Bill would limit donations to '527' groups

Sac Bee ^ | 3/9/05 | Margaret Talev

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan plan to rein in spending by independent groups that exerted a profound influence on the 2004 presidential election - such as the liberal group MoveOn.org and the conservative Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - got a friendly hearing in the Senate on Tuesday.

Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, said he wants to move quickly to put limits in place by next year's midterm elections.

But critics warned that if Congress caps the amount of money individuals can give to so-called 527s, known for the section of the tax code that governs them, those groups and wealthy donors such as billionaire George Soros will find new ways to spend big money to target candidates they oppose. "We're a feisty people and our speech is unruly," Robert Bauer, a campaign finance expert who has advised the Democratic National Committee, told the panel. "If it's not done with 527 activity as we have seen, it will be done in other ways. ... There are other directions, to be sure, that people are actively considering as we speak."

The legislation would make $60,000 the maximum individuals could give to a 527 involved in federal elections each election cycle and would prohibit the groups from taking money from unions or corporations.

They would be required to register as political committees, and all 527s would have to make disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, not just the Internal Revenue Service.

The bill's co-authors are Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. It was their landmark measure three years ago, banning unlimited soft money donations to political parties, that many experts say triggered the surge in 527 groups as big-money donors sought ways around the soft-money limits.

[NormsRevenge]

According to the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, federal 527 groups drew $405 million in the last election cycle, up from $151 million in 2002. Two dozen donors were responsible for 56 percent of all individual contributions, the institute found. The Swift Boat Veterans, which sought to undermine Democrat John Kerry's record of service in the Vietnam War, generated much of the controversy because of the group's subject matter and some of its participants' ties to President Bush's campaign. But the institute found Democrat-oriented groups actually outraised ones aligned with Republican issues and candidates, by about 4-to-1.

[C210N]

Hillary should be in favor of such reform. She'll want to limit contributions to 527's to:

Only allow one contribution per 527, and

A contribution limited to $500 million or over.

[Egon]

Ah, here we go. The cure for the cure.

I wonder how far we're going to recurse into this set of laws.

[Drango]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[tx_eggman]

The legislation would make $60,000 the maximum individuals could give to a 527 involved in federal elections each election cycle and would prohibit the groups from taking money from unions or corporations.

This wouldn't impact a Swift Boats type group, most of their money came from smaller donations (with a few notable exceptions like Mr. Perry in Texas).

Moveon and the other Saros funded groups would die on the vine ... they had a number of fat cat liberal donors who injected millions each.

[Sunshine Sister]

Well imagine that! The same two scumbags that limited our free political speech in the first place are trying to limit it some more.

When is the senate as a whole going to sit these two bozos down and explain the first amendment to the Constitution to them? It's high damned time!

[KarlInOhio]

The word "no" falls outside the eminations of the penumbra of the Constitution, therefore the Supreme Court doesn't recognize it.

[dead]

The 527's took the campaign strategy out of the hands of the poohbahs and consultants of the political parties.

That's a good thing. Messy and more enlightening. Plus, we're 1-0 in the new arena.

[untenured]

I wonder how far we're going to recurse into this set of laws.

Until incumbents are completely invulnerable to defeat.

[taxesareforever]

Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, said he wants to move quickly to put limits in place by next year's midterm elections.

Once again the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot. No, I believe the shot is aimed much higher. It is unbelievable that they are supporting legislation which limits free speech. They just may be limiting how many of their party get elected or reelected.

[Howlin]

Trent Lott is a complete A$$.

[Drango]

Congress shall make no a few, some or only the ones they agree with, laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

[CaptRon]

It was their landmark ill-conceived measure

[CaptRon]

Trent Lott is a complete A$$.

You're giving him too much credit!

[CyberAnt]

How can she be in favor of this ..??

All the Soros 527's are going to support her run for president.

And .. Hillary will be more dependent on them than ever due to her lack of control over the DNC. Dean hates her, and he supports Kerry/Kennedy - I cannot see him helping Hillary in anyway.

[caisson71]

We continue to make stupid laws to fix stupid laws until we're all so confused that a "judge" somewhere will decide the intent of the law - as he sees it. I can see where this really helps restore confidence in our legislative and judicial systems and proper regard and respect for the aforementioned. I believe we can predict further disregard for our legislative and legal processes and the continued promotion of lawlessness.

[Howlin]

Okay. Half. :-)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The fundamental fact about politics is that

Journalism is politics.

That was true when Hamilton and Jefferson were sponsoring newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles, and it is true today. Of course, journalism today has "codes of ethics" which purport to prevent tendentiousness in reporting - but story selection is prior to any attempt to vet the "bias" in any given report. The rules of journalism - such as, "If it bleeds, it leads" - promote the selection of stories which do in fact promote the impression that the our system, and people who work to a bottom line and whose efficiency and effectiveness make the system work, are untrustworthy.

IOW, journalism inherently promotes leftist issues. Any effort which would effectively control money in politics would have to reach money spent printing newspapers. The entire project is unconstitutional. But then, so is government-licensed broadcast journalism . . .

[Nick Danger]

527's

I'm waiting for the 528's to come out.