Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has, in recent years, become the leading force in the U.S. House of Representatives for campaign finance reform. As chief sponsor of the DISCLOSE 2012 Act, which was blocked from even getting a hearing in the Republican-controlled House and filibustered to death by the Republican minority in the Senate, he has been the chief advocate for greater transparency for outside groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS that keep their donors secret.

In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, Van Hollen expressed optimism that his Republican colleagues may be more open to DISCLOSE and other reforms next year after they too faced secret-money attacks in their own campaigns. Public pressure, he said, will be key in getting the legislation and other reforms aimed at mitigating the damage caused by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling. And, he noted, he hopes Federal Election Commission and election reform will also be priorities for the Obama administration and the 113th Congress.

Here are some highlights of Van Hollen’s comments:

The DISCLOSE Act:

The best I can say is I hope after this election, we have more converts on this issue. It was very ironic to hear [defeated] House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) complain of all the secret outside money coming into his race. He refused to even hold a hearing on the DISCLOSE Act as Chairman, which meant we had to hold a “rump” hearing, not an official Congressional hearing. I think you’re going to see greater interest from our Republican colleagues. But this will only move with outside pressure. You’ve got people like Sen. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is the sworn enemy of disclosure. He did a 180 — he used to be for full transparency and disclosure. He opposed McCain-Feingold saying we need full disclosure, not this. Then he flip-flopped, after Citizens United. What gives me hope is the public is totally on the side of disclosure and transparency – they believe the public has a right to know who’s spending gobs of secret money to influence these elections.

Other Campaign Finance Reforms:

I’m gonna continue to press on a number of fronts, including urging the IRS to determine whether or not a lot of these organizations were using the cover or their tax-exempt status in order to pursue political and electoral objectives, whether they’re meeting the tests that provide them with tax-exempt status and give them the ability to hide their donors… A number of other avenues dealing with shareholder rights with respect to corporate giving: both shareholder notice (at the very least, shareholders should be notified of corporate contributions) and shareholder approval. We saw a major development with Chevron contributing a lot of money to one of the Congressional super PACs [the company gave $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that ran attack ads against Democratic candidates]. There are corporations that essentially launder their money through other organizations to hide their identities, it’s important to shine a light on that secret money. A lot of corporations prefer to do their direct expenditure contributions in the dark.

Election Reform:

This is another important area: in addition to blatant efforts of some states to limit the democratic process, you also have indirect impediments placed on participation. Requiring someone to stand in line for 3-4 hours to vote is a limit on their rights. First, you had some states trying to limit the right to early voting. On top of that, [some states] created circumstances where you have long lines. It’s a clear impediment to people’s right to vote. It’s too early to say whether it’s bipartisan, but we’re working on a number of pieces of legislation now to deal with this set of issues. Read more

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District heard arguments Friday on an appeal in the Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission case. A district judge ruled in March that outside groups engaging in signficant “electioneering communications” — ads run near federal elections that mention candidates but do not explicitly tell viewers to elect or defeat them — must disclose the donors funding their efforts. The impact of this ruling is limited, because most groups have exploited a loophole allowing them to circumvent the rules. Nevertheless, one group impacted by this decision has thus far failed to identify its big-money donors.

After years of failing to enforce disclosure rules mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as McCain-Feingold), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) successfully sued the Federal Election Commission, demanding that it do so. The FEC said in July that it would enforce the ruling, retroactive to the date it was issued. Until such time as a court overturns the ruling, the Commission ordered, all reports of electioneering communications made from March 30, 2012-onward would need to include disclosure of all donors to the group who contributed $1,000 or more. As ThinkProgress reported, that meant just one group would have to amend its earlier filings to name its donors: Freedom Path. An officer for that Utah-based 501(c)(4) committee, which spent thousands of dollars on ads praising Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Mitt Romney, told ThinkProgress at the time that his group would have to consult with their legal counsel before making a statement on whether it intends to comply with the new rule.

Six weeks later, Freedom Path has not yet amended its reports. The Federal Election Commission’s report analysis division has not contacted the group to ask for additional information. The Commission has taken no enforcement action against Freedom Path to date, though it does not make ongoing enforcement investigations public. As a result, voters cannot determine who was truly speaking in the group’s advertising, even though this disclosure is currently required by law. Freedom Path did not respond to multiple emails and phone messages asking for comment.

Just one group — Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund — has reported a new electioneering communication expenditure since the FEC’s July order. It did identify its donors in its filings.

