| Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of files from June 1996 to the present |
30 June 2009
[Federal Register: July 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 31430-31441]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jy09-52]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
[Notice 2009--10]
Web Site and Internet Communications Improvement Initiative
AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing and request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission (the ``FEC'' or
``Commission'') has adopted an initiative to seek public comment on how
to improve all aspects of how the Commission discloses information to
the public on its Web site and through the use of Internet
communications. While the FEC, which was first constituted in 1975,
continually engages in ongoing efforts to improve all aspects of how
the Commission discloses information through the Internet, with a
primary focus on its Web site, the FEC has never before sought formal
public comment on the means by which the Commission discloses
information to the public.\1\ As part of these efforts, the Commission
is seeking written comments and will conduct a public hearing on ways
the Commission can improve how it communicates to the public using the
Internet and, specifically, how it can improve its Web site to ensure
that the FEC Web site is a state-of-the-art resource for disclosure of
information to the public including (1) disclosure of campaign finance
data, (2) information about Federal campaign finance laws, and (3) the
actions of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2003, the FEC began a Web site redevelopment project that
resulted in a redesign of both the appearance of the site as well as
the production process. The revised Web site went live in 2004 and
the FEC continually seeks and receives input on how to improve the
Web site. This initiative will provide the first forum for formal
public comments to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission seeks comment from all segments of the public,
including representatives of political committees, Federal candidates
and officeholders, members of the media, authors, students of all ages,
members of the academic community, and advocacy groups.
In addition to comments from the public, the Commission
specifically seeks comment from those with relevant technical
expertise, including technical advisors, consultants, researchers,
other governmental and non-governmental agencies, non-profit entities
and commercial vendors to assist with the Commission's efforts to
improve the how it uses the Internet to disclose information to the
public and particularly efforts to improve the FEC Web site. Such
advice and information may include recommendations to the Commission
for (1) expanding the Web site's disclosure features, (2) improving the
information available on the Web site and ways in which that
information is organized, and (3) maximizing the benefit of current and
anticipated technology related to Web site services.
The Commission's policy regarding which documents are placed on the
public record from closed enforcement, administrative fines and
alternative dispute resolution cases is outside the scope of this
initiative, and the Commission is specifically not seeking comments
with respect to this issue. See Statement of Policy Regarding
Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and Related Files, 68 FR 70426 (Dec.
18, 2003). The Commission plans to conduct a separate hearing with full
opportunity for public comment on the issue later in the year.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2009. A public
hearing will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, July 29-30, 2009, from
10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street,
NW., 9th floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC 20463. Anyone seeking to
testify at the hearing must file written comments by the due date and
must include in the written comments a request to testify.
Format for Comments and Addresses: All comments must be in writing,
must be addressed to Mr. Robert Hickey, Staff Director, and must be
submitted in either e-mail, facsimile, or paper copy form. Commenters
are strongly encouraged to submit comments by e-mail to ensure timely
receipt and consideration. E-mail comments must be sent to
improvefecinternet@fec.gov. If e-mail comments include an attachment,
the attachment must be in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word
(.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to (202) 208-3333. Paper
comments must be sent to Mr. Robert Hickey, Staff Director, Federal
Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All
comments must include the full name and postal service address of the
commenter or they will not be considered. The Commission will post all
comments on its Web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/hearings/
internethearing.shtml shortly after they are received.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Biersack, Special Assistant to
the Staff Director for Data Integration, 999 E Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20463, (202) 694-1658 or (800) 424-9530. The Commission's Web site
can be accessed at http://www.fec.gov. Technical information related to
the FEC's Web site, including hardware, software, capacity and
functionalities can be found at http://www.fec.gov/pages/hearings/
internethearing.shtml.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Hearing Goals
The FEC is an independent regulatory agency with responsibility for
administering, enforcing, defending and interpreting the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.,
available at http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf) (FECA). The
Commission is also responsible for administering the Federal public
funding programs for Presidential campaigns and party conventions. This
responsibility includes certifying and auditing all participating
candidates and committees, and enforcement of the public funding laws.
The Commission strives to discharge its statutory mandate by (1)
facilitating public disclosure of campaign finance activity, (2)
providing information and policy guidance to the public, media,
political committees, Federal candidates and officeholders, and
election officials on the FECA and Commission regulations, (3)
encouraging voluntary compliance with all of the FECA's requirements,
and (4) investigating alleged violations of those requirements and
seeking civil penalties and other remedies when necessary to enforce
the law.
The FEC's Web site is increasingly the Commission's primary vehicle
for sharing with the public campaign finance disclosure data,
educational materials related to Federal campaign finance laws, the
development and implementation of new rules and regulations, Advisory
Opinions, and closed enforcement actions. Accordingly, the FEC's Web
site and how the Commission uses the Internet to disclose information
to the public is critical to the Commission's mission.
In 2008, the Commission received over 5.2 million visits to its Web
site, or approximately 14,200 per day, an increase of over 50% from the
year before. During the 24-month 2008 election cycle, the Commission
received, and disclosed on its Web site, approximately 140,000
financial disclosure reports from nearly 8,000 political committees.
These reports contained the equivalent of 11.7 million pages of
financial data, disclosing
[[Page 31431]]
approximately $8.3 billion in political contributions and spending
related to Federal elections.
The Commission anticipates that the trend of increased traffic
coming to the Commission's Web site will continue as more users seek
access to information about the Federal campaign finance laws and about
how Federal campaigns are financed. To improve the Web site's
usefulness to the public, the Commission is seeking, through this
proceeding, ways to provide the public with more timely information, as
well as ways to make its Web site more user-friendly, more educational,
more analytical, more accessible, and more interesting.
Among the topics on which the Commission requests comment are those
discussed below. The list is not exhaustive, and the Commission
welcomes input on ways in which the Commission can make improvements to
the means by which the Commission discloses information to the public
through the Internet, and in particular on the Commission's Web site.
However, as indicated above, the Commission's policy regarding
which documents are placed on the public record from closed
enforcement, administrative fines and alternative dispute resolution
cases is outside the scope of this initiative but will be the subject
of a separate hearing with full opportunity for public comment later in
the year.
II. Introduction
The Commission recognizes that having an abundance of information
available on its Web site is of little use if the information is not
organized in a way that makes it easily accessible and understandable.
Accordingly, it is vital to the public interest that the Commission's
Web site be written and organized from the point of view of a potential
user who seeks information from an agency. Although the agency's Web
site must be citizen-focused, with a general public audience in mind,
it must, at the same time, provide information to specialized audiences
about specific areas of interest. In each case, whether a visitor to
the Commission's Web site seeks general information or very specific
data, the Web site should be organized in a visitor-friendly, intuitive
fashion. Information should be easy to extract and it should be
presented in a clear, logical and appealing manner that is easy to read
and understand whether displayed on the screen, or when printed in
hardcopy format.
