Posted on 09/16/2006 11:15:16 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
California leads the states in how much Section 527 issue-advocacy groups spend on state elections — $5.2 million, up more than 300 percent from the 2004 election cycle. The nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics says this is part of a national trend in which these tax-exempt groups, which can raise unlimited money, are shifting their focus from federal to state politics.
California Common Cause policy advocate Ned Wigglesworth said the explosion in state-level spending underscores that "527s are the 'billionaire boys clubs' of politics — they're created specifically to skirt campaign laws and give some of the richest people in the country a way to buy influence in American politics."
He's "not surprised at all" to see California lead the pack, he said. "We're the big kahuna, population-wise, and we've got the mother of all media markets. If there's a campaign finance loophole to be exploited, you can bet you're going to see it played out here."
Reform is desperately needed, Wigglesworth said.
"The distinction between issue ads and election ads today is virtually meaningless: 'Vote for Arnold' and 'Phil Angelides is a drunk' have the same effect and ought to be subject to the same laws," he said.
Named for the federal tax code section under which they're organized, 527s have no limits on what they canraise and spend. Though around for years, they came to the fore in 2004's presidential race as groups such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org helped shape the vote.
They report their finances to the Internal Revenue Service and sometimes — depending on whether they choose to explicitly name, endorse or oppose specific candidates — to the California Secretary of State's office.
Using data for January 2005 through June 2006, the CRP found identifiably state-focused 527s had raised 41 percent more than they reported raising at the same point in 2004's election cycle, from $75 million to $105 million. They spent 36 percent more than they had spent by the end of June 2004, from $63 million to $85 million.
In California, non-federal 527 fundraising stood at $5,067,176, 170 percent more than at the same time in 2004's cycle. And the Golden State's nonfederal 527 spending so far in this cycle has leaped by 315.4 percent over the same time in the 2004 cycle, to $5,239,528.
Wigglesworth said the Federal Elections Commission has "dropped the ball" when faced with chances to rein in 527 activity.
"It's less clear whether any reforms have been attempted at the state level, but they could be and they should be," he said, adding that because 527s exist at the intersection of federal tax law and state campaign-finance law, it's unclear what Proposition 89 — this November's clean-money public campaign finance measure — could and would do about them.
Many 527 donors argue they're just exercising First Amendment rights to voice opinions. Wigglesworth contends their money drowns out other voices: "As long as George Soros and Roland Arnall can spend so much of their money on getting someone elected, the rest of the country is deprived of the right of elected public servants that are going to represent them."
Soros, a New York City billionaire financier, gave more than $23 million to 527s opposing President Bush's 2004 re-election. Arnall, a Southern California billionaire who founded Ameriquest Capital Corp., gave $5 million to a 527 supporting the President's re-election and now is U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Political speech is the exact type of speech the First Amendment was created to protect, but the Left sees it as the only type of speech exempted.
You're probably right, but I'm sure it was only created to benefit RATS and RINOS!!
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.