MoveOn Balks at Proposed FEC Rules Changes by Scaring Nonprofits (FEC Email Needs FReeping! NOW!)

Talon News ^ | April 2, 2004 | Jimmy Moore

[ElephantMan]

SPARTANBURG, SC (Talon News) -- Liberal anti-Bush online political activist group MoveOn.org sent a warning message to its members this week regarding the upcoming ruling by the Federal Election Commission about the legality of so-called 527 groups accepting soft campaign contributions to run political ads.

"The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission to issue new rules that would cripple groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress," MoveOn.org charged in an e-mail to supporters.

In the e-mail, MoveOn.org attempts to scare "conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation, [and] issue-oriented" groups into believing the rule changes will be detrimental to their cause by alleging that the ruling will prevent them from speaking out on issues.

However, the Republican National Committee, along with President George W. Bush's reelection campaign, has filed a complaint with the FEC over the connection of specific 527 groups like MoveOn.org and the campaign of likely Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry.

Jill Holtzman Vogel, chief counsel for the RNC, said evidence of coordination between MoveOn.org and other Democratic-supporting 527 groups and the Kerry campaign in violation of the new campaign finance law could not be clearer.

"Senator Kerry, who supported the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, is now the beneficiary of the single largest conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws in history," she explained in issuing the complaint to the FEC.

In fact, the Massachusetts senator explained when he voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that he supported it because he wanted "to eliminate altogether the capacity of soft money to play the role that it does in our politics."

Yet, MoveOn.org is now operating illegally as an extension of the Kerry campaign because they accept soft money from corporations and unions, which represents an evasion of the ban on large, unregulated contributions in the new campaign finance law, critics argue.

For example, MoveOn.org has been giving Kerry plenty of free campaign ads by running a relentless schedule of political attack ads against Bush for months using donations from liberal billionaires such as George Soros and others.

Nevertheless, MoveOn.org tells its supporters that any action conducted by the FEC regarding donations to various MoveOn.org fundraising efforts will not be traced back to the specific donors.

Blaming unnamed "operatives" in the nation's capitol for "displaying a terrifying disregard for the values of free speech and openness which underlie our democracy," MoveOn.org states the FEC complaint by the RNC and the Bush campaign is a blatant attempt to squelch attacks against Bush.

"Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush," the e-mail continued.

MoveOn.org is encouraging its members to send the FEC public comments along with the sender's full name, e-mail address, and mailing address to Acting Assistant General Counsel Mai T. Dinh by April 9 at politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov.

In fact, MoveOn.org has requested to see a copy of the messages sent to the FEC.

"We'd love to see a copy of your public comment," MoveOn.org explains, although the group did not indicate whether it wants to receive comments that would support the new rules changes.

Nevertheless, the leftist political group writes, "Please e-mail us a copy [of your comments to the FEC] at FECcomment@moveon.org."

The e-mail lists the names and telephone numbers of the e-mail recipient's two U.S. senators as well as the recipient's U.S. congressman.

Charging the Bush administration with orchestrating an "unholy alliance" with the FEC, MoveOn.org announced the formation of the FEC Working Group to identify "examples of specific consequence for nonprofit groups."

"It's outrageous," MoveOn.org opines.

Nonprofit groups, MoveOn.org warns, who advocate positions for or against congressmen or the president's positions on the issues would be deemed as political groups and be subjected to the laws imposed on them.

"Such changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend funds in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that organizations would be forced to back away from meaningful conversations about public policies that affect millions of Americans," MoveOn.org states.

Groups that would be affected, MoveOn.org adds, include 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, 501(c)(3) charitable groups, labor unions, trade associations, environmental groups, 501 (c)(6) groups, and 527 political action committee groups, such as MoveOn.org.

Also included in the list of affected organizations, according to MoveOn.org, are religious groups that pass out voting record pamphlets, voter registration groups, pro-life groups spreading communication about a lawmaker's position on abortion and civil rights groups.

A public hearing by the FEC is scheduled to take place on April 14-15. A final decision on the rules changes will be made by mid-May and would go into effect by July.

MoveOn.org states the changes could be made retroactive to January 2003.

"It's clear that these rules would immediately silence thousands of groups, of all types, who have raised questions and criticisms of any kind about the Bush Administration, its record and its policies," MoveOn.org concludes, alleging this is nothing more than an election year ploy by the Bush campaign to silence his critics.

If the new rules changes are allowed to go into effect, groups like MoveOn.org will no longer be allowed to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official.

Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved

[onyx]

DONE.
Thanks for the call to action.

[Fracas]

Thanks for the ping.

