Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations have come under scrutiny lately as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court have ruled on lawsuits regarding electioneering communications. These actions have implications for nonprofits. On Sept. 18, District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly struck down more than a dozen of the FEC's current rules on political fundraising, including rules regulating electioneering communications of 501(c)(3) groups. In 2002 the Commission ruled that 501(c)(3) organizations were exempt from a rule that restricts paid broadcasts that mention clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary or party convention. The logic was that 501(c)(3) organizations are already prohibited by tax law from electioneering; hence, any mention of a candidate would only be for non-electioneering purposes, such as lobbying. In its ruling, the Court found that the agency had not adequately explained its dependence on Internal Revenue Service enforcement against rogue 501(c)(3)s. The Court noted, "It is the FEC, not the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), that is charged with enforcing FECA." (Op. at 151) The IRS does not view Section 501(c)(3)'s ban on political activities to include activities detailed under FECA. The Court declined to enjoin the rules, instead remanding them to the FEC for further action consistent with the opinion. The District Court opinion resulted from a lawsuit filed by Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Martin Meehan (D-MA), the two sponsors of the House version of the new campaign finance reform law, who were dissatisfied with the FEC regulations being published by the FEC to implement the new law. Supporters of the new law have expressed delight in the court's decision. Yet because the Court told the FEC to write new rules to govern key aspects of fundraising, including when candidates and outside parties can coordinate activities and whether 501(c)(3) organizations should be exempt from the paid ad restrictions, it is not clear what the outcome will be. It appears the existing FEC rules will stay in effect until the FEC can write new rules or challenge the Court's opinion -- likely through this election cycle. The District Court's ruling came on the heels of a Sept. 14 Supreme Court decision not to issue an emergency injunction in a case involving Wisconson Right To Life (WRTL), a 501 (c)(4) organization that has endorsed Republican candidates. WRTL aired ads urging the public to contact Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats, to end the filibuster against President Bush's judicial nominees. Feingold is running for re-election. The suit sought an injunction against application of the rule to these facts, even though the Supreme Court upheld the general provisions of the law in December 2003. WRTL's attorney said the group will continue their appeal, even though there will is no chance of relief before the November election. In the McConnell case the Supreme Court held that the rule prohibiting paid ads is not unconstitutional on its face. However, WRTL argued that it was unconstitutional "as applied" to their situation. The lower court rejected the "as applied" theory, noting the ads WRTL wishes to broadcast "may fit the very type of activity" that Congress and the Supreme Court meant to regulate. Court documents in the case are on the FEC website. A few days before the Supreme Court action, the Federal Election Commission issued two Advisory Opinions clarifying application of the paid broadcast prohibition. The first, AO 2004-30 was requested by Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) organization that wished to broadcast ads promoting a book and film critical of John Kerry. The FEC said this would be impermissible under the electioneering communications rule, since the group does not qualify as a media organization, as it claimed to do. The second, AO 2004-33 was requested by the Ripon Society, which wishes to run ads featuring a Republican member of the House, Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY), and praises "Republicans in Congress". The FEC said the ad could not be run in Kelly's district, since she appears in it. However, the ad could be run in other districts, since it does not name any candidate specifically. However, if the group coordinates with the Republican Party it would lose its independent status and have to use hard money for such ads.