III. The Primary Users of the Commission's Web Site
In order to ensure that the Commission's Web site adequately serves
those who seek information from the Commission, the Commission must
properly identify who its primary users or viewers are, including
potential users who access campaign finance information from other
sources either by choice or because they do not know about the
Commission's Web site. These users may include members of the general
public, prospective voters, prospective Federal candidates and
officeholders, representatives of registered political committees such
as committee treasurers, members of the media, including bloggers and
the more specialized trade media, and members of the academic
community, including policy institutes and advocacy groups. Users also
include State and local election officials and officeholders, members
of the legal profession, teachers and students, as well as other
academics and librarians. The Commission seeks comment from each of
these diverse audiences on whether the Commission's Web site is
presently meeting their specific needs and about ways in which the
Commission uses the Internet to disclose information to the public and
the Commission's Web site can be improved to better serve these needs.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there may be
other audiences in addition to those listed above that may seek
information from the Commission's Web site. If so, how well does the
current Web site serve those audiences, and what improvements can be
made to serve them better?
IV. What Tasks Do the Commission's Primary Customers Perform Most Often
on the Web Site?
Different audiences seeking information from the Commission's Web
site search for distinct categories of information and perform diverse
tasks when accessing the Web site. For instance, members of the general
public might be seeking a range of information that could span from
accessing contribution and expenditure data related to a recent or
upcoming election to seeking information about the $3 IRS income tax
form check-off that provides funding for the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund. A political committee might seek more specialized
information such as guidance regarding the Commission's software
package that committees use to electronically file their campaign
finance disclosure reports or seek information about the laws that are
applicable to the committee's activities. A political committee also
might seek information about the requirements or procedures for filing
an advisory opinion request with the Commission and guidance about
whether a question they have is appropriate for an advisory opinion
request. Similarly, a political committee or a member of the public
might seek information about the requirements or procedures for filing
a complaint alleging a violation of the campaign finance laws or
regulations. Members of the media may be interested in an entirely
different set of information, such as background on the FECA or perhaps
news about the Commission's most recent actions.
The Commission seeks public comment on what tasks or operations are
conducted by visitors to the Commission's Web site and specifically
about how different audiences may seek to perform these functions
differently.
V. How Can the Commission Improve the Way Its Web Site Is Organized?
The Commission has endeavored to design and organize the
information on its Web site in a cogent, rational, and intuitive way.
The Commission seeks comment from users of the Commission's Web site
about the visitor experience. Is navigation of the Commission's Web
site intuitive? If not, in what specific ways can it be more intuitive?
Are the ways that users navigate each page on the FEC's Web site
adequately consistent across the Web site? If not, where do these
inconsistencies exist? For example, do similar items on different pages
appear in the same location and have the same appearance and wording?
Do navigation items of the same type appear the same way and perform
the same functions across the Web site?
Do users consider the Commission's current homepage to be
sufficiently useful? If not, in what ways could it become more useful?
Are visitors easily able to find what they are seeking? The
Commission's current homepage is relatively static with almost no
content on the homepage changing from day-to-day. The only dynamic
content on the homepage is a crawl across the bottom of the page, which
is changed, on average, every other week to announce the latest
important news from the Commission. In addition, the homepage includes
interactive maps to provide users with immediate access to disclosure
data. Are these disclosure maps appropriately located on the homepage?
Is the homepage too static? Should the homepage list ``headlines,''
``hot topics,'' or ``most requested
[[Page 31432]]
information'' that could be updated daily or weekly? Or is it best to
leave the homepage uncluttered, serving as a top-level directory that
allows viewers to access information though available links?
The Commission's Web site is currently organized by the type of
information that is available, such as ``Campaign Finance Reports and
Data'' or ``Law and Regulations.'' Is the information available on the
Commission's Web site organized in a logical sequence? If not, how can
it be better organized? Are visitors easily able to ascertain what to
do next in their task?
a. Portals
In contrast to the manner in which the Commission's Web site is
currently organized, should the Commission's homepage serve as a
``start task'' page, asking visitors what task they seek to perform,
which would then take visitors to a task-based portal specifically
tailored to the user's specific task? If so, what should be the topics
of these ``start task'' pages? Alternatively, should the Commission's
Web site be organized by categories of frequent users and have separate
portal pages for different audiences based on those visitors' needs? Or
should the Web site first ask the user what category of user he or she
falls under (e.g., member of the general public, political committee
representative, Federal officeholder) and then offer the user a focused
portal based on the types of tasks most frequently performed by users
in that category? Is there sufficiently different content to justify
dividing the Web site into isolated user-portals? What is the
likelihood that organizing the Web site in this way could lead to
confusion among new or infrequent visitors? What other costs might such
a reorganization entail?
1. The General Public
Should there be a portal page for members of the general public? If
so, what information or utilities should be available on such a page?
What links to other information would be most helpful for members of
the general public or others seeking general campaign finance
information?
2. Political Committee Representatives
Should there be a portal page designed specifically for those
seeking information on behalf of a registered political committee, such
as committee treasurers, that would offer direct access to the
resources that are most useful for committee treasurers and other
committee representatives? If so, what resources should be included on
such a page? Should a portal page for political committee
representatives include a link to a focused set of frequently asked
questions (FAQs)? Should there be separate portal pages for different
types of political committees such as party committees, corporate or
labor organization connected committees (which are often referred to as
Separate Segregated Funds or Political Action Committees), or
nonconnected committees?
3. Federal Officeholders and Prospective Candidates
Should there be a portal page designed specifically for Federal
officeholders and prospective Federal candidates? If so, what resources
should be included on such a page? Should there be a separate portal
page for candidates, different from one for current officeholders?
Should there be different portal pages for House, Senate and
Presidential candidates and officeholders? If so, what different
content should be on each of these pages? Should a portal page for
Federal officeholders and prospective Federal candidates include a link
to a focused set of frequently asked questions (FAQs)? Should such a
portal page provide procedural guidance for persons, committees or
other entities who are subject to FEC proceedings such as audits and
enforcement actions?
4. Media
Should there be a portal page designed specifically for members of
the media? If so, what resources should be included on a media portal
page? Should there be a separate portal page for the general media,
different from one for the trade media? Should there be a separate
portal page for members of the foreign media? If so, what different
content should be on each of these pages? Should a portal page for
members of the media include a link to a focused set of frequently
asked questions (FAQs)?
5. Academic Community
Should there be a portal page designed specifically for members of
the academic community? If so, what resources should be included on an
academic community portal page? Should there be a separate portal page
for students, different from one for professors? Should there be a
separate portal page for policy institutes? If so, what different
content should be on each of these pages? Should a portal page for
members of the academic community include a link to a focused set of
frequently asked questions (FAQs)?
Are there audiences other than those outlined above for whom the
Commission should consider designing a separate portal? If so, for
which audiences should the Commission design such portals?
Alternatively, should the information be organized in some other way?
