Posted on 08/11/2004 5:37:24 AM PDT by kattracks
WASHINGTON — Three campaign finance watchdog groups filed a complaint Tuesday accusing a group of Vietnam veterans of violating the campaign finance law by airing an ad that challenges Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's military record.Democracy 21, the Center for Responsive Politics and the Campaign Legal Center argue that the ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth violates a federal ban on the use of unlimited donations, often referred to as "soft money," to influence federal elections.
In the ad, the group accuses Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, of lying about his war record and betraying fellow veterans by later protesting the conflict. Veterans who served with Kerry on his swiftboat have said the group is lying, and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona has called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable."
The group bought $500,000 worth of airtime to run the ad in Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia.
In the complaint to the Federal Election Commission, the watchdog groups argued that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth should have used only limited contributions from individuals known as hard money on the ad and should disclose its donations and spending in reports to the FEC.
"We think this is open and shut, that the only purpose of this group is to influence the presidential election," said Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21.
Mike Russell, a spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said the ad is legal because it does not tell viewers which candidate they should vote for in the presidential race.
"The ads are not meant to influence the presidential election. The ads are meant to tell the truth about John Kerry's service record so people can make their own decisions," Russell said.
The veterans group said it has at least 5,000 new contributors and has raised more than $230,000 since the ad started running last week.
Thank you George Bush for CFR
Idiots. Every Liberal screech about the ad just increases public awareness of it.
Where are the complaints against MoveOn.org and related funds?
Pot? Kettle? BTTT
I wonder if any of these watchdog groups are funded by George Soros or Teresa Heinz?
Watchdogs? Watchdogs?
Lapdogs, you mean, of the left!
..but...but..I thought the courts would straighten that all out :(
Looks like it's gonna bite the good guys on the arse.
The founding fathers weren't talking about porn when they framed the First Amendment.
It was political speech they were talking about.
Not that these watchdog groups are funded by someone like Soros or Heinz-Kerry.
They just 'inadvertantly' sprang up out of the masses and decided to attack the Swifties' book as their first project.
Yeh, right.
Swiftvets will have 5001 new contributors as of today when I send my donation. If every Freeper sent $10 maybe they could run this ad longer and in more states and defend themselves against the proponents of free speech lockboxes for competing views.
Thank goodness we have these liberal groups to protect our right to free political speech. /sarcasm
Chairman Gillespie Letter to Fred Wertheimer, President & CEO of Democracy 21
November 17, 2003
Mr. Fred Wertheimer, President & CEO
Democracy 21
1825 I St, NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Wertheimer,
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday details of the Democrat party’s five-point plan to defeat President Bush. Point five was, “maneuver around the new campaign-finance law by redirecting now-banned big donations away from the Democratic Party to a new set of groups that will coordinate attacks on Mr. Bush.”
In August of 2002 you said, “To the extent the parties are planning a massive evasion scheme, they are planning massive illegal activity and they will be challenged.”
The Democrat plan to subvert campaign finance laws comes after weeks of reports that third-party special interest groups will spend between 360- to- 420 million dollars for the expressed purpose of defeating the President in 2004.
I know your organization and similar groups worked tirelessly to alter campaign finance laws. In March you said, “the soft money ban will have a profound impact on American politics and will dramatically alter the landscape in Washington.” Surely, the approach described in The Wall Street Journal is not the landscape you envisioned.
This would be a record amount by third-party groups spending non-federal dollars to defeat a candidate for federal office. These new groups have already inspired two of the largest donations in the history of American politics. George Soros announced his commitment of $15 million and Peter Lewis his commitment of $12 million. That means two men donating a combined $27 million in unregulated, undisclosed (unless by their own choosing) non-federal contributions for the sole purpose of defeating a candidate for federal office.
In response, you told the Washington Post, “I’m sorry Mr. Soros has decided to put so much money into a political effort to defeat a candidate.” For a group that has prided itself over the years as the conscience of America’s campaign finance system that doesn’t seem like much of a response, and certainly does not constitute a challenge.
According to Mr. Soros, he has donated $18 million to groups backing campaign finance reform, including yours. Now Mr. Soros is taking advantage of the changes advocated by such groups to make himself a major factor in the outcome of this Presidential election.
In January of 2002 you said, “Soft money contributions taint our political system and taint our political leaders. They create, at a minimum, the appearance of undue access and influence and conflict of interest.” It would be in keeping with that spirit for you to now disclose the amount Mr. Soros donated to your organization as you pushed members of Congress to enact policies that have made him so influential, and I respectfully urge you to do so.
Sincerely,
Ed Gillespie
See post # 13.
That's the irony, isn't it. They are giving the SwitVets vastly more exposure by making it a controvertial news item than if they never even mentioned it.
The Center for Responsive Politics
Major Funders
Support for the Center comes from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions. You can support the work of the Center directly by contributing through opensecrets.org.
Major Foundation Funders:
The Ford Foundation (currently under a three year grant of $1,000,000)
The Pew Charitable Trusts (currently under a two year grant of $550,000)
The Carnegie Corporation (currently under a three year grant of $450,000)
The Joyce Foundation (currently under a two-year grant of $350,000) The Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation (currently under a grant of $10,000)
IIRC Terayzah contributes to the Ford Foundation.
Superb!
Now Democracy 21 should put up or shut up and go after the Moveon.org ads. Actually, they should have a long time ago, if this letter from Gillespie is any indication.
If they don't, then they are a partisan group, like the ACLU and the NAACP.
Remember boys and girls, the First Amendment protects pornography, not political speech.
Yeah Ed...
That ought to take care of it.
Sheesh.
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.