The comments are here. See also this blog entry, which explains:

In their joint comments, the Legal Center and Democracy 21 object to Commissioner von Spakovsky’s attempt to circumvent the normal rulemaking process by rushing the proposed “interim” rule through on an “emergency” basis–without formal public notice or opportunity for public comment. Given that the request for this rulemaking was made more than 5 months ago, any purported emergency that exists now is a creation of the Commission’s own handling of this matter since February. Consequently, adoption of the proposed interim final rule would violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
The comments also make clear that the Commission’s adoption of the proposed rule would have the serious effect of contradicting and undermining the Commission’s own litigating position in two pending court cases–Wisconsin Right to Life and Christian Civic League of Maine. In those cases, the Commission is vigorously contesting the constitutional necessity for an “electioneering communication” exemption of the sort proposed by Commissioner von Spakovsky.
Finally, the Legal Center and Democracy 21 object to the substance of the proposed rule, which on its face violates the plain language of BCRA and ignores the intent of BCRA’s Congressional sponsors.

John Samples earlier predicted a 3-3 Republican-Democrat split on the proposed rulemaking (which means the rulemaking would fail). Bob Bauer is not so sure of such a split. I have heard nothing yet from FEC sources about what is likely to happen on this vote, but viewing the CLC/Democracy 21 comments, I can guarantee you that if the FEC indeed passes this rule, the next stop is the Federal District Court. So here we are entering into another election season with the rules of engagement subject to serious dispute.
Why doesn’t the FEC consider this proposal for 2008, which will give time for notice, comment, adoption, and court resolution before the start of the next election season?