VI. User-Experience/User-Friendliness
a. Plain Language
Best practices for government Web sites mandate that a typical user
of the Commission's Web site should be able to understand the Web site
content after only one reading--the content should be in plain
language. See http://www.plainlanguage.gov. Ideally, users should not
need to spend time ``translating'' difficult, wordy text. Plain-
language writing saves users time and reduces the burden placed on the
public. The Commission has worked to meet these goals and seeks comment
on whether the language used on the Commission's Web site is accessible
and easy to read. Can first-time or novice users understand information
on the Web site easily? If not, please provide specific examples from
the Commission's Web site of language that is not easily understood.
b. Accessibility to Users With Special Needs
Should content on the Commission's Web site be revised in order to
make the content more accessible to users with special needs, such as
persons with disabilities? Is information on the Commission's Web site
easily accessible through browse aloud text readers for visually
impaired users? Should the Web site have alternative pages for users
with low literacy or for foreign-language speakers?
c. Help Functions
Another important aspect of whether a Web site is sufficiently
user-friendly is the directions provided to users when they cannot find
the information they are looking for. The Commission's Web site
currently has pages providing a list of Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs) and ``Quick Answers,'' to help users find the information they
are seeking. Are these sections of the Web site useful? Should the Web
site have a special help section that would guide users to the
information they are seeking? Would a ``first-time user guide'' be
helpful? What information might a first time user guide include that
would make it different from the FAQ?
[[Page 31433]]
Should the Web site have a ``contact us'' section that would allow
users to either send an e-mail to Commission staff or provide a staff
telephone directory for users who are still not able to access the
information they seek? Web site users can also send questions and
feedback about the Web site through e-mail communications to
``Webmanager@fec.gov.'' Is this service sufficiently responsive and
informative? Should questions and feedback be made public?
Is the Commission sufficiently receptive to suggestions made
through e-mails and phone calls? Have those who have made comments or
suggestions received responses from the Commission? Have the responses
been satisfactory? If not, why not?
Should the Commission develop a blog to facilitate a conversation
about the substance and techniques used by staff to disclose campaign
finance data? Should the Web site host other blogs or user groups? If
so, what topics should they cover? Should the Web site host user groups
where users can interactively discuss substantive areas of campaign
finance law and Commission procedures?
VII. Search Engines
a. General Search Engine
The Commission maintains various search engines on its Web site.
The general search engine (``General Search Engine'') is located on the
Commission's homepage and returns pages and documents from all portions
of the Commission's Web site other than the contents of three self-
contained databases (i.e., the disclosure database, the Advisory
Opinion database, and the enforcement database), which can be accessed
through the specialized search engines that are discussed below. In
addition to a basic search function which allows users to conduct a
simple word search, the General Search Engine also has an ``advanced
search'' function that allows users to enter search terms or phrases
and find results with (1) all of the words, (2) the exact phrase, (3)
any of the words, as well as results without a specific search term or
phrase.
b. Specialized Search Engines
In addition to the General Search Engine, the Commission's Web site
contains three specialized search engines that allow users to search
only within a specific portion of the Commission's Web site.
1. Disclosure Database Search Engine
The disclosure database search engine (``Disclosure Database Search
Engine'') allows a user to search only within the contribution and
expenditure data filed by registered political committees. The
Disclosure Database Search Engine includes a search for summary data
for candidates and Political Action Committees/Party Committees, as
well as searches for detailed data for individual contributors,
political committees, and candidates.
2. Advisory Opinion Search Engine
Another specialized search engine allows users to limit their
search to information about Commission Advisory Opinions. Specifically,
the Advisory Opinion Search Engine (``AO Search Engine'') allows users
to search by (1) search terms, including words and phrases, (2)
advisory opinion number, (3) requestor name and (4) year. Additionally,
the advanced search function of the AO Search Engine allows users to
search using more specific criteria.
3. Enforcement Query System
Finally, the Commission's Web site contains a third specialized
search engine, known as the Commission's Enforcement Query System
(``EQS''). This system allows a user to search for information about
completed Commission enforcement cases. Specifically, EQS allows users
to search within a database containing documents related to completed
Commission enforcement cases (including complaints, responses,
conciliation agreements and Commissioner statements of reasons) by key
words or by information about the cases (e.g., case number, name of
respondent, name of complainant, statute or regulation alleged to have
been violated).
c. Search Engine Improvements
The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's search
engines are sufficiently intuitive and responsive. If not, in what ways
can the Commission's search engines be modified to make them more
useful? Are the features of the Commission's search engines
sufficiently sophisticated, robust and flexible to offer suggested
choices to a user of words, spellings and phrases based on a user's
query? Are the ``advanced search'' functions useful to viewers who wish
to conduct more refined, focused searches to achieve more relevant
results? Are search results displayed in an easy-to-read format both
when displayed on the screen and when printed in hardcopy format? If
not, in what ways can the visual and printed presentation of the
materials be made more useful and appear more professional? Are search
results relevant and comprehensive? Are the most relevant results
listed first? Is there adequate help available on the Web site to
assist visitors who are unfamiliar with or unskilled at using search
technology? Do the search engines produce swift results? The Commission
also seeks comment on whether the Commission's search engines should
produce a link for the output of each search that users could then
include in e-mails and on their own Web sites that would allow others
to instantly access the results of a search.
Should a user be able to make a single query that would
simultaneously search through the entire Web site, including the
specialized databases? Should a user be able to selectively choose
which databases are accessed through a given query? For instance,
should a user be able to simultaneously query information only from the
Advisory Opinion database and the Enforcement database with a single
search? What search functions would be most useful to users?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission's Web
site should have other specialized search engines in addition to the
Disclosure Database Search Engine, the AO Search Engine and EQS. If so,
what information should be accessible through such specialized search
engines? For example, should the Web site have a specialized search
engine devoted to Commission regulations and rulemaking documents such
as Notices of Proposed Rulemakings and Explanations and Justifications?
Should there be a specialized search engine devoted to information and
documents related solely to the Commission's litigation matters?
VIII. Commission Function and Organization
The Commission's Web site has an ``About the FEC'' section that
includes information about the FECA, the Commission's mission and
history, and an organizational chart including a description of each of
the offices and divisions within the Commission. The Commission seeks
comment on whether its Web site provides adequate information about the
Commission's jurisdiction, mission, and internal structure. If not,
what additional information should be included? The Commission also
seeks comment on whether the Web site provides adequate information
about how the Commission is organized (i.e., the responsibilities of
each Office and Division within the Commission). What information do
other Federal agencies provide on their
[[Page 31434]]
Web sites about jurisdiction, mission and organization? Is this
information useful? If yes, how so? Are there other Federal or non-
Federal government agencies, or other non-governmental entities that
maintain Web sites that could serve as a model for the FEC? If so,
which agencies and what aspects of their Web sites? Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the Web site should contain a staff
phone and e-mail directory to make it easier for the public to contact
Commission staff directly.
IX. Data Accessibility
a. Current Interactive Maps
The FECA requires accurate and comprehensive public disclosure by
Federal candidates and political committees of all contributions and
expenditures. Information about these contributions and expenditures is
included in the Commission's disclosure database along with millions of
other itemized disbursements, receipts and other payments.
Since 2007, the Commission homepage at www.fec.gov has included
interactive maps, which provide users with immediate access to
contribution and expenditure information for Presidential, Senate and
House candidates. Through these maps, users can access the amount of
funds raised by State, cash-on-hand, and the distribution of
contributions by amount. Furthermore, users can access lists of
contributors by name, city, and amounts of contributions within the
first three digits of any zip code. Users can also obtain a detailed
list of information about how candidates spend their money, including
the payee name, purpose, date and amount of each campaign expenditure.
