Our biggest campaign yet. [MoveOn.org Campaign Finance Law Violation?]

MoveOn.org- Campaign Finance Law Violation?

I received an e-mail from MoveOn.org describing a unique fund-raising campaign by MoveOn's Section 527 organization to fund ads opposing the re-election of President Bush. This in itself seemed a little sketchy to me, considering the solicitation came through MoveOn's normal 501(c) mailing list. I'm not sure if that's a violation, though.

Here's what gets me, the campaign claimed that if I contributed, my contribution would be matched if I was in the first $300,000 of contributions. The wording was slightly confusing, so I asked MoveOn whether this meant they would receive a $300,000 contribution provided they received at least $300,000 from other sources, or that the mysterious uber-donor would contribute up to $300,000 in matching funds for each contribution. I receieved a folow-up claiming they had raised $1.1 million in one day from 19,433 donors.

For those of you with campaign finance law background, does that sound like an attempt to get around hard-money contribution limits? I'm picturing one donor with $300,000 to give to the opposition of one candidate, and trying to secure at least 300 people to funnel his money through. I may be completely off base here because I have had very little exposure to contributions of this sort, but here is the e-mail, and I would appreciate anyone's thoughts:

Dear MoveOn member,
For three years, President Bush has worked to build an image for himself that resonates with the American people. He's bullied the media, distorted the facts, and cowed his political opponents. Through it all, we've worked together to expose the gap between Bush's carefully constructed image and his failed policies. That image is now falling apart under the weight of a mismanaged economy, daily losses in Iraq, and the accumulated evidence of the President's distortions.

Thanks in part to MoveOn members' hard work, the tide is turning. This represents an enormous strategic opportunity: Americans are beginning to realize that President Bush misleads. The President will fight this unveiling with tens of millions of advertising dollars, especially in the few "battleground" states that will determine the 2004 election. But we can beat him to the punch. That's why today we're launching our biggest -- and perhaps most important -- campaign yet. We need you to be a part of it.

Over the next months, we're going to raise an unprecedented $10 million for the production and placement of ads that take the truth about the Bush administration directly to the American people in key battleground states.

To kick it off, some MoveOn donors have contributed a matching pool of $300,000. Every dollar that you donate today will be matched one-for-one -- it's great bang for your buck. The sooner this money starts coming in, the sooner we can get those ads running -- if we raise $300,000 today, we can start running the ads in less than two weeks. Please help however you can -- be it $25 or $2500.

You can give right now by credit card on our secure website at: https://www.moveonvoterfund.org/donate/creditcard.html?id=1943-3360089-SLUAniz2ehs.tmUNl9v7Hw

If you prefer to send us a check, please just fill out the form at: https://www.moveonvoterfund.org/donate/check.html?id=1943-3360089-SLUAniz2ehs.tmUNl9v7Hw

Unlike contributions to candidates, you can contribute as much as you like to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 organization we run which is housing this effort. The sky's the limit.

The ad campaign will focus on three main themes -- themes which pollsters have found strongly resonate and which speak the truth:

President Bush's actions can't be trusted. He tells us he will leave no child behind, but he cuts funding for education. He launches a "healthy forests" initiative that is actually a smokescreen for more logging.

Bush's actions reflect a lack of concern for working families. He reduces benefits to pay for tax breaks for the rich. He favors drug companies over seniors who need cheaper medications.

Bush's actions and record show a lack of competence to solve our nation's problems. He's mismanaged the war in Iraq. He failed to plan adequately for the post-war period. Deficits are out of control. Now, he's got no solution to the jobs problem.

Although some top outlets are beginning to question the President's credibility, we can't count on the media to tell this story to the American public. And many Democratic politicians are still pretty timid about telling it like it is. With a big ad buy, we can go direct.

The Bush administration represents the ultimate special-interest Presidency. Corporations and wealthy individuals will be donating hundreds of millions to keep him in office. But the truth is on our side, and the American people know it. By banding together and getting the truth out the grassroots way, we can counteract the influence of big money on politics. If we pull this off, we won't just change the shape of this election -- we may well change the way politics works.

Please help today.

Sincerely,

--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
October 23rd, 2003

P.S. If you want to know more about the campaign strategy, you can read the executive summary of our more detailed strategy memo at: http://www.moveonvoterfund.org/strategy.html

For those of you with campaign finance law background, does that sound like an attempt to get around hard-money contribution limits? I'm picturing one donor with $300,000 to give to the opposition of one candidate, and trying to secure at least 300 people to funnel his money through. I may be completely off base here because I have had very little exposure to contributions of this sort, but the original e-mail is above for anyone to give their thoughts on.

