RealCampaignReform.org - Fighting the Good Fight
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
Dear friends,
Today and tomorrow we'll be sharing a column with you. Each
covers the debate in Washington about implementation of the
McCain-Feingold law (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -
BCRA). Today's column is from the Washington Post's Harold
Meyerson, a liberal-progressive who opposed McCain-
Feingold.
Republicans, many of whom opposed the law, are seeking a
very broad, strict interpretation. Democrats, many of whom
supported the law, are seeking a very narrow, to-the-letter
version of the law.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "The power you
give a politician you like today to do something you want,
is the power you give a politician you won't like tomorrow,
who will do [things] you never imagined nor would [have] approved."
Harry Browne and Michael Cloud (I'm not sure who is due
credit here) call this the Dictator Fallacy - "If only I
was King." This fallacy is the belief that the reforms I
value the most will be implemented just as I wished. But
every bill in Washington is political - to be decided by
politicians and implemented by bureaucrats - and they won't
consult you.
Looks like the Democrats are getting a taste of Dictator
Fallacy. It's hard to feel for sorry for them.
But the implementation of BCRA is going to directly affect
non-profit organizations like ours. That's why we're
keeping you informed of what's happening - even though our
Supreme Court fight is over.
For Liberty,
Jim Babka, President
RealCampaignReform.org, Inc.
----------
At the FEC, Putting Free Speech in Peril
By Harold Meyerson
Washington Post
Thursday, February 12, 2004; Page A37
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35189-2004Feb12.html
Though it's not listed on the agenda as such, on Feb. 18
the Federal Election Commission plans to rule on the
suspension of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of
speech.
Not all speech, of course, just effective political speech.
On that day, the FEC will take up an advisory opinion from
its general counsel, Lawrence Norton, which argues that any
communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes"
any candidate for federal office must be paid for by "hard
money" -- that is, by small-dollar donations.
The effect of this opinion, should the commission accept
it, will be twofold. First, it will confer a huge advantage
on the Republicans in this year's presidential and
congressional elections. Second, it will make it all but
impossible for advocacy groups that have never participated
in electoral activity, and are not even legally structured
to do so, to praise or condemn the positions of public
officeholders.
Norton issued his opinion, subjecting advocacy groups to
the same fundraising strictures as federal campaigns, on
Jan. 29. It was drafted in response to a query from a
Republican organization that really doesn't seem to be an
organization at all, but rather a device to stop Democrats
from registering voters and getting commercials on the air.
The organization, whose existence hovers somewhere between
virtual and non, is Americans for a Better Country (ABC).
The one known activity of ABC, formed by three senior
Republican operatives, is to have sent the FEC a query Nov.
18 about the legality of a series of election-related
actions ABC said it might undertake. The actions seem to
have been derived entirely from press accounts of
activities on which a number of new Democratic
organizations -- dubbed "527s" after the section of the tax
code they fall under -- had embarked.
The 527s took shape last year in response to the
prohibitions that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law
placed on political parties. The act forbade parties from
using large "soft money" donations for such activities as
voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns, and at
the same time it doubled the amount that individuals are
able to donate to political campaigns.
Problem is, the Democrats were far more reliant on soft
money than the Republicans. It was only through the
largesse of unions and major contributors from show
business and finance that Democrats have been able to bring
new and sometime voters to the polls. In 1999, for
instance, the Republican Party committees raised $156
million in hard and soft money combined, while the
Democrats raised $110 million. In 2003, with soft money
abolished in mid-year and the ceilings on hard money
raised, the Republican total rose to $206 million (which
does not include the $200 million that the Bush-Cheney
campaign plans to have on hand within a few weeks), while
the Democrats' total dwindled to $95 million.
Accordingly, a number of Democratic operatives established
527s last year that were not linked to any party
organizations but that sought to do the voter registration
and other such activities that the party had previously
undertaken. Already, these groups have registered hundreds
of thousands of largely minority voters in such swing
states as Missouri, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Norton's draft opinion contends that these activities, so
long as they are funded by large contributions, must cease.
However, the language of the opinion is so broad that
hundreds of advocacy groups that do not engage in electoral
politics -- in the parlance of the trade, 501(c)(3)s and
501(c)(4)s -- believe that their own ability to advocate
for specific public policies is threatened.
Indeed, 324 such organizations have sent a letter to the
commission asking it "with the greatest sense of urgency
and in the strongest terms possible, not to issue the draft
opinion in its present form." They note that the opinion
draws no distinction between "attacking" a policy advanced
by Congress or the administration and campaigning for or
against officeholders who are also candidates. Among the
signatories are independent-living centers, homelessness
advocates and tenants associations that promote particular
policies but that have never remotely contemplated walking
a precinct.
Even leading campaign reform organizations oppose the scope
of Norton's opinion. Public Citizen, after noting its
involvement in the fight for McCain-Feingold, expresses
concern that nothing in the opinion limits the fundraising
restrictions to 527s but in fact threatens to extend them
to "the legitimate activities of all non-profit
organizations." Common Cause is conspicuous by its absence
from the fray. Only three small campaign finance
organizations have defended the opinion.
The FEC commissioners are divided evenly along party lines
-- three Democrats, three Republicans -- and longtime
watchers hesitate to predict how they'll come down on the
proposed restrictions. (One Republican commissioner has
libertarian leanings; one Democrat is said to be fuming at
his own party.) There's certainly a danger that in their
zeal to get money -- or Democrats -- out of politics,
they'll get political speech out of politics, too.
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
RCR Report is the email advisory service of
RealCampaignReform.org -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan,
educational and lobbying organization dedicated to
promoting free and open elections and a robust,
participatory democracy for all Americans.
UNSUBSCRIBE from this list by sending a text (no HTML) email to
distribution-request@RealCampaignReform.org
with the word
unsubscribe
on the first line of the body of the message.
Please leave the rest of the message blank.
SUBSCRIBE to this list by sending a text (no HTML) email to
distribution-request@RealCampaignReform.org
with the word
subscribe
on the first line of the body of the message.
Please leave the rest of the message blank.
TO CONTRIBUTE to RealCampaignReform.org, visit
https://www.fbs.net/rcr/rcrcontribute.cfm.
--
..
"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's
realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. "
..
-Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, 7/10/2003, "Neo-CONNED"
..
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
.
|
