R's Progress for America Fund 527 group reaches settlement with FEC, fined $750K!

[flpoljunkie]

I see why Dems want to regulate 527's--the Republican Progress for America raised $44.9 million in 2004, with nearly three-fourths from 13 donors, according to the FEC. The article also mentions that the Swift Board Veterans 527 group reached a settlement with the FEC in December, 2006--and the FEC has not yet "acted on complaints against two other groups that were Democratic powerhouses in 2004, America Coming Together and the Media Fund."

Group Reaches Settlement With F.E.C. Over 2004 Campaign Advertising

By KATE PHILLIPS
Published: March 1, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — A major conservative group agreed to pay a $750,000 penalty as part of a settlement with the Federal Election Commission, which found that the group violated campaign finance laws by spending more than $30 million on advertisements and mailings supporting President Bush’s re-election.

The fine was the third largest in the agency’s 32-year-history. The settlement reflects a crackdown in the last several months on the political activities of so-called 527 groups — named after a section of the tax law — that surfaced in the 2004 election as a powerful force, raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars in unregulated contributions through a loophole in the law.

“I think that the thing that is clear in all of these cases is that the agency is very serious about regulating both the solicitations and the advertisements that these groups do, to try to discern whether their purpose is to influence federal elections,” said Robert Lenhard, chairman of the F.E.C.

The agency found that the group, the Progress for America Voter Fund, operated as a political action committee, soliciting money and financing advertisements.

It spent $26.4 million alone on advertising in battleground states in 2004 for the purpose of retaining Mr. Bush as president.

Its actions violated campaign laws because it was not registered as a political action committee that would be subject to strict limits on donations. The agency said it circumvented a ban on corporate money and accepted contributions that well exceeded the caps on individual donations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01fec.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print