Although the Web site allows users to sort the detailed list of
expenditures by each category listed above, the Web site does not
currently provide separate aggregated amounts for each category. For
instance, a user cannot access an aggregated number for the amount a
candidate has spent on political advertisements. Would the addition of
this feature be useful?
The House and Senate map allows the user to select candidates for
comparison using bar charts to display such financial categories as
contribution and disbursement totals, debts and cash on hand. It also
presents itemized contributions and disbursements by category and
includes links to images of reports filed by the candidate and the
candidate's committees.
The Commission seeks comment on whether these interactive maps are
useful. How can they be improved? Are there other types of interactive
maps or charts that users would find interesting or educational? In
what other ways can campaign finance data be made available in a more
user-friendly and interactive way?
b. Sorting of Data
The Commission seeks comment on ways in which the Web site should
allow users to sort the campaign finance data. For example, should the
Web site allow users to sort the data (1) by date or a range of dates,
(2) by types of committees (e.g., candidate committees, party
committees and corporate and labor organization connected committees),
(3) by candidate, (4) by contributor (e.g., name, address, zip code and
employer), or (5) alphabetically? What other ways should the Web site
allow users to search for or sort the data?
The Commission is aware that other Web sites also provide access to
the FEC's campaign finance data. For example, some of these Web sites
permit users to sort contribution data into how much has been raised by
a candidate or political committee over time, such as on a quarterly,
monthly, weekly or daily basis. For expenditures, some of these Web
sites allow users to sort campaign spending into categories, such as
administrative costs, campaign expenses, fundraising costs and media
costs. One Web site allows users to sort contributor information in a
number of ways, including by name, address, zip code, employer and
contribution amount (e.g., $200 or less). Additionally, this Web site
allows a user to sort contributor information into top donors, top soft
money donors, and top Political Action Committee (PAC) categories. This
same Web site allows users to sort data into other categories, such as
candidate-to-candidate giving, quality of disclosure and source of
funds (e.g., individual contributions, PAC contributions and candidate
self-financing). Other Web sites identify top contributors, top
recipients, top contributing states and top bundlers.
Should the FEC's Web site allow users to sort campaign finance data
in ways similar to these other Web sites? If yes, which sorting options
would be useful and why? Do these other Web sites allow users to sort
the data in any other useful ways? If so, in what ways and should the
Commission's Web site also provide these functions?
Should the Commission's Web site allow users to access election-
related information other than campaign finance data, such as the
number of votes a candidate received in a prior election? After each
Federal election the Commission has historically compiled and published
election results in a document entitled Federal Elections, which is
made available on the Web site. See http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/
electionresults.shtml. Is it appropriate for the Commission's Web site
to provide access to election-related data that are outside the
Commission's direct jurisdiction (e.g., studies and government reports
other than campaign finance data)? If not, why not?
c. Compilation, Presentation and Analysis of Data
The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission
should facilitate compilation, presentation and analysis of the
campaign finance data. What types of additional analysis of the data
would be useful? Should the Commission provide tools for users to be
able to generate their own graphs, charts and maps based on the data
they have accessed?
Should the Commission permit the storage and presentation of search
or sort results? Additionally, should the results from the most popular
queries be presented on the Web site for others to view? If yes, should
these queries be posted anonymously or should the user be asked for
permission before his or her query is posted? If the Commission's Web
site allows users to access election-related information that is
outside the Commission's direct jurisdiction, such as the number of
votes a candidate received in a prior election, should the Commission
allow users to sort these data interactively and facilitate
compilation, presentation and analysis of these data in relation to
campaign finance data? For instance, should the Commission's Web site
allow users to calculate the amount spent by a candidate on a campaign
relative to the number of votes that candidate received in the
election?
d. Availability of Raw Data
The FEC currently provides the ability to download in bulk form, on
a daily basis, campaign finance data from all electronic filings
received earlier that day. Is this process useful? Are there changes or
enhancements to this process that would be useful? For example, should
the Commission provide ``real-time'' access to the bulk data as soon as
it is filed throughout the day? Also, should the Commission allow users
to download only a designated portion of the data?
The Commission also currently makes selected raw data available for
download via File Transfer Protocol (FTP). These files reflect both
``as
[[Page 31435]]
amended'' snapshots of itemized individual contributions to committees
and receipts and disbursements where both parties to the transaction
are registered with the FEC. Is this general approach valuable? If not,
what other alternatives are available? Does the benefit that comes from
reducing duplication and other complexities inherent in the raw data
the Commission receives justify the time delays required for the FEC to
do this work? Are there other categories of financial activity that
should be included in this system--e.g., details of spending, debts,
etc.? Should specific types of activity (like independent expenditures
or electioneering communications) be available as separate files rather
than as part of a larger set?
The Commission seeks comment on what improvements can be made to
the methods that the Commission uses in making raw campaign finance
data available through its Web site. For example, are the data
currently available in an adequate format that permits users to
aggregate, segregate, or otherwise manipulate and analyze the data?
Should the Commission develop a different format for the data that is
more consistent with current data dissemination practices such as XML
(Extensible Markup Language) or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation)?
Also, should the Commission provide open-source public Application
Programming Interfaces (APIs) so that other Web sites can download the
data more easily? In what other ways can the Commission facilitate the
syndication by other Web sites of data yielded from a search?
The Commission also seeks comment on what improvements can be made
to the way the Commission makes data related to amendments to committee
reports available to the public. Are those who access campaign finance
reports able to easily separate data in reports that have been amended
by a reporting committee from the data contained in the report that was
originally filed? If not, what would be a better and more
understandable way to present that information?
e. Data Storage
Does the Commission need to restructure the way that campaign
finance data are stored? For example, although a complete set of bulk
raw data is available for download, the Commission's official COBOL-
based database is currently published in a fixed width format that only
allows for up to 35 characters in the column containing data about each
contributor's occupation and employer. In other words, a user searching
campaign finance data on the Commission's Web site will only see the
first 35 characters of information (which includes letter, numbers,
symbols, as well as spaces between words) about a contributor's
occupation and employer and, as a result, this information is often
truncated, thereby providing incomplete information to the public. One
observer estimates that this limitation causes a loss of over 20% of
the occupation and employer information that should be otherwise
accessible through the Commission's disclosure database. See Federal
Election Commission, Hearing on Agency Practices and Procedures (Jan.
15, 2009) (statement of Clay Johnson, Sunlight Foundation), available
at http://www.fec.gov/law/policy/enforcement/2009/
01141509hearingtranscript.pdf.
Although the Commission anticipates releasing a software update
shortly that will resolve the truncation issue described above, are
there other examples of information that is missing or incomplete in
the Commission's disclosure database? The Commission invites comment on
ways the Commission could provide the public with access to fully
complete disclosure data.
f. Timeliness of Data Availability
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's
data are made available in a timely manner. Although electronically
filed disclosure reports are available to the public immediately after
they are filed, currently the data contained in those reports are
reviewed by Commission staff before they are made available through
queries and data files on the Commission's Web site. This staff review,
which standardizes the data through such steps as (1) assigning
transaction codes, (2) splitting joint contributions reported from
married couples, and (3) adding missing committee identification
numbers, can take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to complete.
