After years of wrangling, the Federal Election Commission has issued new rules aimed at clearing up the question: When is it illegal for an interest group to coordinate with a political candidate?

This has not been a kind year for campaign finance reformers.

Setting aside the now-famous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling from the Supreme Court, which allowed corporations and unions to spend freely on campaign advertisements, there has been a flurry of challenges to other campaign finance laws in the courts.

Recent moves by the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) more than two full months away from the highly anticipated Congressional midterms could significantly impact the political landscape this year, and reshape cycles for years to come.

With less than two and a half months until Election Day, the Federal Election Commission rewrote the regulatory language on how outside groups can spend money on election advertisements, voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote activity.

What are the consequences of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowing corporations "unlimited spending in pursuit of political ends"? The world of campaign finance is new, confusing -- and very alarming.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations are free to spend whatever they want on elections. They just don't want to be seen doing it.

More than a dozen political groups have organized in recent weeks to spend large amounts of money on attack ads against House and Senate candidates as special interests on the left and right play a larger role in midterm races.

An audit by the Federal Election Commission has uncovered significant errors in Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's campaign account, the agency disclosed Wednesday.

A final audit of the Bartlett for Congress Committee for 2007 and 2008 found that it failed to report dozens of expenses and significantly under-reported the amounts he raised and spent during that period, which covered his '08 re-election run.

Recent congressional actions highlight concerns over corporate involvement in elections. Before the August recess, Congress made several attempts to regulate corporate electoral involvement, including the Senate’s failed attempt to pass the DISCLOSE Act and the House Financial Services Committee’s approval of the Shareholder Protection Act. Though some lawmakers worked around the clock, Congress ultimately failed to follow through on reform before the recess.

Political groups like Club for Growth and Commonsense Ten have won advisory opinions from the FEC allowing them to set up independent expenditure groups that will be allowed to receive unlimited donations from corporations — but was the FEC even authorized to let them do so?

In a detailed piece for BNA Money & Politics Report, Kenneth Doyle details new developments following the Federal Election Commission’s ruling in July that two political organizations could collect unlimited contributions while registering as a political action committee (PAC).

A prominent Washington advocacy group filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Federal Election Commission, arguing that the panel routinely makes it impossible to appeal its decisions.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington identifies at least nine cases over the past two years in which the FEC dismissed complaints but did not provide enough information about the decision to allow a legal challenge.

More than seven months after it was handed down, the Supreme Court's ruling that rolled back limits on corporate participation in elections remains mired in controversy.

Today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan filed suit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, CREW v. Fed. Election Comm’n (D.D.C.). The suit seeks to end the FEC’s practice of summarily dismissing complaints without explanation, leaving complainants insufficient information to sue the agency for failing to enforce campaign finance laws.

Voter concern over corporate influence on elections and lawmaking is the most potent force in the closely-watched Democratic Senate primary campaign that ends Tuesday in Colorado.

As the Minnesota primary for governor draws to a close Tuesday, the controversy over corporate-backed political ads for Republican candidate Tom Emmer is far from over.

Paul J. Magliocchetti was one of the most powerful and influential lobbyists in Washington not too long ago, known for steering campaign contributions to favored lawmakers while securing millions of dollars in projects for his clients.

The American Resort Development Association's political committee has agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for violating campaign laws prohibiting corporate contributions and donations from foreign nationals.

In June, word leaked that the Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating eight members of Congress for accepting contributions from the political action committees of financial institutions near votes on a financial regulation bill.

As in super PACs, or political action committees, potentially massive political groups that will raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in support of candidates.

Facing pressure from critics of Wall Street to limit its role in elections, Goldman Sachs has pledged not to spend any of its vast corporate reserves on political advertising.

The move was an unexpected sign of restraint after a major Supreme Court ruling this year that gave corporations the power to devote unlimited amounts to electing or defeating candidates for federal office.

The Missouri Democratic Party is preparing to file a Federal Election Commission complaint against Joe the Plumber for "illegally advertising" on behalf of state Sen. Chuck Purgason (R).

Corporations would be required to give their shareholders an annual vote on how much money to spend on political activities under a bill approved by the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.

The business community has spent mightily trying to defeat the Democratic-backed DISCLOSE Act, which suffered a bruising loss in the Senate earlier this week. Lobbying disclosure reports show that the campaign finance bill set off a flurry of lobbying activity in recent months.

It didn't take long for new independent expenditure organizations to take advantage of recent court rulings to maximize their impact on the 2010 election.

Since Friday, at least three groups filed new documents with the Federal Election Commission stating that they intend to raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions to run ads before the Nov. 2 midterms.