Comments were due yesterday (Oct.1) on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) proposed rulemaking to make its regulations consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. An FEC hearing on proposed rulemaking is scheduled for Oct. 17, with the goal of having a final regulation in place by the end of the year. BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that the comments focused on the main difference between the two alternatives the FEC proposed, whether to require disclosure of the funding sources for the exempt grassroots lobbying ads. James Bopp, the attorney who represented WRTL before the Supreme Court, filed comments with the FEC arguing that the logic of the Court's decision was to exempt all grass-roots lobbying messages from BCRA's requirements, including reporting requirements. But, other comments called on the FEC to leave in place its existing rules on disclosure and express advocacy, while implementing the WRTL decision with a narrow exception regarding funding sources. OMB Watch submitted comments opposing the reporting requirement (alternative 1) for being inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling. The OMB Watch comments also addressed the FEC question regarding proposed safe harbors. "The proposed general rule would exempt communications that are 'susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate.' We do not believe this is the best approach, since the proposed general rule is too vague, and the proposed safe harbors are overly restrictive. In the absence of concrete guidance in regulations, safe harbors have a tendency to become de facto rules. For more information on the FEC proposed rulemaking, click here.