Should the data be made available to the public even before the
Commission staff has had time to conduct its review? What risks exist
in releasing potentially inaccurate or incomplete data? What are the
implications of releasing unreviewed data followed by a second release
of the same data in a modified format? Are there risks of confusion
with such an approach? If so, what measures could be implemented to
avoid such confusion?
X. Educational Materials
The FEC publishes various types of educational materials, all of
which can be accessed on the Commission's Web site. These materials
include (1) brochures (brief summaries of particular provisions of the
law or descriptions of the Commission's programs and procedures), (2)
Campaign Guides (compliance manuals for committees registered with the
Commission), and (3) The Record (the Commission's monthly newsletter).
The Commission also maintains a ``Tips for Treasurers'' page on its Web
site with timely tips and reminders to help political committee
treasurers meet their obligations under the law. The Commission also
offers an electronic subscription service, FECMail (available at http:/
/www.fec.gov/info/fecmaill.shtml), which provides subscribers with
personalized e-mail updates on the latest Commission news and
information.
a. Brochures
The Commission publishes several educational brochures all of which
are made available to the public free of charge. Electronic versions of
these brochures are also available on the Commission's Web site. These
brochures offer brief summaries of particular provisions of the law or
describe FEC programs and procedures. These brochures are available in
both HTML and PDF formats at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/
brochures.shtml and examples of covered topics include (1) Advisory
Opinions, (2) Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures,
and (3) Public Funding of Presidential Elections. The HTML versions of
the brochures include interactive links for cited statutes, regulations
and Advisory Opinions.
The Commission seeks comments on whether both the printed versions
and the electronic versions of the brochures are user-friendly and ways
in which they can be improved. Should the Commission continue to
publish both printed and electronic versions of the brochures? The
Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should develop
brochures on additional topics and, if so, which topics should be
covered.
b. Campaign Guides
The Commission publishes campaign guides, which serve as compliance
manuals for Federal political committees. Electronic versions of these
guides are available at http://www.fec.gov/info/
publications.shtml#guides. Separate guides are available for (1)
Congressional Candidates and Committees, (2) Political Party
[[Page 31436]]
Committees, (3) Nonconnected Committees and (4) Corporations and Labor
Organizations. The electronic versions of these guides include all
supplements to date, summarizing relevant post-publication rules and
opinions. The Commission seeks comment on whether the printed versions
and electronic versions of these guides are sufficiently educational,
understandable, and presented in a user-friendly manner and, if not,
how they can be improved. For example, should important terms be linked
by hypertext to other sources available on the Web site, such as links
to the text of a cited rule, an Advisory Opinion or court decision? In
what other ways can these guides be improved? Should the Commission
continue to publish both printed and electronic versions of the guides?
More generally, does the Web site contain sufficient guidance about
complying with the Commission's reporting requirements? Does the Web
site contain sufficient information about complying with contribution
limits and other provisions of the FECA? In not, what additional
information would be useful?
c. The Record Newsletter
The FEC publishes a monthly newsletter, The Record, which is
automatically sent electronically to all political committees and is
also available through the Web site. The Record is designed to be a
useful resource for anyone interested in the most recent developments
in Federal campaign finance law and at the Commission. Each month, The
Record contains the latest information on reporting deadlines,
regulations, advisory opinions, court decisions and other FEC actions.
Can The Record be improved and, if so, how? Is The Record a useful
resource for all of the audiences that access the Commission's Web
site? Should the Commission produce a different version of The Record
for different audiences? For instance, should there be an edition of
The Record specifically targeted to representatives of political
committees and a different edition targeted to members of the general
public?
d. Commission Calendar
The Commission's homepage currently provides a link to a Commission
calendar that includes information about Commission public meeting
dates, Commission hearing dates, significant filing deadlines and
educational programs, as well as other information. Should the
Commission include other categories of information? If so, what
information should be included? For example, should the calendar
include significant dates related to pending litigation including a
schedule of oral arguments?
e. Materials for the Media
Currently, the media section of the FEC's Web site is designed as a
tool to help members of the media find information quickly and easily.
This section contains the Commission's latest press releases and
campaign finance information, as well as background information and
reference materials. This section also contains a link to a ``Weekly
Digest'' that includes items such as (1) public actions taken by the
Commission for the previous week, (2) interesting events occurring at
the Commission regardless of formal actions being taken, (3) important
items of litigation, and (4) a schedule for the upcoming weeks. Users
may also subscribe to the FECMail service to receive alerts through e-
mail when new press releases are posted. The Commission seeks comment
on ways in which the media page of its Web site and the press release
subscriber service can be improved.
The Commission seeks comment on all of these educational materials.
Are these materials useful and, specifically, are they useful for
members of the general public? If not, how can the Commission make the
materials more useful? Are these materials updated in a timely manner?
Should these materials cover additional topics that would help the
general public better understand the campaign finance laws and the role
of the Commission?
Should the Commission create educational materials unique to its
Web site? For instance, the Commission is developing e-learning content
for its Web site, including instructional videos and interactive
presentations intended to supplement the FEC's existing educational
materials. By offering this content on the Commission's Web site and
via YouTube, the Commission hopes to expand access to its educational
materials and thereby increase compliance with Federal campaign finance
laws. The Commission seeks comment on what topics would be most useful
for its e-learning materials and what is the best way to make these
materials available to the public.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
Commission should create other interactive materials that would permit
the public to submit questions through its Web site, for example, using
live chat. Should the Web site host a chat room for viewers to engage
each other on issues related to the FEC and campaign finance? The
Commission also seeks comment on whether it should provide other types
of educational materials. For example, the Commission currently sends a
weekly ``Tip for Treasurers'' to subscribers though an RSS (Really
Simple Syndication) feed. Should the Commission make available
additional RSS feeds? Should the Commission post answers to questions
submitted by the public through its Web site?
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
proactively use social media in order to reach new audiences and engage
the public? For example, should the Commission use Facebook, Wikipedia,
Twitter or Second Life? Would the use of such social media assist the
Commission in its educational outreach? If yes, how should the
Commission use these social media?
XI. Educational Programs
The Commission sponsors a number of conferences each year, both in
the Washington, DC area and around the country, where Commissioners and
FEC staff conduct a variety of instructional workshops on campaign
finance law. Each conference has programs that are tailored to a
specific audience (e.g., House and Senate campaigns or corporations and
their PACs). Typically, the Commission sponsors five of these
conferences each year and the conferences often sell out well in
advance. Should the Commission hold more conferences each year? Should
the conferences be held in additional locations around the country? If
so, where?
Should the Commission make audio or video recordings of these
conferences available through its Web site? Would participation by
conference attendees be affected by recording conferences? If the
Commission records conferences, what technology should the Commission
use? Should the Commission make available live streaming of the
conferences? Should users be able to download the recordings from the
Web site? Should users be able to order audio tapes, CD and DVD
recordings? Should the Commission seek to provide Continuing Legal
Education (CLE) credit for attorneys who attend these courses and for
users who access the audio or video recordings of the programs? Should
the Commission seek to provide Continuing Professional Education (CPE)
credit for Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) who attend these courses
or who access the audio or video recordings?