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, told ThinkProgress that any group that’s making significant electioneering communications is “required by law to disclose their donors. All groups should be doing so… It’s important [and] the FEC needs to enforce that law.”

But, he added, “Equally as troubling, or perhaps even more troubling, is the fact that many [501](c)(4)s are now playing a game of inserting very brief mention of express candidate advocacy at the end of their ads seemingly for the purpose of avoiding donor disclosure… They game the system and maintain the anonymity our deep pocketed donors by simply inserting a few words at the end of the ad, where they’re barely noticeable.”

The DISCLOSE Act — which would have required donor disclosure for those more overt “independent expenditures” allowed by the controversial Citizens United ruling — was blocked by Senate Republicans in July, on two party-line votes.

Last week, the Federal Election Commission announced retroactively that effective March 30, 2002 all outside groups running “electioneering communications” — independent ads run within 30 days of federal primaries or nominating conventions or within 60 days of federal general elections that mention candidates but do not expressly advocate for or against them — must identify all donors contributing over $1,000 bankrolling their efforts. But Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS is taking advantage of a mistake on the FEC’s website to avoid disclosure of its donors.

The Los Angeles Times reported today that the secret-money 501(c)(4) group will be running $25 million worth of attack ads against President Obama through August 6, but still does not plan to identify who is bankrolling its ads:

According to the FEC, the electioneering communications window before the Democratic National Convention begins According to the FEC, the electioneering communications window before the Democratic National Convention begins Aug. 4. However, the commission has offered confusing guidance on the topic: Last week, its website identified the start the period as Aug. 7, which the FEC then said was a mistake, noting the correct date was Aug. 4.

“The commission regrets the error,” the FEC said in a statement posted on its website Friday. “The commission will exercise its prosecutorial discretion and will not take enforcement action with respect to communications disbursements made in reasonable reliance on the erroneous information on the website in connection with EC reporting.”

Crossroads GPS spokesman Jonathan Collegio told the paper that the group has no plans to disclose donors as it does not plan to “air ads that will trigger reporting in the [electioneering communications] window.” It is hard to imagine that Rove — who regularly appears on Fox News Channel as a political analyst — and the other operatives at Crossroads GPS were really unaware of when the Democratic National Convention begins.

Still, while the FEC might be willing to let Crossroads GPS avoid disclosure, they might want to consider pulling their August 4 through 7 advertisements. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) says he may file a lawsuit to force the group to comply, noting “I think they would have a really difficult time claiming that because of a technical FEC error, they get to violate the law.”

Three Republican appointees to the Federal Election Commission may be as responsible as anyone for the lack of transparency of post-Citizens United political spending.

Two years ago today, when the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling, one bright spot was that the majority explicitly endorsed the constitutionality and necessity of disclosure rules that inform voters who paid for the political ads they see. “Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations,” they affirmed.

Federal statutes require that for all significant “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications” — the two major classifications for political expenditures made by outside groups unaffiliated with political candidates — the names and addresses of large donors must be identified.

But the FEC, through its rulemaking process, gave these groups a loophole. They said that the identities of donors behind the outside spending must be identified, but only if the money was specifically earmarked for the political expenditure. This means that a secretive right-wing group like the Karl Rove-linked Crossroads GPS need only identify the funders who pay for their attack ads if those donors explicitly say the money should be used for attack ads. Few do.

In April, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked the FEC to close the loophole for “independent expenditures” and filed a lawsuit challenging the loophole for “electioneering communications.”

Last month the six FEC commissioners killed — on a 3-3 vote — a motion to begin consideration of Van Hollen’s suggestions. By law, the agency may have only three members of any political party. By tradition, the president chooses three commissioners and the other party’s Senate leader chooses three. The three Republican appointees — Commissioners Caroline Hunter, Donald McGahn II and Matthew Petersen — were the three “no” votes. The same trio also made headlines last month when they took the view that even coordination between Super PACs and candidates might not qualify as coordination between Super PACs and candidates.

The lawsuit is still pending.

Because of these loopholes, virtually none of the funders behind the Super PAC attack ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will be disclosed until well after the voters there have cast their ballots. And the funders behind 501(c)(4) attack ads may never be known.

So while it was the Supreme Court’s majority that opened the floodgates for corporate money in our elections, it is the deadlocked FEC that is keeping voters from even knowing where that money comes from.