House Administration Ranking Member Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said efforts to grant national political parties greater sway in elections may be an area where the parties can work together on campaign finance legislation.

"If there's anything that came out of the [House Administration Committee] hearing, it's that this might be the basis of bipartisan support," he said after a Wednesday session on how to address Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, a Supreme Court decision issued last month. The decision will allow corporations to make independent expenditures supporting and opposing candidates in elections.

The prospect of empowering national political parties won support from two Democratic sources: Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Robert Lenhard, a hearing witness and former FEC chairman. "The parties are so constrained it's not good for the system at all," Lofgren said.

Lungren said support may be broader. He noted that House Administration Chairman Robert Brady did not come out against the idea during the hearing, and that Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif. expressed openness on the possibility when he spoke to her afterwards. "It's a chance to make the parties less irrelevant, less toothless," he said.

After the Citizens United decision raised fears that corporations will have outsized influence in the election process, one proposed response seeks to repeal coordination rules to strengthen political party sway. Lenhard said that if Congress repeals the limits on how much national political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, the influence balance may shift away from corporations.

As it stands, political parties can only exert influence by making capped direct contributions to their candidates and by making independent expenditures. But the amount they spend on ads --"coordinated with"--their candidates is capped. (For instance, the cap was $43,700 per House race in Illinois last year, Lenhard said.)

Repealing the coordinated spending limit would empower parties and balance corporate influence, Lenhard said. "It would provide candidates with a last minute source of cash to counterbalance attack ads from outside groups," he said. An additional benefit: it would give the candidates more control over their campaign message, since they would be able talk to the political parties about their ads.

Republican FEC commissioner Don McGahn said Lenhard's testimony spoke to the realities of election law. "He was the only [former FEC official] on the panel," he said. "What he said seemed a lot more detailed. He actually practiced. We need more of that, rather than broad brush proposals."

Not everyone was sold on the proposal. "The last thing I want is to bring the Democratic Party into elections," said Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass.

The panel was the third this week about legislative responses to the Supreme Court ruling. The sessions have drawn FEC commissioners and lawyers, as well as President Obama's special counsel for ethics and government reform, Norman Eisen.

Members have mulled such legislative responses as empowering shareholders to control how their corporations spend on elections, enacting a Congressional public finance system, barring foreign corporations from participating in elections, and strengthening disclaimer and disclosure rules. The latter proposal may also have some potential for bipartisan support, Lungren said.

"We need good disclosure, solid disclosure, timely disclosure," he said. "That's probably the answer more than inhibiting and prohibiting speech."