In addition to the conferences, should the Commission offer other
tele-conferences, PowerPoint presentations
[[Page 31437]]
or online courses or discussion forums? If so, what topics should be
covered? How frequently should live programs be offered? After the live
programs are over, should the Commission continue to make the materials
from these programs available? If so, for what period of time should
they remain available?
XII. Legal Research
a. Enforcement Query System
Materials related to closed enforcement cases including Matters
Under Review (MURs), which is the formal name for a matter under
Commission investigation, and closed Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) cases are available on the FEC's Web site at the tab entitled
Enforcement Query System (EQS). See http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/
searcheqs. Through EQS, Web site visitors may access the Commission's
enforcement documents, including complaints, responses, conciliation
agreements and Commissioner statements of reasons, using key words or
phrases or by basic information about these cases (e.g., by name of
complainant or respondent, or by case number). Users can also search
cases by the type of violation alleged to have occurred. The Commission
seeks comment on whether the query choices are sufficiently robust. Do
users find it easy to search closed enforcement cases by the type of
violation alleged to have occurred? If not, in what ways can EQS be
improved to facilitate these types of searches? Is it easy to search by
both the type of violation alleged to have occurred and the legal
citation? Are the search results accurate? If not, what are the
inaccuracies?
Once a user has located a specific MUR or ADR case through a query
of EQS, the system currently does not allow the user to then share
direct access to all the documents associated with that particular MUR
or ADR case with another user through a specified Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) or hyperlink. Rather, users must be instructed to go to
the EQS query page where the user would then run a new query using the
MUR or ADR case number in order to access the relevant documents.
Should EQS provide a function that would allow users to link directly
to a specific MUR and ADR case? If so, what would be the best way for
EQS to provide such a function?
The Commission was constituted in 1975 and closed its first MUR in
January 1976. At the present time, MURs that closed after January 1,
1999 are available on EQS. MURs from 1976 to 1998 are presently
available only on microfilm at the Commission's Public Disclosure Room
in Washington, DC. However, the Commission is in the process of
digitizing the microfilm in order to make documents from all closed
MURs available online. Are there any particular ways the Commission can
make online access to these newly added MURs more user-friendly? For
instance, the Commission intends to use optical character recognition
to ensure these documents are text searchable. Are there other ways EQS
can be improved?
The EQS system does not currently contain any information regarding
the Commission's Administrative Fines program. The Administrative Fines
program covers violations of FECA section 434(a), 2 U.S.C. 434(a), by
committees that file their disclosure forms late, or do not file at
all. See 11 CFR Part 111, Subpart B. Should the Commission include on
the EQS system documents related to the Administrative Fines program?
Would including Administrative Fines documents in EQS assist political
committees in fulfilling their reporting responsibilities under the
Act?
b. Advisory Opinion Search Engine
The Commission's Web site currently allows searches of advisory
opinions (AOs) from 1975 to the present, including searches of certain
documents associated with all AOs issued by the Commission since 1999,
such as requests, public comments, and concurring and dissenting
opinions. Links to all of these related documents are available for AOs
issued since 1999. Would it be helpful if the Commission were to
include documents related to AOs issued prior to 1999? The Commission
has recently completed an upgrade of the AO search system, resulting in
enhanced search functionalities and flexibility in displaying and
sorting search results, as well as improved navigability, and new
features, such as the ability to display all search hits in results and
an option to display PDF documents full-screen.
The Commission seeks comment on the recently upgraded AO Search
Engine and whether the expanded AO query choices are sufficiently
robust. Are results accurate? Do they clearly and accurately reflect
when an AO has been superseded by a change in the law or by a
subsequent AO? In what ways can the Web site's AO search capabilities
be improved? Should the documents in the AO search database include
annotations?
c. Litigation Documents
The Commission brings enforcement suits in U.S. District Courts
when matters are not satisfactorily resolved through the administrative
enforcement process and sues to enforce administrative subpoenas. The
FEC is also involved in defending lawsuits, which generally fall into
the following three categories: (1) Lawsuits contesting the
Commission's dismissals of administrative complaints under 2 U.S.C.
437g(a)(8); (2) petitions seeking review of Commission decisions
regarding the Presidential public funding program; and (3) civil suits
challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the FECA and the
validity of the Commission's regulations. Materials related to
litigation are currently available on the Commission's Web site and are
divided into four sections. The section entitled ``Selected Recent and
Ongoing Litigation'' provides links to materials related to recent
litigation involving the FEC. ``Major Campaign Finance Court
Decisions'' identifies key court decisions relating to the campaign
finance law and provides links to materials related to those decisions.
There is also an ``Alphabetical Index of FEC Court Cases'' that lists
pending and past FEC cases alphabetically with links to summaries and,
for some cases, to court opinions and other documents, such as the
filed briefs. Finally, the Web site includes a ``Subject Index for FEC
Court Cases'' that lists pending and past FEC cases by subject matter
with links to summaries and, for some cases, to court opinions and
other documents.
The Commission seeks comment on whether the information is
sufficiently complete and user-friendly. Are there pleadings, orders
and court opinions that impact the Commission, the FECA, and the
public, that are not found on the Web site? For example, the Web site
currently contains only pleadings that were filed by the FEC or by
parties aligned with the FEC. Should the Web site also provide access
to pleadings filed by opposing parties? Are the documents timely posted
and adequately indexed? Are the documents easy to locate and search?
Should the Web site contain summaries of cases and opinions? Should the
Web site contain links to the court opinions for every pending and past
case?
d. Rules, Statutes and Policy Statements
The FEC promulgates rules (also known as regulations) that
implement the FECA and other statutes. The Commission's Web site
currently provides access to the Commission's
[[Page 31438]]
regulations, as well as a variety of legal resources, including the
text of the FECA and other relevant statutes. See http://www.fec.gov/
law/cfr/cfr.shtml; http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml.
Currently, a compilation of all the Commission's rules is available
in a single PDF file on the Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/
cfr_2009.pdf. The Web site also provides a link to the Government
Printing Office's (GPO) Web site where a user can access each rule
individually, both in PDF and text formats. See http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_09/11cfrv1_09.html. Are the
Commission's rules easy to find? Can the Commission's rules be printed
easily? What improvements can the Commission make in making its
regulations available and accessible to the public?
Whenever the Commission promulgates a new regulation it also adopts
an Explanation and Justification (E&J) providing detailed information
about the new rule. All of the Commission's E&Js are available on the
Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/cfr.shtml and are organized both
by citation (by Part, rule number, and title) and chronologically (by
date of adoption). Are the E&Js organized in a useful way? If not, how
should they be organized? Should they be organized by related subject
matter? Are the E&Js easy to locate? Once located, are they easily
searched?
Similarly, is the text of the FECA and other relevant statutes easy
to find on, and print from, the Commission's Web site? The FECA is
often amended though the passage of other statutes such as, most
recently, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
(HLOGA), Public Law 110-81, 121 Stat. 735 (2007). Are these statutory
amendments to the FECA easy to find? If not, how can the Commission
make them more accessible? Should the Commission provide annotated
versions of its rules and of the FECA that discuss court interpretation
or promulgation history, or cross-reference Advisory Opinions,
enforcement matters and litigation?
