Wraps off tough FEC 527 options -(Dems may be hurting)

[papau]

http://thehill.com/news/030204/fec.aspx

Wraps off tough FEC 527 options
By Alexander Bolton

<snip>The FEC counsel’s office proposed a slew of regulatory options that would significantly restrict the ability of 527 groups, and perhaps even 501(c)4 not-for-profit advocacy groups, to pay for political activities with soft money.

Most important, the counsel’s office wants to expand greatly the universe of independent groups to be governed by its regulations.

It has set four possible sweeping tests that would determine whether a group’s major purpose is to influence federal elections and therefore must register with the FEC and follow its rules:

• Requiring a group to register with the FEC if its public pronouncements, such as fundraising letters and organizing documents, indicates its purpose is to promote or attack a federal candidate and it spends more than $10,000 on federal election activities.

• Requiring a group to register with the FEC if it spends 50 percent or more of its disbursements on federal activities.

• Requiring groups that simply spend more than $50,000 on federal election activities to register with the agency.

• Requiring all 527 groups to register and be regulated by the FEC with a possible exception for groups that operate in only one state.

The proposals differ on the minimum percentage that must be paid in hard money.

At the top range, as much of 65 percent of election activities would be covered.<snip>

However, it is far from certain whether four commissioners — the number needed on the six-member commission — will agree formally to adopt the proposals. <snip>
<snip>

[papau]

1. FEC to Consider 'Soft Money' Curbs (same topic in WashPo)

WashPo warns GOP may try to kill Dem funding via restrictions on “527” groups -rules "would threaten plans by Democratic strategists to build a 'shadow party' to mobilize voters and run ads this year, according to lawyers and political operatives." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20793-2004Mar1.html

FEC to Consider 'Soft Money' Curbs
By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer, March 2, 2004; Page A19


The general counsel's office of the Federal Election Commission has proposed new rules that would threaten plans by Democratic strategists to build a "shadow party" to mobilize voters and run ads this year, according to lawyers and political operatives. <snip>

Among the counsel's most significant proposals are:

• "Allocation" rules that would require the 527 groups to raise at least a quarter, and possibly much more, of their cash in hard-money contributions of $5,000 or less. Hard money is much more difficult to raise, and the Democratic 527 groups had been planning on financing most of their activities with soft money.

• Partial bans, depending on the time period, on the use of corporate and union money for voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities with a partisan tilt.

• New spending thresholds that would appear to put under FEC regulatory jurisdiction some of the pro-Democratic groups not currently registered at the FEC.

The proposed regulations would advance "the Republican goal of silencing their political opposition," a Democratic lawyer heavily involved in the controversy said on background….Many top Democratic strategists this year have raised about $20 million, with a goal of $300 million for 2004, for the new 527s, to be spent on television commercials and intensive voter registration and turnout programs in about 17 key battleground states. <snip>

Jim Jordan, spokesman for ACT, the Media Fund and America Votes, played down the threat posed by the counsel's proposals: "Nothing in the staff draft is particularly unexpected, but obviously we disagree with certain portions of the draft," he said. "We're proceeding as planned with all aspects of our work."

[Moderator]

2. papau

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you


DU Moderator

[papau]

4. OK - I was guilty as charged

:-(

OK - but I think I was legal on this one - but I am having a bad day so I may be wrong!


The post was:

FEC to Consider 'Soft Money' Curbs
By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer, March 2, 2004; Page A19


PARAGRAPH ONE
The general counsel's office of the Federal Election Commission has proposed new rules that would threaten plans by Democratic strategists to build a "shadow party" to mobilize voters and run ads this year, according to lawyers and political operatives. <snip>

PARAGRAPG TWO
Among the counsel's most significant proposals are:

• "Allocation" rules that would require the 527 groups to raise at least a quarter, and possibly much more, of their cash in hard-money contributions of $5,000 or less. Hard money is much more difficult to raise, and the Democratic 527 groups had been planning on financing most of their activities with soft money.

• Partial bans, depending on the time period, on the use of corporate and union money for voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities with a partisan tilt.

• New spending thresholds that would appear to put under FEC regulatory jurisdiction some of the pro-Democratic groups not currently registered at the FEC.

PARAGRAPH THREE
The proposed regulations would advance "the Republican goal of silencing their political opposition," a Democratic lawyer heavily involved in the controversy said on background….Many top Democratic strategists this year have raised about $20 million, with a goal of $300 million for 2004, for the new 527s, to be spent on television commercials and intensive voter registration and turnout programs in about 17 key battleground states. <snip>

OPPS - I AM GUILTY - I COMBINED 2 PARAGRAPHS VIA THE "..." rule and SKINNER DOES NOT LIKE THAT - - sorry

Jim Jordan, spokesman for ACT, the Media Fund and America Votes, played down the threat posed by the counsel's proposals: "Nothing in the staff draft is particularly unexpected, but obviously we disagree with certain portions of the draft," he said. "We're proceeding as planned with all aspects of our work."

[w4rma]

3. Selective regulations written specifically to hurt Dems? (n/t)