The Voter Education Committee (VEC), a 527 organization, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case that challenges the constitutionality of Washington state law requiring any organization found to support or oppose a candidate or ballot issue to register as a political committee and have their finances regulated. VEC wants review of a Washington state Supreme Court decision made last year that ruled that VEC should have registered as a political committee and did not find the definition of "political committee" to be constitutionally vague ( Voters Education Committee v. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, Wash.). The Washington state court found that the committee aired ads opposing the candidacy of former insurance commissioner Deborah Senn paid for with $1.5 million in donations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which should have been disclosed under state campaign finance law. The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) filed a statement in support of the petition. CCP states that "VEC argues that political committee status should only apply to non-party organizations that engage in express advocacy. Express advocacy is any form of communication that can only be interpreted as urging the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for office using words such as 'elect' or 'defeat." BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that in their petition, "VEC noted that the Supreme Court upheld BCRA and its regulatory standard of 'support' or 'oppose' regarding activities and messages originating from political parties. However, the petition argued that this standard is too vague to be applied to non-party groups that get involved in political debates." This case will likely have significant effects, considering the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA or McCain-Feingold) includes a similar "support or oppose," standard also known as "PASO", promote, attack, support or oppose.