COLUMBIA, S.C. — The No. 3 Democrat in the U.S. House called on federal authorities Thursday to investigate how an unemployed South Carolina military veteran entered and won the state's Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

It's up to the Legislature to pick up the ball on reform

A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has significantly changed campaign finance regulation in Michigan.

In January, the court held that it is unconstitutional to ban corporations, labor organizations and domestic dependent sovereign nations (Native American tribes) from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures on behalf of federal, state or local candidates. In essence, the court ruled that these entities can voice their direct support or opposition to candidates.

Campaign disclosure legislation strongly backed by President Obama and Democratic leaders has run into serious obstacles in the House, where lawmakers are scrambling to mollify the National Rifle Association, the AFL-CIO and other groups that say the bill is too burdensome and could force them to publicly identify small donors.

The Supreme Court stepped into another campaign finance controversy on Tuesday when it blocked Arizona from distributing campaign subsidies to publicly funded candidates facing big-spending opponents.

The justices granted a stay of a portion of the state's 12-year-old Clean Elections program, which authorizes public money for state candidates who bypass most private fundraising. The court stopped the state from providing "matching funds" to those candidates whose opponents are spending large sums of private money.

After the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Citizens United decision in January, many legal and political observers warned the ruling would unleash a torrent of corporate cash into American elections. President Barack Obama decried the decision as "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Just as predicted, campaign ads that would previously have been illegal are now airing in key midterm election races. Read full story >

In Arkansas, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln struggles against a flood of labor money. In Nevada, Republican senatorial hopeful Sharron Angle benefits from a conservative combination of the Tea Party Express and Club for Growth.

On the eve of the busiest primary night of the year, Lincoln and Angle are among numerous contenders — incumbents and challengers, Republicans and Democrats — whose fortunes are tied to the actions of outside groups acting independently of candidates or political parties.

The Big Money Behind Top Lawmakers

California Assembly Speaker Jesse M. Unruh once famously said of moneyed political interests: “If you can't take their money, drink their booze, eat their food, screw their women, and vote against them, you don't belong here.” In other words, giving cash to politicians is no guarantee they’ll carry your water. But campaign contributions to elected officials don’t hurt either. The links between money and votes is an endlessly debated subject in official Washington. Cynics say campaign cash often buys support. Read full story >

In its devastating decision to allow an uncontrolled flood of corporate money into federal elections, the Supreme Court tried to head off critics by endorsing full disclosure of fat-cat donors. It is not enough. But Congress can repair some of the damage by passing the “Disclose” campaign finance reform.

On May 27, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a judgment declaring that SpeechNow.org may accept unlimited donations. The judgment also prevents the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing contribution limits against the group and its prospective donors.

A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has significantly changed campaign finance regulation in Michigan.

In January, the Court held it is unconstitutional to ban corporations, labor organizations and domestic dependent sovereign nations (Indian tribes) from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures on behalf of federal, state or local candidates. In essence, the Court ruled that these entities can voice their direct support or opposition to candidates.

Because of a switch in its federal reporting method, oil company BP's political action committee will reveal information about its income and expenditures days, if not weeks earlier than it would have otherwise, OpenSecrets Blog has found.

On April 13 -- a week before the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico -- documents show that BP's PAC asked the Federal Election Commission to allow it to report its finances on a monthly basis rather than a quarterly basis.

Ex-Rep. Robert Wexler must refund an unspecified sum of donations he received for the 2010 general election, according to the Federal Election Commission.

In a May 22 letter, the FEC informed Wexler’s campaign committee that it may not retain any contributions designated for the 2010 general election because the Florida Democrat, who resigned from the House in December, is not a candidate.

Bill to Mitigate Citizens United Decision Put on Hold

As House Democratic leaders raced to round up votes before the Memorial Day recess for a pivotal economic aid bill, trimming it by more than $70 billion to avoid a revolt by members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition, the party made another concession on its agenda to far less fanfare. Last Thursday afternoon, hours before the House Rules Committee was set to take up a measure aimed at mitigating the fallout from Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision — which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of campaign cash — the meeting was scrapped.

State legislators across the nation are introducing campaign finance legislation to mitigate the impact of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions may now directly and expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office.

If there's one thing we are supposed to know about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, it is that she is firmly opposed to the court's recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Read full story >

Questions are being raised about whether Sue Lowden has dipped into donations she got for the general election to pay for her final primary ad pitch.

Robert Uithoven, spokesman for Lowden's U.S. Senate campaign, says the Republican hasn't spent any money that she wasn't supposed to.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner has collected more than $1.4 million from business interests this election cycle for a committee he says he created to help fellow Republican lawmakers. But Boehner's committee has spent only about a third of its money helping other candidates.

When the Supreme Court ruled in January that corporations and unions can spend directly on political campaigns, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned in the majority opinion that First Amendment rights should apply to corporations, too.

The Federal Election Commission hasn't yet issued new regulations after the Citizens United ruling, so it is yet unclear how those First Amendment rights will, exactly, be applied. The FEC's regulations still prohibit direct spending from corporations and and unions on ads and other election communications, even though everyone knows that's no longer the case.

Nevada Democrats are leaving no stone unturned in their bid to soften Republican Senate challenger Sue Lowden. Today, the state Democratic party filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over Lowden's frantic spending in the final days of the GOP primary race.

A Bill That Would Impose New Disclosure Rules Is Having Trouble Gaining Traction

Critics have found a lot to hate about the so-called Disclose Act, the new campaign finance bill that congressional Democrats are pushing to enact by July 4.

Business leaders and conservative activists have launched a full-bore attack on the bill, which would impose new disclosure and disclaimer rules on politically active corporations and unions. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote the legislation as an antidote to the Supreme Court's January ruling to overturn the longtime ban on direct corporate and union campaign spending.

Social media have long been a platform for political trickery. But the Federal Election Commission has exempted most shady online activity—AstroTurf campaigns, veiled Twitter feeds, anonymous Facebook pages—from traditional campaign regulations. Now this loophole may be closing, at least at the state level.

House Democrats have handed ardent opponents of a new campaign finance bill an extra week to lobby against it.

Democratic sponsors of the measure led by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) had planned to pass it by Memorial Day, but when negotiations with Senate Democrats broke down over a massive tax/healthcare/jobs bill, leaders were forced to punt the vote until after the recess, Democratic aides said.

A new campaign finance bill will not get a House vote before the Memorial Day recess, a House Democratic source said Thursday afternoon.

“It’s going to be one of the first things we take up when we get back,” the source said.

Despite opposition from the left and the right, House Democratic leaders are cautiously optimistic they have enough votes to pass a new campaign finance bill.

The White House-backed legislation would change the landscape of the 2010 elections and beyond, but it is still a long way from reaching President Barack Obama’s desk.

After the House Administration Committee marked up the DISCLOSE Act last week, the House Rules committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow (May 27) to report a rule that would send the bill to the floor. H.R. 5175 may be slated for floor action on Friday, May 28, just before the congressional recess begins.