Posted on 02/03/2005 6:57:52 AM PST by KidGlock
Feingold, McCain move to limit attack ad funds
'527' donations would be curtailed
By CRAIG GILBERT
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Feb. 2, 2005
Washington - The independent groups that produced some of the most attention-getting ads of the 2004 presidential campaign would be sharply curtailed under a bill offered Wednesday by Senate Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Senate Republican John McCain of Arizona and others.
Advertisement
Their aim is to prohibit the kind of multimillion-dollar donations that poured in last year from rich individuals on both the right and left.
"We're not going to wait for a problem to grow into a disaster," Feingold said Wednesday of a bipartisan effort to cap such contributions in future races.
The proposal would force the groups known as "527s" (for a provision in the tax code) to live under the sort of hard contribution limits that apply to parties, candidates and other political committees; no individual could give more than $25,000.
In 2004, 527s raised and spent more than $400 million on federal races, most of it for the presidential contest. They also aired some of the most attention-getting ads of the campaign, including the attack on John Kerry's Vietnam record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and a pro-Bush ad featuring a young Ohio girl, Ashley Faulkner, who embraced the president after her mother was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The conservative group that produced that last ad, Progress for America Voter Fund, spent about $28 million, including nearly $6 million in Wisconsin, the organization's top target.
The swift boat group spent nearly $20 million on TV ads, although its first anti-Kerry ad, which temporarily dominated the campaign debate in August, ran only in Wisconsin and two other states, at a cost of merely $500,000.
But conservative groups actually were outspent by liberal 527s, among them such organizations as America Coming Together and Moveon.org.
Groups allied with the Democrats spent about three times as much as those allied with the Republicans, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.
Some 527s raised significant funds from smaller givers and spent their money on both TV ads and voter turnout efforts. But on both sides, a large chunk of the funds came from a handful of super-donors. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, two supporters on the liberal side gave more than $20 million each - George Soros and Peter Lewis - and another two gave more than $13 million. Four conservative donors anted up more at least $5 million apiece.
Critics of the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold law blame that measure, saying that by shutting off big soft money gifts to the parties it channeled large donors toward outside groups.
Feingold and McCain have long argued that unlimited contributions to 527s are illegal under their legislation and older statutes and blame the Federal Election Commission for failing to enforce the law.
But Larry Gold, an attorney who argued against the McCain-Feingold bill, disputed the notion that 527s were made illegal by that law.
"They just want to cut off all independent political activity," said Gold, who represents the AFL-CIO and some 527s but said he was not speaking for them.
"For these folks, anything that anybody can do is a loophole and it has to be crushed and stopped," Gold said of the reform advocates.
'Sewer money' In their latest effort to curb 527s, Feingold and McCain have gained an important Capitol Hill ally in Senate Republican Trent Lott of Mississippi, who opposed the McCain-Feingold law but assailed 527s Wednesday as an unaccountable force operating outside the rules that restrict parties and candidates in their fund raising.
Lott, who plans to hold hearings next month in the Rules Committee on the bill, called 527 spending a potential "calamity" in American politics and "sewer money."
Supporters of the bill claim they have significant bipartisan support in both houses, although it's unclear whether the measure will advance this year or not.
The proposal could run into trouble if enough lawmakers in one party believe that preserving unlimited individual donations would give their side a financial advantage.
But McCain said Wednesday that most lawmakers share a fear of 527s because it means a billionaire donor can "dive-bomb" into their re-election races and spend huge amounts to unseat them.
Senate Democrat Charles Schumer of New York said "each party has had a sour experience" with 527s.
Schumer noted that early in the presidential race, liberal 527s spent heavily to attack Bush at a time when Kerry had little money.
And later in the race, Kerry came under attack from the swift boat veterans and Progress for America.
Regulating 527s President Bush said during the campaign that he thought 527s should be regulated.
His top adviser, Karl Rove, told reporters after the election that he thought the big donations to 527s were either illegal or inappropriate under the McCain-Feingold law.
"They all had an impact," he said of the groups. "Would our system have been better off if the 527s had not been players? I think so. I'm a fervent believer in strong parties. And things have weakened the parties and placed the outcomes of elections in the hands of billionaires who can write checks."
Brian McCabe, a spokesman for the Progress for America Voter Fund, said in an interview last week that "we've said all along we had agreed with the president that 527s should go away."
But McCabe said if no action is taken, his group would continue to operate as a 527 because "we can't unilaterally disarm and let liberal 527s spend hundreds of millions of dollars unopposed."
What was especially predictable is that they waited until after the election.
If McCain had to vote on the First Amendment, I think it is fair to say, he would oppose it.
I.e., too much freedom, undermining the insiders control.
Frigging McCain has really turned into a RINO, and what a shame it is. I used to really agree with his positions, but ever since he jumped into the national arena by wanting to be President he has been terrible.
Oh, great. Just what we need, these two cluster...bombs trying to "fix" the disaster they created!
I have to wonder where the RATs got all their money from. Soros didn't spend all that much of his own. Sure looks like they were diverting OTHER peoples money from the rightful interests of Shareholders and so on.
So their brilliant campaign finance "reform" was not so brilliant after all...
There is only ONE constitutionally correct law- TOTAL DISCLOSURE:
Any US Citizen can give any amount to any candidate but the CANDIDATE is responsible for disclosing it publicly and fully.
As if the Dims are going to admit that it is actually THEY who are the party of the rich.
Congress shall pass no law ... abridging freedom of speech or of the press...
These illiterate bastards in Congress need to go back to English classes, and then take American History again.
Ooops, freedom of speech found a way of slipping past your unconstitutional law. Better fix it pronto.
No illiteracy about it. They know EXACTLY what they are doing.
Oh that pesky First Amendment -- these two hacks must think the Bill of Rights is "outdated"
To a Senator, it's always someone else's fault.
It reminds me how some Senators (like George Allen) chewed-out the military brass last week because Congress had increased the G.I. death benefit from $6000 to only $12,000.
Maybe this time Bush won't "assume" that the Supremes will strike it down and veto it right off the bat. This is getting nuts. Soon, we'll just have to trust that what candidates are telling us is the truth. (Trust? Candidates? What's wrong with that picture?)
Our Trent Lott is on board this time.
Calls it "sewer money."
Well, on the democrats' side it's sewer money.
That's exactly what this is.
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.