House Democrats are scrambling over how to handle legislation forcing companies to hold a shareholder vote to approve annual corporate political spending.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele defended his organization's lavish spending as he sought Tuesday to contain the damage from a donor event at a sex-themed nightclub and the use of private jets and limousines.

The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has matched Party Time invitations with the Center for Responsive Politics’ lobbying database and found that its possible that there have been more than 440 fundraisers for members of the Senate and House which were hosted by financial services industry lobbyists from January 2009 to the present.

Last Friday, the Federal Election Commission issued an advisory opinion clearing the way for so-called soft money to flow into congressional redistricting battles.

President Obama again attacked the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as he announced his pick of Elena Kagan, and the conservative group at the center of the case is firing back.

In a webisode promoting his film "Casino Jack and the United States of Money," a documentary about disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, director Alex Gibney takes on the Supreme Court's recent decision undoing laws that restricted corporate spending on campaign advertisements -- allowing "super-sized" corporate citizens undue influence on elections.

THE SUPREME COURT'S ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance case opened a dangerous pathway for corporations to spend money in direct support of -- or in opposition to -- candidates for federal office. Under the decision, corporations -- and labor unions -- still can't give money directly to federal candidates, but they can spend unlimited sums in independent expenditures for or against them. Even more dangerous, because of preexisting gaps in campaign disclosure laws, the money can be spent, in effect, anonymously.

RALEIGH If Rusty Carter had only had the benefit of the U.S. Supreme Court's thinking in a recent case, he could legally have spent nearly $150,000 in illegal campaign contributions to benefit Gov. Bev Perdue and state Senate leader Mark Basnight, both Democrats. In fact, he could also have legally given large sums to help other candidates, as he did to Republicans George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in 2004.

After hours of discussion and a week-long delay, the Federal Election Commission on Friday voted to allow Members of Congress to raise soft money for some redistricting activities.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal election officials said Friday that members of Congress helping their parties finance redistricting fights could raise the unlimited corporate and union cash known as soft money that a 2002 law bans them from collecting for their campaigns.

Democrats have proposed a new campaign finance reform bill to counter a controversial Supreme Court decision that enhanced the power of outside groups to run campaign ads, but a little-publicized provision in the legislation would dramatically alter how parties interact with candidates and give the campaign committees broad flexibility in how they handle independent expenditures.

The U.S. District Court of Northern Texas has issued a judgment of $47,414.15 against a North Platte woman for fraudulently violating campaign fund laws in 2004.

The court issued a final judgment and opinion April 15 in the six-year-old case, ordering Jody L. Novacek to pay the penalty.

Democrats have proposed a new campaign finance overhaul bill to counter a controversial Supreme Court decision that enhanced the power of outside groups to run campaign ads, but a little-publicized provision in the legislation would dramatically alter how parties interact with candidates and give the campaign committees broad flexibility in how they handle independent expenditures.

A lobbyist's job is to influence the legislative process in favor of his or her clients' interests, a charge accomplished by writing position papers, drafting sample legislation, meeting with members of Congress and their staffs -- and, oh yes, contributing great piles of money to campaign funds of elected officials.

To blunt the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) recently introduced companion bills, both called the DISCLOSE Act (the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act). The legislative response would create new, rigorous campaign finance disclosure requirements meant to prevent moneyed interests from drowning out the voices of citizens and smaller advocacy organizations.

Lobbyists for a number of multinational corporations with headquarters outside the United States says language in the Democrats’ proposed campaign finance reform bill could send a “chilling signal” to foreign investors and infringe upon legitimate electoral participation.

With hopes to unseat Rep. Gary Miller, a Chino businessman on Tuesday called on the district attorney to investigate some of Miller's earmarks tied to an influential Rancho Cucamonga developer.

In January, the United States Supreme Court overturned limits on corporate election spending [1] (PDF), basing its decision, in part, on the assertion that campaign finance records are more open and accessible than ever before.

This week, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) are expected to introduce new campaign finance regulations aimed at blunting the worst effects of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Their proposal would — in their own words — “patch the dam” of unlimited corporate spending unleashed by the court by strengthening disclosure and disclaimer requirements, restricting foreign-owned entities and government contractors from spending in elections, and guaranteeing ad space to candidates at the lowest rates.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. senator forcefully advocated full and “real” disclosure of campaign contributions, questioning, “why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?”

WASHINGTON — President Obama, warning of a “potential corporate takeover of our elections,” called on Congress on Saturday to undo the effects of a recent Supreme Court ruling by imposing strict disclosure requirements on campaign spending by companies, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups.

Disclose. Disclaim. Report.

That's the message some House and Senate lawmakers sent to corporations, unions and trade associations today in unveiling legislation designed to increase transparency and accountability in the nation’s campaign finance system.

In front of the Supreme Court, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced the introduction of legislation meant to diminish the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The much anticipated bill is titled as expected, the DISCLOSE Act, which stands for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections. Four Democrats signed on as co-sponsors, including Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Al Franken (D-MN).

The Federal Election Commission spent a lot of time talking Thursday about whether federal candidates and members of Congress can raise soft money -- uncapped amounts of cash -- for a partisan redistricting committee. But a decision's still out of reach, reports CQ Moneyline's Alex Knott.

One Republican senator has asked Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to return a $1,000 contribution to his Senate campaign, and other senators are expected to follow suit if Mr. Crist announces Thursday he's dropping out of the Republican primary in Florida to run as an independent.