A week has passed since the Federal Election Commission (FEC) approved a new electioneering communications rule to interpret the Supreme Court's June decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. With three drafts to consider, the FEC adopted a broad interpretation of evidence of "express advocacy" in ads. Under the rule change an organization may use corporate or union money to run independent ads as long as the overall message is a call to action on a public policy issue and does not mention an election, political party or an opposing candidate, or take a stand on a candidate's character, qualifications or fitness for office. The rule provides for a "safe harbor" and if a communication does not qualify for the safe harbor, the FEC will consider whether the communication includes any "indicia of express advocacy." Commissioners voted 4-1 to require that financing for any exempt ads paid for by unions or corporations be publicly disclosed. As he has in the past, Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky supported the idea of removing the disclosure requirement, but that motion failed. The FEC disclosure requirement would affect grassroots lobbying, even though in January of this year, Congress unsuccessfully tried to require more disclosure of organizations that engage in grassroots lobbying. After much contemplation and commentary, most are quick to assume that now corporate and union funding for ads up until elections will just be abundantly out of control. Critics say groups will now be able to run campaign ads disguised as issue ads. The only way to test out this theory is to wait; however, the vagueness of the rule leaves open that possibility. The FEC will likely have to deal with the ramifications and decide whether ads crossed the line. Unfortunately many groups who want to engage in advocacy all year round, even prior to an election, are still left confused.