This 527 story is very important. Follow it closely.
Harold Ickes is one of the wiliest and most effective
political streetfighters...Multi-billionaire
humanitarian George Soros is funding both Ickes'
effort, Media Fund, and Americas Coming Together,
which is driven by people from Emily's List and the
AFL-CIO...and then, of course, there is MoveOn.org...
Steven Rosenfeld, www.tompaine.com: When Republicans
run scared, they usually justify whatever it takes to
win while accusing their opponents of hypocrisy, even
if they've used or continue to utilize the very
tactics they're criticizing. Nowhere is this more
evident than in the effort to clamp down on the
Democrats' so-called 527 committees. The committees
are named after a section in the tax code that quickly
became the loophole du jour following the passage of
the 2002 McCain-Feingold law.
Confound the "Vast Reich-Wing Conspiracy, Show Up for
Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10089
Monopolize The Microphone
Steven Rosenfeld is a senior editor for TomPaine.com.
As the television advertising wars of 2004 begin, a
full-throttle confrontation is brewing that could
defang the Democrats. The GOP's plan is simple: block their most vocal critics' big sources of advertising dollars and then monopolize the microphone.
In early March, the Republican National Committee sent
threatening letters to 250 television stations, urging
them not to run MoveOn.org's ads. On March 9, the Bush
campaign joined party operatives in an attempt to
alter the fine print of federal election law to ban
big donations to groups like MoveOn.org and other
Democratic activist groups.
When Republicans run scared, they usually justify
whatever it takes to win while accusing their
opponents of hypocrisy, even if they've used or
continue to utilize the very tactics they're
criticizing. Nowhere is this more evident than in the
effort to clamp down on the Democrats' so-called 527
committees. The committees are named after a section
in the tax code that quickly became the loophole du
jour following the passage of the 2002 McCain-Feingold
law.
When the reform law, most of which was upheld by the
Supreme Court, prevented political parties from
raising six-figure "soft money" dollars, campaign
strategists turned to the arcane 527s committees to
raise big money. Money raised through 527s can be used
to run political ads if those ads aren't "coordinated"
with the parties.
So Democratic 527s are sprouting up all over the
Beltway. Harold Ickes, the former White House deputy
chief of staff for President Clinton, and Jim Jordan,
who until last fall managed Sen. John Kerry's
campaign, created the Media Fund. Ellen Malcolm, who
founded the pro-choice EMILY's List, joined former
AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal to create
Americans Coming Together (ACT), which receives
substantial funding from George Soros. According to
the March 10 New York Times, the Media Fund and ACT
together have commitments of $70 million, in contrast
to the Bush campaign's $100 million-plus war chest.
That's why the GOP has cried "foul." But Republicans,
of course, have their own 527 committees. In fact,
they helped pioneer the use of such "independent"
committees when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
used GOPAC in 1994 to support dozens of Republican
House candidates. During its heyday, GOPAC reeled in
top-dollar donations from Republican financiers,
evaded the Federal Election Commission, and then
helped deliver the first GOP House majority in
decades. A more recent example of this tactic is House
Majority Leader Tom Delay's use of a children's
charity to launder donations and conceal donor
identities for this summer's Republican Party
convention.
The GOP's tactics to clamp down on 527s are shrewd. At
first, a previously unknown Republican 527 called
Americans for a Better Country asked the FEC to
clarify if it could collect the kind of money
Democrats were getting from people like Soros. The FEC
took the bait and last month said it would examine
such donations, causing real consternation in
Democratic circles.
Then, on March 9, the Bush campaign filed papers with
the FEC, charging that the big donations to Harold
Ickes' Media Group were the same as the "soft money"
donations to political parties that were banned under
the McCain-Feingold law.
In a classic Washington political utterance -- part
threat, part principle -- Bradley Smith, the
Republican chairman of the FEC, and Ellen Weintraub,
the Democratic vice-chair, co-wrote a commentary
published in the March 1 edition of Roll Call, a
Capitol Hill journal, sounding this warning: "We fear
the [527] debate has been staged by partisans with
short-term time horizons. We suggest that their
apparent preference -- do what you can by whatever
means at hand -- is no way to regulate politics."
This statement of high-minded principle may seem like
an oasis in the realpolitik swamp that is, and has
been, federal elections for decades. And, indeed,
Weintraub moderated that view at a Senate Rules
Committee hearing on 527s on March 10, saying, "I will
not be rushed to make hasty decisions, with
far-reaching implications, at the behest of those who
see in our hurried action their short-term political
gain."
Some campaign finance reformers have suggested that
527s need to be dealt with. But they argue, as
Weintraub has indicated, that it's unfair to change
campaign rules in midstream. That's why, for instance,
McCain-Feingold didn't take effect until after the
2002 election cycle. The president's supporters,
however, say this issue cannot wait.
But in the idealistic eddy that is the professional
world of campaign finance reformer -- and occasionally
the FEC -- the rules of the game can be changed, even
in the middle of the most contentious of elections, if
the guiding principle is significant enough. Those
seeking new FEC rules on donations to 527s say such a
moment is at hand, arguing big donations made to
influence federal elections have been banned since
1974 and that prohibition has been upheld by the
Supreme Court.
In an ironic footnote to the 527 fight, partisan
Democrats are fuming that their Republican rivals have
been helped by some of their own, notably a cadre of
politically liberal, long-time reformers led by Fred
Wertheimer, the eminence grise of Washington's
campaign finance world. In fact, the small universe of
professional campaign finance reformers and election
lawyers who helped draft the McCain-Feingold bill and
successfully defend it before the Supreme Court is now
divided.
Then there are the self-proclaimed political
pragmatists who claim that the emergence of 527
committees underscores the futility of trying to
regulate big money in big elections because both sides
will do whatever it takes to raise as much money as
possible.
Either way, the FEC is expected to rule on this 527
funding issue this spring. Political observers and
election lawyers all say the panel has a "full range
of options" before it, suggesting there will be some
new regulations forthcoming.
Conservative pundits, such as editors at The Weekly
Standard, are of course enjoying the spectacle. But
there's much more at stake than an insider spat in
campaign reform circles. If the GOP prevails -- which
is likely -- and Democrats cannot raise the money to
compete with the president's ads on television, then
the FEC would be intervening in a presidential race on
a magnitude approaching the Supreme Court's decision
in Bush v. Gore.
Stay tuned. Because the political winds are blowing
hard.
Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch
and get the latest on what's new at TomPaine.com
before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time
and we will never distribute your information to any
other entity.
Published: Mar 11 2004