The Commission also makes its policy statements available on the
Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml. The policy statements
address such issues as (1) Best Efforts to Collect Contributor
Information, (2) Self Reporting of Campaign Finance Violations (Sua
Sponte Submissions), and (3) Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to
Embezzlement. Are the policy statements organized in a useful way? If
not, in what other way should they be organized?
e. Rulemakings
Documents relating to recent (starting from 2007) and ongoing FEC
rulemakings are listed by topic in reverse chronological order on the
Commission's Web site, with new rulemakings added to the top of the
list. See http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml. Documents
related to older rulemakings (1999-2006) are also available on a
Rulemakings Archive page at http://www.fec.gov/law/
RulemakingArchive.shtml. Are the Commission's rulemakings easy to find?
Is the information related to each rulemaking organized in a useful
way? If not, how should they be organized? Should the Rulemakings
Archive page include proceedings from prior to 1999? Is there
additional information related to Commission rulemakings that would be
useful to include on the Web site?
XIII. Electronic Filing of Disclosure Reports
Since 2001, almost all political committees have been required to
file reports and statements electronically with the Commission (the
requirement to file electronically does not currently apply to Senate
candidate committees). Political committees generally must file all
reports and statements electronically if their total contributions or
total expenditures exceed, or are expected to exceed, $50,000 in a
calendar year. See 11 CFR 104.18. The Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission's electronic filing system is easy to use,
particularly for first-time users. The Commission seeks comment on ways
in which the Commission's electronic filing system can be improved,
such as whether the Commission's electronic filing software, FECFile
(available at http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/FECFileIntroPage.shtml), is
sufficiently user-friendly and whether the Commission has provided
sufficiently clear instructions to help filers use the software.
FECFile is the Commission's electronic report filing software
application designed to run on Windows platforms that enables filers to
record and track information required for reporting to the Commission
and to securely submit these data to the Commission electronically.
Have filers been able to use the FECFile software on computers with the
latest Windows operating systems such as 64-bit Vista? Should FECFile
be modified to also operate on a MAC platform? The Commission is aware
that several commercial vendors also offer other software packages that
political committees can use to record and track financial information
that can then be reported to the Commission. See http://www.fec.gov/
elecfil/software.shtml. The Commission seeks comment on ways in which
FECFile can be improved. What functions are not available through the
use of FECFile that are available through commercial software packages
(e.g., drop-down windows that would offer a choice of acceptable
descriptions of purpose for particular reported disbursements)? Should
FECFile be modified to include those functions? Is FECFile as flexible,
intuitive and helpful as commercially available software packages? If
not, in what ways is it less flexible, intuitive or helpful?
In order to file electronic disclosure reports using FECFile, a
user must obtain a password (whether for the first time or as a
replacement of an old password) by faxing or mailing a request letter
to the Commission. If the request letter is sent on behalf of a
political committee, the letter must be signed by the committee's
treasurer. A member of the Commission staff then calls the requester
and provides a password over the phone. Should the Commission allow
users to request a first-time password electronically through the Web
site? Should users also be able to electronically change their
passwords, or create new ones when an old password is forgotten? If
yes, what security measures should the Commission put in place to
ensure that passwords are only provided to authorized persons?
The Commission has not made public the source code for the FECFile
software package. If the Commission made the source code for FECFile
public, this would allow others to develop modifications to the
software on their own. Would this be useful? If so, how?
Generally, the Commission seeks comment on whether providing
FECFile software to filers is the best approach to facilitate the
electronic filing process. Are there alternative approaches that would
better serve this function, such as using instead a Web-based report
filing system that would not require reporting committees to use
separate specialized software?
With respect to the existing FECFile software package, can novice
users easily input the required information? If not, what types of
common problems do users encounter? User manuals, Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs), and other documents to assist FECFile users are
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/support/
index.shtml. Are these materials sufficiently helpful to FECFile users?
In
[[Page 31439]]
what ways can the materials be improved? Should focused guidance be
available for each data entry space and should the guidance be
accessible by clicking in or near that data entry space? If there are
problems that FECFile users are unable to resolve, does the Commission
provide adequate technical support? If not, what are the current
deficiencies and how can these be addressed?
Additionally, because it is common for electronically filed
disclosure reports to contain missing, incomplete or even inconsistent
data, the Commission's staff is often required to reconcile the data
before it can be useful to the public. The Commission invites
suggestions on ways in which the Commission might be able to mitigate
the work currently required by Commission staff to reconcile the data.
For example, should the Commission's electronic filing system
automatically prevent filers from submitting reports with missing,
incomplete or inconsistent data and at the same time inform the filer
of the deficiency and suggest ways in which the report can be corrected
thereby allowing the filer to know in advance that there is a problem
and provide information about possible solutions?
The Commission currently makes available a set of programming
tools, including electronic filing specifications requirements and
validation software, for vendors to use in developing their own
commercial software packages. Are these tools useful? How can they be
improved? Should the Commission employ a more rigorous certification
standard for commercial software? Are new or more rigorous software
standards for commercial software packages advisable to prevent filing
of reports with missing, incomplete or inconsistent data, or do current
standards need to be better enforced? How can the Commission ensure
that changes do not unfairly burden candidates, especially less well-
funded challengers?
XIV. Electronic Filing of Other Documents
The Commission interacts with the public, the media, political
committees, and other entities through a variety of means. The above-
described electronic filing system, which resulted in improvements to
the Commission's filing procedures, is one such means. The Commission
seeks comments on whether the use of electronic ``portals'' for filing
purposes could improve the Commission's procedures in other areas.
For instance, in rulemaking proceedings, although the Commission
currently allows comments on proposed rules to be submitted by e-mail,
should the Commission allow electronic filing of petitions for
rulemaking and for comments in rulemaking proceedings through its Web
site? If so, should the Commission move to an entirely online system
for filing of petitions for rulemaking and for comments in rulemaking
proceedings, such that paper versions of comments and rulemaking
petitions submitted by the public would no longer be accepted?
Similarly, should the Commission implement a system for electronic
filing of advisory opinion requests? Should the Commission also
implement a web-based electronic filing system for commenting on
advisory opinion requests and draft advisory opinions, whereby comments
could be filed directly through the Commission's Web site either by
entering text on the Web site or by uploading a file? If so, should the
Commission mandate the electronic submission of all documents submitted
by members of the public in connection with advisory opinions, such as
advisory opinion requests, comments on advisory opinion requests, and
comments on draft advisory opinions?
The Commission's Web site currently provides information to the
public regarding the procedures for filing a complaint with the
Commission. At the present time, however, all complaints must be
submitted on paper by mail or in person. Respondents are provided with
notices of complaints pursuant to the provisions of the Act, but
currently all responses also are submitted by hard copy. The Commission
seeks comments on whether it should accommodate electronic filing of
complaints and responses. Should the Commission allow electronic filing
of complaints and responses to substitute for paper copies? Rather than
allowing for permissive electronic filing, should the Commission
mandate electronic filing for complaints and responses? Given that FECA
requires that all complaints be signed and sworn by the person filing
the complaint, would an electronic signature, or even the use of a user
account and password, satisfy this statutory requirement? When the
Commission communicates with respondents, such as sending notifications
of reason-to-believe or subpoenas for documents, should the respondent
be encouraged to submit answers and documents by e-mail or,
alternatively, through a web-based submission form? Also, should the
Commission accept conciliation agreements that contain an electronic
signature by electronic means?
