The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election

May 13, 2004

| FEC Declines To Regulate 527s

AP reports: “Federal officials Thursday rejected new limits for political groups pouring millions into ads and voter drives in the presidential election, and Republicans predicted the decision would prompt a surge in big donations for their side.

Several Democratic groups have already begun spending large donations on efforts critical of President Bush or supportive of Democratic candidate John Kerry. Republicans had asked the Federal Election Commission to stop the activities under the campaign law that broadly banned from federal elections the big checks known as ‘soft money.’

But four of the six FEC members on Thursday refused to step in, tabling the issue for at least three months. Even if the commission acts then, it is unlikely any new rules would affect the November presidential and congressional elections.

…Democratic commissioner Scott Thomas, who joined Republican Michael Toner to favor fund-raising and spending limits for such groups, predicted the decision would allow both Republicans and Democrats to engage in no-holds-barred spending this election year. He predicted pro-Republican groups, who have held back pending the FEC decision, would quickly surpass the Democrats.

‘I think it is possible the Democrats could wind up, from this point on, worse off,’ Thomas said, adding that he thinks much of the soft money that used to go to parties before the law went into effect in 2002 will flow to new tax-exempt groups that don’t have to disclose their fund raising and spending.

… The Republican Party, Bush’s re-election campaign and several campaign watchdog groups accuse Democrats of violating the ban by creating a network of pro-Democratic soft-money groups that are raising and spending millions of dollars to air anti-Bush ads and pay for get-out-the-vote activities. Critics call the groups a shadow party.

That spending helped flood the airwaves with negative commercials about Bush at a time when the Republican incumbent was airing millions of dollars of ads critical of Kerry, who was working to rebuild his campaign’s finances before going up with his own commercials after the primaries.

The anti-Bush groups argue that their spending is legal, in part because they stop short of calling for Bush’s defeat or for Kerry’s election. The FEC was considering whether the use of soft money to promote or criticize a federal candidate is enough to violate the soft-money ban, and the FEC on Thursday decided against saying yes.”

Posted by hideandseek at May 13, 2004 03:10 PM | TrackBack

Comments

…and let loose the dogs of Mammon. Any campaign finance reform the Congress can come up with, a loophole will be found, no doubt.

Posted by: tagryn at May 13, 2004 03:25 PM

If you really want to reform campaign finances, simply limit political ads to PRINT MEDIA, which would include the internet.

This would DRASTICALLY reduce the cost of advertising and would enable small time independant candidates to compete with the big boys, and would force politicians to speak in complete sentences, eliminating “soundbite politics”

Posted by: eric at May 13, 2004 04:27 PM

“The FEC was considering whether the use of soft money … violate[s] the soft-money ban”

And the answer, like a typical twisted bureau-politico’s mind, is “Not Yes”.

527s, or any other specifically designated organization, even your every-day corporation, are defined purely for the purposes of regulation. If 527s are not to be regulated, why does their definition exist?

Why we give taxes to these idiots is beyond me.

Campaign finance reform did just that, reformed campaign finances. Didn’t change much, just reorganized it here and there.

Posted by: Max Darkside at May 13, 2004 07:07 PM

Let the democrats spend and tell their lies, because no matter how often you repeat a lie, it’s still a lie.

maybe I”ll write to Soros and see if I can get some of that money for myself…. hehehe! But I’m still voting for Bush

Posted by: Manat at May 13, 2004 09:04 PM

So tragic…. until I found out about the Republican answer to the 527’s: the 501c’s…
Lets compare
527’s- primarily for political advertising. cant support a candidate. must disclose how its spending its money. must disclose donors. cant coordinate with a candidate.

501c- primarily not for political advertising. cant support a candidate. no donor disclosure requirement. can theoretically accept foreign donations. also cant coordinate. legitimate 501’s include the NRA, AARP, others.

Then there are the special Republican 501c’s. No members. frequently no staff except for one person. Here’s one:

“Americans for Job Security,… president, Michael Dubke,…. Like many of its neighbors, AJS is organized as a 501©(6), which is to say a not-for-profit “business league” or trade organization. But as trade organizations go, it is rather unusual. Not only is the group’s membership—several hundred individuals, corporations, and other trade organizations—secret, but by all appearances, the members don’t share a particular line of business. Despite a budget of millions of dollars a year, AJS doesn’t have the kind of public relations or policy staff that, say, the Chamber of Commerce does. In fact, Dubke, a cheerful, clean-cut 33-year-old with the rangy build of an ex-jock, is AJS’s sole employee. The group has no Web site, puts out no policy briefs or press releases, and does no lobbying on the Hill.

About the only thing that AJS does is buy television, radio, and newspaper advertisements—lots of them. This is a source of pride for Dubke. “Ninety-five percent of the money that we take in membership [dues] is spent on our grassroots lobbying,” he tells me, like a discount carpet salesman bragging about his low overhead. “We spend our money on product.” During the hotly contested 2000 race, widely regarded asa watershed election for issue advertising, AJS spent about $9 million on political ads.”

