committees would change their tax-exempt status in order to avoid FEC regulation. Thomas said the "major purpose" and "promote, support, attack or oppose" tests would ultimately apply to 501(c) groups. Weintraub said the proposed rule fails because of the potential for loss of disclosure information if groups change their status from Section 527, which exempts political committees but requires disclosure of donors to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to 501(c)(4), which does not require donor disclosure. Rep. Vernon Ehrlers (R-MI) and Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) asked questions about the effectiveness of campaign finance laws. Smith said he thinks disclosure is the best approach, and Weintraub said BCRA was successful in breaking the link between soft money and federal officeholders. Thomas said campaign finance law helps reduce the influence of special interests. Ney said it may become necessary to retain "an attorney, an accountant and a bail bondsman" to run for federal office. If the Toner-Thomas proposal were adopted, the same could be true for nonprofits that criticize federal officials.