XV. Commission Meetings
Audio recordings of public Commission meetings are generally
available on the Commission's Web site within 48 hours after a meeting.
See http://www.fec.gov/audio/audio.shtml. The Commission currently does
not create video recordings of its public meetings. The audio
recordings are available in an MP3 file format, which can be played
through a user's preferred software such as Windows Media Player, Real
Player, or QuickTime. The Commission also makes these audio recordings
available as podcasts, which are automatically sent to a user once a
user signs up for the podcasts on the Commission's Web site. The URL
for the Commission's podcasts is http://www.fec.gov/audio/fec_
audio.xml.
The Commission seeks comment on whether these audio recordings are
useful. Should they be made available in different formats? If so,
which formats? Should the Commission make live audio streaming of its
meetings available as well?
Should the Commission make available video recordings of its
meetings? If so, should a live stream of the video be made available or
is a recording sufficient? What technology should the Commission use to
provide access to video streaming of its meetings?
In addition to audio and video recordings, should the Commission
make available written transcripts of its open meetings? If yes, would
it be appropriate for the Commission to charge for access to such
transcripts?
XVI. Technical Issues
a. Software and Operating Systems
The Commission seeks comment on a number of technical issues
relating to its Web site, including URL naming conventions, the use of
metadata, Web site accessibility, formatting, and hardware.
The Commission uses a number of URL naming conventions in
designating names for the pages on its Web site. For example, the
Commission uses lower case letters and has set a number of directories
related to major categories of information available on the Web site.
The Commission seeks comment on whether it is using appropriate URL
naming conventions for the pages on its Web site.
The Commission also seeks comment on other aspects of data receipt
and presentation. For example, what metadata standards should the FEC
use and why? The Commission also seeks comment on how easily its Web
site can be accessed by the public. Is the
[[Page 31440]]
Commission's Web site accessible using different web browsers, such as
Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari or Google Chrome? Also, is
the Commission's Web site accessible using different operating systems
and at different connection speeds? Is the Commission's Web site
accessible using recently released versions of operating systems such
as 64-bit Vista? What can the Commission do to ensure that its Web site
remains accessible as new technology becomes available?
b. Hardware
The Commission also seeks comment on the type of computer hardware
the Commission uses to support its Web site. The Commission currently
uses load-balanced Sun Fire servers running Solaris 10 with Webserver
Apache. Are these servers the best hardware for a Web site such as the
FEC's? If not, why not and what kind would serve the public better?
What innovations or advancements are anticipated in the near future? In
what ways can the FEC plan for such advancements?
c. File Formatting
The Commission also seeks comment on its Web site formatting and
printability. The Commission currently uses Adobe Dreamweaver for Web
site development. Is Dreamweaver the best software available for
development of a Web site such as the FEC's? If not, why not and what
software would serve the public better now and in the future?
Are the Commission's Web site pages formatted properly to allow for
easy printing? Should the Commission employ a ``printer friendly''
function on its Web site? If so, on which pages?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether documents are made
available in formats that are easy to access, such as HTML (Hyper Text
Markup Language), XML (Extensible Markup Language), Microsoft Word or
PDF. For example, are there adequate links to the downloadable free PDF
viewer provided? Is page download time for PDF documents quick enough,
especially for scanned documents? Finally, should large documents be
made available for viewing and printing by smaller sections or
chapters?
XVII. Maintenance of Content
The Commission updates its Web site on a daily basis by adding new
information, updating old information and removing obsolete
information. Examples of these changes include guidance about new
statutes and regulations. The Commission seeks comment about whether
information is added, updated and deleted in a timely manner. If not,
what would be a reasonable time period within which information should
be added, updated or deleted? Is the information on the FEC's Web site
current? Are users easily able to see whether a page is current? For
example, should each page on the Commission's Web site provide
information about the ``date posted'' or ``last reviewed'' to allow
viewers to assess whether the information is current? Should the
Commission maintain archived versions of the Web site so that users can
access information that was available in the past? If so, how should
the Commission make archived versions of the Web site accessible?
When new information is added to a Web site it is important to
ensure that the new information is not duplicative, or worse yet,
contradictory to information that is already available. Additionally,
it is vital that links are updated to ensure that viewers can access
the information they seek. The Commission seeks comment on whether its
Web site contains contradictory or erroneous content. Are links on the
Commission's Web site maintained properly?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether, and if so, how often,
it should conduct a content review of the entire Web site to ensure
that online content is accurate, relevant, mission-related and written
in plain language.
XVIII. Privacy Policy
Federal agencies are under an obligation to protect the privacy of
the American people when they interact with their government.
Accordingly, agencies are required to have clear privacy policies and
to post those policies on their Web sites. The FEC's privacy policy is
available at http://www.fec.gov/privacy.shtml. The Commission seeks
comment on whether its privacy policy is appropriate and adequate.
XIX. Implementation of Changes
After the Commission reviews the written comments filed in response
to this notice, as well as the testimony from witnesses at the hearing,
the Commission will consider implementing improvements to the ways in
which the Commission uses the Internet to disclose information to the
public, including changes to the Commission's Web site. Once the
Commission implements such changes, what is the most effective way for
the Commission to inform the public about those changes? For example,
should the Commission provide a link on the homepage to a guide
regarding changes? Should the Commission issue a press release? Are
there other ways the Commission should inform the public once the Web
site is updated?
XX. Customer Satisfaction & Future Improvements
The Commission currently receives comments and suggestions
regarding its Web site through e-mails sent to the Commission's Web
Manager (Webmanager@fec.gov). Currently, the Commission has no other
method of measuring the usability of its Web site or customer
satisfaction. Thus, the Commission seeks suggestions on ways in which
the Commission could measure usability and customer satisfaction. For
example, should the Commission conduct focus groups? Should the
Commission conduct online surveys? Should the Web site host blogs in
which users could provide feedback? Should these blogs be made
available to the public? Are there any privacy concerns that the
Commission should be aware of that are associated with conducting
online surveys?
Going forward, the Commission seeks comment on how it may most
effectively review and make further Web site improvements. Also, the
Commission seeks comment on the most effective way to solicit and
receive further feedback and suggestions. Is the Commission's use of
the Webmaster e-mail address sufficient? Should the Commission
proactively solicit additional feedback from the public? Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should post user comments and
suggestions on the Commission's Web site. If so, should the Commission
also post actions taken by the Commission in response to such comments
and suggestions?
XXI. Recommended Resources
Are there private resources such as research centers, academic
institutions, or technical experts and consultants, available that the
Commission might not be aware of that could assist the Commission in
implementing improvements to the ways in which the Commission discloses
information to the public and improvements to its Web site in the most
expeditious and efficient manner possible? If so, what are those
resources and how can the Commission access them? Are those resources
available from commercial entities or non-profit organizations? Are
there other government agencies that maintain Web sites that the
Commission should try to emulate? If so, which agencies and why?
[[Page 31441]]
Dated: March 25, 2009.
Steven T. Walther,
Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the
Federal Register on Thursday, June 25, 2009.
[FR Doc. E9-15497 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P