Don't forget to suggest they meet with McCain and Feingold, the architects of the CFR monstrosity so beloved by the media. Paraphrasing McCain's recent comments, he said 'it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck...guess what....I'ts a Duck!'.

[onyx]

Too late for me to mention McCain.
Mine is sent.
I do, however, have more than one e-mail address...

How're you doing girlfriend?

[talleyman]

Freeped. Thanks again for the post.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

No, I didn't assume you think BCFR is good--you were clear in your post--"The campaign finance law is joke and I am still sick over the fact the supreme court didn't overturn it. Actually, It should have never had to make it there." At times, I'm a slow learner, but not that slow.

I did, however, ask you what part of BCRA would make an e-mail illegal--your post:So during that 30-60 day period when the U.S. Congress takes a vote on abortion, immigration, gun control, United Nations, taxes, treaties, etc., we won't be able to tell you about it without committing a federal crime and risking jail time! Even a simple E-mail alert will violate the law!

After asking you that questions, about where BCRA says that, I began looking for the answer myself. Section 203 has the Orwellian critierion that an ad could be made if no one hears it--say anything at all, as long as no one hears it, or in this case--50,000 people. The section of BCRA uses the word "communication" and I wondered if that is what was being used by the expression: Even a simple E-mail alert will violate the law!

[M Kehoe]

Let the FEC know that you are opposed to MoveOn.org's blatant support of the John Kerry campaign...

Moveon.org is right (never thought I'd type that), and the law is unconstitutional. That SCOTUS upheld certain portions of CFR, tells me more about the justices than the law itself.

Methinks the RNC should start these 527s and anything else they can think of. As Serpent Head would say, "this is wahr!"

5.56mm

[leprechaun9]

I e-mailed the following to each of the FEC commissioners:

Hello Commissioners,

I urge you to implement a rule on the status of political committees. The present actions of groups such as MoveOn.org make a mockery of the spirit and intent, if not the letter of the law.

When I served in the U.S. Navy, at each written examination the proctor of the exam read the definition of CHEAT. CHEAT = TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF.

The obvious actions of MoveOn in sync with the comments and press releases of one candidate show part of their linkage.

If the election process can be so emasculated with impunity, then the election itself will only further fuel the dominant discussions of the media. We have already been saturated with a year full of "debates" that really were nothing more than one sided opposition to the President. And none of the cost of those broadcasts will ever appear on a Financial Disclosure Statement.

I urge you to act and make the rule retroactive to January 1, 2004.

Thanks and have a good day.

Signed

[WhiteyAppleseed]

an email from the NRA would still be OK.
That's what I thought, but Valin's post #45 suggested otherwise, and actually, BCRA Section 203 uses the expression "communication" which suggests an e-mail would be questioned......

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Why insist on a bureaucracy enforcing an unconstitutional law?

[lowbridge]

The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission to issue new rules that would cripple groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress," MoveOn.org charged in an e-mail to supporters.

These "new rules" are the laws you libs pushed for in the first place. I didnt want these "rules". You did.

Obey the law, you SOB's.

[Liz]

Don't forget to suggest (the FEC) meet with McCain and Feingold, the architects of the CFR monstrosity so beloved by the media. Paraphrasing McCain's recent comments, he said 'it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck...guess what....I'ts a Duck!'.)

Man oh man, McPain catches on f-a-a-st, doesn't he (snicker)?

[Liz]

Nice work. Pass the message on.

[Liz]

ACTION PING

Email the FEC:

politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov

SAMPLE COMMENTS

Let the FEC know that you are opposed to MoveOn.org's blatant support of a candidate----the John Kerry campaign.

Urge them to implement the rule changes that they are now considering to no longer allow MoveOn.org to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official.

Request that the FEC make the change retroactive to January 1, 2004.

Suggest that the FEC meet with McCain and Feingold, authors of CFR.

__________________________________________________________
NOTE: In trying to get this message distributed widely, you may have been pinged more than once. Sorry 'bout that.

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping Liz

[GOPJ]

bump

[Gen. Longstreet]

Just so long as you understand, Liz, that this will not only affect MoveOn, but any conservative group that dares criticize Kerry, or any Democrat candidate in the future.

[Gen. Longstreet]

When you sent you letter, did it dawn on you that the FEC does not have the power to only get Democrat groups? This rule, if adopted, will also mean that no conservative group can criticize Kerry, or any other liberal candidate in the future. That's why groups such as the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform are opposed. This is poision.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Concerning BCFR, I had an op-ed that the local paper published. Curiously, shortly after that, I ran afoul of a federal agency (who'd a thunk it?) that played a part in yucking with my right to work for a living. I asked my US congressman for assistance into the matter, and after the agency investigated itself, (they determined they did nothing wrong) I received a reply from him.