Tasty Manatees

The DemocRATs want to raise $400 million in liberal soft money from the likes of Soros/Hanoi Jane and others. These are groups with NO contribution limits... Soros $10 million doesn't matter -- he can donate whatever he wants to defeat President Bush! These groups/people are raising the money with no limits and no rules and want to raise $400 million to defeat President Bush.
We can pretend that we (Republicans) have some huge advantage under the new law, but we don't. You have to contribute now. The President needs our help in having the ability to counter these liberal groups who are raising all this money to defeat the President!
Please consider becoming a monthly sustaining donor for the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign -- every last dollar is important to this campaign to insure that we have FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH-CHENEY! Click on the GIF below to donate! Whatever you can give to Reelect Bush-Cheney will be appreciated! Thanks!

I have been waiting for some time for arrests to begin in earnest. How far will we let groups like this and International ANSWER go before a real crack down. And I am not talking about the minor arrests we've seen at protests, I am talking about going after the Communist, enemy combatant leaders. In point of fact, we are probably within our rights to send at least some of them down to GITMO. Seriously, this is war. Which raises another point. Why continue to hem and haw about declaring war. Who aganst? In terms of nation states, those who support terror, in terms of supposedly rogue actors, Al Qaida and all the other terrorist groups. Declaring war would allow far more aggressive application of treason laws, and to put the US on a true war footing, which we have yet to do.

Far as I know it's still legal to be a member of the Communist party and we still have freedom of speech and assembly in this country.

These people are not breaking any laws. If and when they do, then nail them.

Also, in response to your other question, against whom would we declare war? Terrorists? It has to be more specific than that. I suppose we could declare war against Al Qaeda or Hamas, but up to now we've only declared war on nations. It will take some thinking to decide how to declare war on a group that is transnational. I'm not sure, but I imagine that if this isn't done right it could bite us in the backside one day down the line.

For those of you with campaign finance law background, does that sound like an attempt to get around hard-money contribution limits?

It's a matching funds donation, probably from more than one individual although it might be from one organization or business.

What it means is that if they raise $300,000. the donor will also contribute $300,000. If they raise $100,000. then the donor only matches that amount.

I doubt if it's illegal because I get solicitations for donations to various charities that use the same pitch... that my $10. means $20. to the charity. And most charities advertise to let the general public know what problem they are addressing and why it needs to be addressed.

I also used to work for a charitable organization that worked with people with disabilities and the organizations have to do an incredible amount of paperwork to justify everything they get to the government and to give donors proof for any tax deductions they might choose to take. Like it or not, these people are not fools. They know what they are doing.

Now, the challenge is to make the laws work for both sides.

They're "raising all this money"

Who says ..?? According to McAwful .. the coffers are practically empty. And .. I read somewhere the dems were having difficulty raising the money for their convention.

According to reports I've heard on FOX, Bush already has about $80-100 million. I know the dems do not even come close to that figure - not even half of that figure.

Thanks. Actually, the charities you are giving to are likely 501(c)'s (I personally used to use 501(c)(3) for almost everything). The way I understand it, they are not permitted to use their donations for direct opposition of a particular candidtae in an election.

The organization MoveOn.org has set up is a 527. This is an organization set up for hard money contributions. There are limits on hard money contributions per election cycle per individual and per business. I personally saw an employer try to "funnel" money through his employees to get around this limit by reimbursing them for politicial donations. He found himself in a world of trouble. Here is what I see, a wealthy donor is using a 527 org to "funnel" hard money through, to circumvent the hard money contribution limits. I may be wrong, though.

By the way, don't be quick to assume that Democratic organizations "know what they're doing". I've seen the way these usually work. An activist group goes to a buddy lawyer they know to work on how they can do what they want to do. He is told to "find a way" to do it legally. More often than not, he is directly involved in the cause, and is not willing to accept that something is illegal in the first place. Then, the 527/501 does what they wanted to do in the first place and starts stonewalling. Eventually, they are taken down, but usually not until after the election they illegally contributed to. When I sent an e-mail to MoveOn, they first sent a form response saying thanks for the question. I doubt they are anxious to have any attention paid to this plan.

Like I said, I may be wrong on the legality of this, in which case, anyone who knows about hard money contributions please feel free to set me right.

Tasty Manatees

I don't think there is enough info to know if this is illegal. For example, they may not actually be planning to spend the money specifically in opposition to Bush (that is, urging his defeat in explicit terms), and if not, and if they don't run ads in the 60 day pre-election window in which McCain-Feingold limits ads, they can pretty much do what they want, as long as they don't "coordinate" activity with Democrat candidates or the Democratic party. Also, it sounds like the $300 grand they've allegedly raised may be in small, legal hard money contributions from many people. I don't think anything makes it illegal to offer to match another's contribution. I may be wrong, but I think the Federal Election Commission, which enforces this stuff, has allowed groups to offer someone an inducement to give in the past.

Basically, without more detail, one just can't tell, I think.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.