SHort form- while republicans like to complain about 527’s, missused 501c are far more pernicious, unacountable, and Republican. But there’s no complaining about that from the Republicans is there?

link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.confessore.html

Posted by: typhonus at May 13, 2004 09:19 PM

Typhonus,
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Personally, I would love to see all those types go away, but the genie is out of the bottle and there is a First Amendment, and a lot of lawyers on both sides, that aregoing to make sure that the bottle stays empty. The will to make them go away is not there from the majority of the politicians on either side of the eisle. Does this make it excusable? By no means, but unfortunately as much as people say they dislike dirty politics, it works and so the politicians will continue to do it.

Posted by: Leo at May 13, 2004 10:16 PM

Eastern Michigan University Students, those in support of Campaign Finance Reform Bill,

I…..Am….Laughing….my….butt…off! No one listens to me. I was right on the money about this bill and what it would and what it would mean and EMU students are still running around with their heads cut off. Man I am glad I am done with that wretched University.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at May 13, 2004 10:51 PM

Originally posted on nopunditintended.com

Is the Kerry campaign breaking the law?

The RNC recently filed a federal complaint against non-profit organizations MoveOn.org, Media Fund and Voices for Working Families, citing an illegal conspiracy with the John Kerry campaign to advocate Kerry as a political candidate. The organizations in question are 527 groups - tax-exempt, political organizations, which under the new McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law cannot endorse a political figure for office. These groups, however, do not have to disclose their donors.

Does the complaint have merit? You decide.

MoveOn.org produces some of the most negative attacks against the Bush administration and has openly endorsed nearly every Democratic Presidential Candidate. MoveOn.org employee Zack Exley was recently hired by the Kerry campaign to be its communications director.

Jim Jordan, who was John Kerry’s ‘04 election campaign manager until November 2003, now works for Media Fund, which has Harold Ickes as its president and founder. Mr. Ickes was Deputy White House chief of staff under President Clinton. Media Fund and MoveOn.org work closely together on Anti-Bush TV ads.

Voices for Working Families has among its Officers some familiar names: Geraldine Ferraro - former Democratic VP candidate, former US House Representative and The Honorable Bill Richardson - a Democrat Congressman from New Mexico, who has been Ambassador to the UN, Clinton’s Energy Secretary and a person who many contend to be a perfect choice as John Kerry’s running mate.

The Kerry campaign, and the leaders of the various 527 organizations, are quick to denounce the RNC complaint as frivolous. RNC Press Secretary, Heather Layman states even though the GOP fought against passage of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law, it is the law and needs to be adhered to.

Posted by: Joel Gaines at May 14, 2004 12:22 AM

Typhonus,

According to publicintegrity.org, and based upon IRS filings, 527s and 501cs are used a great deal more by Democrats than by Republicans. In fact, in the 2000 race, the Democrat shadow party or silent partners spent $185 million - which is cited as twice the amount spent by Republican supporting organizations.

People have to stop getting their facts from the Ted Kennedy & Johninum Kerry Circus.

Posted by: Joel Gaines at May 14, 2004 12:45 AM

According to publicintegrity.org, and based upon IRS filings, 527s and 501cs are used a great deal more by Democrats than by Republicans.

Can’t wait for Typhoid to spin this one.

[crickets]

Posted by: v at May 14, 2004 11:17 AM

What in the hell makes you think Typhonus, x, Truth or their kind care anything about FACTS?

They have NOT let that stop them from spewing garbage before.

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 15, 2004 12:32 PM

527’s are not a loophole. The designers of campaign law reform knew soft money would simply try to find new ways into the political system so it set out to regulate it. 527’s were created as a legal vehicle for soft money. The rules they are bound by legislate that they must disclose their donors every 3 months (just like political parties), and can not coordinate activities with political parties.

This whole Republican challenge to ‘Democratic 527’s’ is a sham. They are legal, and it’s somewhat hypocritical of the Republicans to be challenging them when they make extensive use of 501© vehicles for funnelling their own soft money, which are not subject to the same reporting rules. Go read Nick Confessores article in the current online Washington Monthly for more info.

Posted by: Stewart Kelly at May 17, 2004 02:40 AM

No one is addressing the legality of the organizations. You miss the point completely.

I cite instances of direct colusion between members or former members of the Kerry campaign and certain political organizations. THAT is illegal.

JG
No Pundit Intended

Posted by: Joel Gaines at May 17, 2004 07:01 PM

Any guesses to what will happen if the Republicans start using 527s? In other words, if pro-Republican 527s start airing their own ads.

My bet is that the media will THEN focus on 527s and call for them to cease with this illegal support of candidates…

MoveOn and all them are full of it when they say they are following the law when they are airing their ads. The law says that you can’t support a candidate, nor be against a candidate (don’t remember the exact law text) but in MoveOn’s ads… there is no doubt they are violating that law.

“Censure Bush!”

Yeah… no anti-Bush ads there…

Posted by: g at May 17, 2004 09:49 PM