Feel free to use it or a version of it to write a letter to the editor of your local paper and you could substitute any names that may be appropriate:

Last year(2002), campaign finance regulations were signed into law in March and subsequently challenged by a number of litigants. The case went to the United States Supreme Court. In December, the court’s 5-4 decision affirming fundamental aspects of the law was, in Justice Scalia’s words, “a sad day for free speech.”

Justice Thomas described the decision as one that “can only be described as the most significant abridgement of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War.” Considering the gravity of the words of the dissenting justices, it is very troubling that the matter was afforded little media attention.

The legislation was called bipartisan, though the House vote—240-189—was split largely along party lines: 198 Democrats vote yes (12 voted no) and 176 Republicans vowed no (41 voted yes). U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, and Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both Democrats, voted yes.

The legislation was challenged by a number of groups and individuals, among them the NRA, the ACLU, the Republican National Committee and the California Democratic Party.

Justice Kennedy noted that the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act “would have imposed felony punishment on Ross Perot’s 1996 efforts to build the Reform Party.” Perot could have been sentenced to as much as five years in prison. That’s a bit harsh, considering the same court in the last four years “has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming.” (Justice Scalia)

BCRA makes it a felony for a non-profit environmental corporation to broadcast an ad, within 60 days of an election, exhorting the public to protest a congressman’s impending vote to permit logging in national forests. However, they are permitted to create a dummy organization and with a kind of compulsory ventriloquism they can run an ad as long as nobody hears it (50,000 people) and as long as they refer to the congressman as “he whose name cannot be mentioned.” This applies to any union or for-profit corporation as well.

At the other end of the spectrum, Justice Thomas was the lone jurist opposed to the disclosure provisions of BCRA Section 201 that allows “the established right to anonymous speech to be stripped away based on the flimsiest of justifications.” Media companies must now disclose who pays for an ad before the ad runs and disclose the transaction even if the ad does not run.

An analogy to our nation’s early days could be posed in which essays written anonymously by “Publius” defending and defining what became our Constitution were published in New York newspapers during the fierce debates of the time. Under BCRA, one of the founding fathers of our country, writing anonymously in such newspapers, could have been subject to federal penalties and imprisonment.

Well, why has Congress done this? Supporters of the law argued that it was needed to stop political corruption—the quid pro quo kind of corruption in which one gives money to a congressman with the expectation of favorable votes. It was also argued that access to a politician proved there was evidence of undue influence; therefore, even the “appearance of corruption” should be considered as Congress regulates speech. Dissenting judges noted that the congressional record contained little evidence of vote buying, while there was evidence that indicated silencing criticism of government was behind the creation of the BCRA.

In the congressional Inferno, Ross Perot would be consigned to one of the lower levels of purgatory for his attempts to start another political party. One of the Founding Fathers, call him Madison, would be there for writing anonymously. Charlton Heston, former president of the NRA, for speaking the name of Clinton regarding legislation aimed at banning arms, would be hurled headlong into the pit with Perot and Madison. And Bill Gates, for failure to adopt an alter ego before running an ad campaign protesting the government’s treatment of Microsoft, would be silenced. How many others over the last 200 years would be found guilty of free speech under BCRA?

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat, said of the BCRA: “This legislation…will whet people’s appetite for more.” It is only the congressional appetite that has been “whetted” for more infringements of the freedom of speech and association. The record is clear that more legislation is forthcoming.

Justice Thomas expressed such concerns: “What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is ‘too influential,’ and that the ‘appearance of corruption’ is significant when media organizations endorse candidates or run ‘slanted’ or ‘biased’ news stories in favor of candidates or parties?…The press now operates at the whim of Congress.”

Stupak’s seat is up for election this year. Stabenow’s is up in 2006 and Levin’s in 2008. All voted yes to these sanctions of free speech and association. How will you vote when the day comes for you to speak?

[WhiteyAppleseed]

The part about Justice Thomas and Section 201 is a bit confusing. Media must keep records of people who buy ads, as do the people who run ads. Section 201, I believe, does not regulate media companies. The point I was trying to make had to do with the Orwellian-criterion as far as identity.

One, you can't refer to a candidate by name under certain circumstances, candidates are to remain anonymous, and Mr. Kerry is greatly confused by this--he doesn't know who the yuck he is.
Two, those with an established identity must assume a false identity, create a dummy, watering down their message.
Three, anonymouse speech is no more. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton published anonymously in New York newspapers during the fierce debates of the day.

[Liz]

CFR already negatively affects conservatives.

The point of this exercise is to stop Soros, moveon.org. and lawless liberals

Conservatives are smarter. They'll know what to do next.