FEC Moves to Regulate Groups Opposing Bush

[Khephra]

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2004; Page A06


The Federal Election Commission decided yesterday that many of the political committees raising "soft" money to campaign against President Bush are subject to regulation, but it postponed deciding how tough the restrictions should be.

The FEC voted 4 to 2 to warn Americans for a Better Country that activities that "promote, attack, support or oppose" a federal candidate must be paid for with hard money, a type of political donation that, unlike soft money, has tight restrictions on sources and amounts. This is a broader standard than used in the past. Activities that benefit a mix of federal, state and local candidates are to be paid for with a mix of hard and soft money, the commission determined.

Interpretations of yesterday's action varied greatly.

FEC Vice Chairman Ellen L. Weintraub said the decision should not severely constrain those seeking to raise and spend soft money, which is not subject to limits and can come from unions and corporations as well as individuals. "I don't think sophisticated political actors would have a hard time figuring out how to work within this framework," she said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, in contrast, said the ruling will put out of business "groups like America Coming Together , the Media Fund, Partnership for America's Families and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund." All are pro-Democratic groups organized under Section 527 of the tax code.

more..............

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52815-2004Feb18.html

[OneBlueSky]

1. hey, jerks . . . it's called Freedom of Speech! . . .

what's wrong with these people? . . .

[mobuto]

4. No it isn't

its called campaign finance reform.

And while I hate to say it (not least of which because I have a pending job application before one of these outfits) we need to get money out of politics, and this is a loophole that allows enormous amounts of money in.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. Meanwhile, Duhbya attends $2000-a-plate fundraisers

on the taxpayer's dime, and that's just hunky-dory.

[David Dunham]

3. Dems Hurt Dems Once Again

Two Reps on the FEC voted for the Dem groups. It's the three Dems on the FEC that voted AGAINST the Dem groups. That's the reason the Dem groups are limited. Dem Commissioner Ellen W. stinks, in my opinion!!

[JaySherman]

5. We all wanted campaign finance reform. We got it.

Suckered. Once again, the Repugs use one of our own initiatives against us. I blame this on the spineless Dems who accepted the comprimise bill. I thought the result was a joke then, but it never occurred to me they would turn it on us progressives like this. Let this be another lesson that there can be NO COMPRIMISE with those backstabbing bastards.

[Dr Fate]

13. Compromise with these Neo-cons is "date-rape"...

Good old principled conservatives- I can see eye-to eye with those guys from time to time- but these Rush Limbaugh guys- no-way...

[countmyvote4real]

6. So figuring out how to work within the guidelines for soft money

Mix it up.

[Rex]

7. "sophisticated political actors"

Whatever happened to statesmen?

[Snazzy]

8. not going to put anybody out of business

(forget for the moment that they are not "in business").

At the very least you have issues to fall back on. But I doubt this bit of finger wagging means much of anything, beyond an attempt, which we knew was brewing, to smear moveon & co--give the impression they are doing something wrong.

Would love to hear them talk about bundling (pioneers, etc). Of course, you won't unless we get that out more.

Meantime, the media, as shown by the superbowl, might just lock out issue ads on their own, no regs needed, thank you.

That's the danger and probably the strategy.

[Virginian]

9. Is this hard money or soft money?

This banner posted on another thread is not put out there by Dubya, but it has his likeness. Is this paid for with soft or hard money?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1135724

[Snazzy]

11. That's soft

That's what they say they are now against, while doing it.

Thing is, with *'s $120 million hard money (from individuals--wink wink) war chest, they aren't too worried to mess that up a bit.

So goes my understanding.

[Woodstock]

10. I guess the Republicans don't think having 10 times more money

is enough to beat the Democrats. Kind of encouraging in a sad way.

[Born Free]

12. democrats have the truth

" guess the Republicans don't think having 10 times more money"

is enough to beat the Democrats. Kind of encouraging in a sad way.


Yes you are correct, and Demcorats have something far more powerful than mone, the truth. Democrats need only spread the word, friend to friend - far more powerful thannay ads on TV

[Pale_Rider]

14. The two Republicans on the commission ...

... opposed regulating the Democratic groups.

On philosophical, not partisan, grounds, two of the Republican commissioners -- Chairman Bradley A. Smith and David M. Mason -- voted against regulation of the Democratic groups, rejecting pressure from the RNC. "If Republicans think they can win by silencing their opponents, they are wrong," said Smith, and "they are going to deserve to lose."

I guess there are some 'liberal' thinkers in the conservative camp.

[Woodstock]

15. I'm trying to get a grasp on this, help me

Am I right? How about the following example -

Say moveon.org wants to put on an a 30 second commercial that costs $100,000.

If the commercial targets something negative about Bush (FEDERAL CANIDIDATE) only, it has to be paid for with hard money only (ie, we are screwed, thanks to the DINOS on the FEC.)

If the commercial targets something negative about Bush (FEDERAL CANDIDATE) AND, say, Governor Ehrlich of Maryland, for example (STATE CANDIDATE), then it can be paid for with hard AND soft money.

So for the $100,000 ad, $50,000 of the second could be paid for by someone like Soros, for example. The $50,000 would have to be from people who donated no more than $2,000 to moveon.org. Or would that be no more than $2,000 to the Democratic party?

(The mix hasn't been worked out - presumably a 50% hard money/50% soft money mix? Both suck on the environment, among other things, so that angle could be used to tie the two together, I guess. Would 50% of the ad have to be talking about one, 50% the other? What if you talked about Bush, then said 10 Republicans agreed with him on the sucky policy. Would it then be a mix of 10% hard money/90% soft money?)

Does this sound in any way right? I truly detest those DINOS who voted for this - it sounds like they just voted to amend the constitution.