FEC Will Finds 527s 'Legal' (BARF ALERT!)

Newsmax ^ | 4/12/04

[Bob J]

The Pubbies need to stop fighting the 527's and start helping those that support Bush's reelection, and Republican and/or limited government causes.

I disagree. I do not believe we can win that battle with the left in this election season. The pubs need to make sure that any 527 whose activities fall under Federal electioneering definitions are abiding by donation limits and reporting laws. The left is flaunting them because they are not looking past the '04 election. They will abuse them until they are forced to stop, and by then it may be too late.

[Bob J]

But short of that - of specifically saying "vote for x" or "vote against x" - they can say whatever they want about candidates.

They can say anything they want, the question is whether their activities and expenditures fall under the soft money or hard money rules.

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

With any luck one of these 527s will air a BUSH=HITLER ad or something else equally insipid, and we'll have killed two birds with one stone: 527s and Kerry. Just imagine if they aired a "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" ad right after yet another record price for gas.

I know if I were running a political campaign, I'd be nervous as hell about people running ads 'for' me but not having any sort of oversight by my staff to prevent any major faux pas. Eventually there will be some limosine liberal or right-wing whackjob that is going to air an ad so ridiculous it costs his party the election.

[Gen. Longstreet]

But short of that - of specifically saying "vote for x" or "vote against x" - they can say whatever they want about candidates.

They can say anything they want, the question is whether their activities and expenditures fall under the soft money or hard money rules.

And what determines whether they fall under the hard or soft money rules is what they say. If they don't say "vote for," they have, for the past 30 years, been able to spend soft money.

I refer you to the FEC opinion published Feb 29, 2004 regarding specific questions regarding 527 activities from Americans for a Better Country here.

This opinion obviously is not controlling, or there wouldn't be this whole question. Americans for a better country was a political committee already subject to hard money rules. The groups now under consideration are not.

[El Gato]

Fourteen of the eighteen 527 groups listed are Democratic, labor or environmental groups which support the Democratic candidate. The Pubbies need to stop fighting the 527's and start helping those that support Bush's reelection, and Republican and/or limited government causes.

The whole thing would not be a problem if the oath breaking Supreme Court, Congress and the President, would have stood up for the rule of law which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". But they didn't, and now we have this can of worms.

The whole affair was clearly orhcestrated by the left leaning groups, including most of the press, and they were prepared to exploit the "loopholes" in the law. Funny how these same groups complain that law abiding gun owners and manufacturers are "exploiting the loopholes" in the "Assault Weapons Ban", by strictly obeying it's provisions.

[george wythe]

This is so predictable.

The moment a new campaign law takes effect, lawyers will find a loop hole.

Our laws become more byzantine, while lawlessness becomes more prevalent.

If we just eliminated 99% of our current laws, then our country will become a nation of law again.

[mabelkitty]

Agreed.

[samtheman]

CFRFR.

Campaign Finance Reform For Republicans.

[FlipWilson]

There already are Republican 527's, but they have been holding their fire. The Bush campaign would look silly complaining about Dem 527's when their own were out there running adds.

[Fledermaus]

As usual with pinhead lawmakers, this "loophole" was brought up WAY before McShame-Feincrap was passed and signed into law.

And as usual, they said it wouldn't happen.