Posted on 02/02/2007 12:05:34 PM PST by neverdem
The Federal Election Commission said yesterday that it will police "527" groups, political organizations that largely operated outside the new campaign finance limits during the 2004 presidential election, by looking at how the groups word their appeals for contributions, how they describe themselves, and how they spend their money.
If the groups make clear that they are advocating for or against a specific candidate, the FEC would regulate them.
"We're providing clear guidance," said FEC Chairman Robert D. Lenhard. "This makes it clear that the existing rules will be enforced."
The FEC filed the 44-page explanation of its approach in U.S. District Court yesterday in response to a lawsuit challenging the agency's effectiveness in regulating the independent groups.
Some of the groups, which are called 527s because of their designation in the tax code, raised and spent large sums of money to pay for nuanced political ads that appeared to be intended to skirt the new federal rules.
The objective of the lawsuit, filed in 2004, "was to get the FEC to issue regulations to make clear to 527 groups when they would be required to register and report as political committees" and, as a result, be limited to raising much smaller sums from individual donors, said Fred Wertheimer, an advocate of campaign finance reform who is working on the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Will they be investigating only conservative 527s, or all of them?
--hopefully,the Sandra Day O'Conner-free SCOTUS will take one of the pending First Amendment cases and put meaning back in the phrase "Congress shall make no law--"--making this a moot point.
The First Admendment has been flushed down the toilet.
Where do we file suits about agency's effectiveness in regulating illegal drugs, immigration, murders, etc.?
"It noted that recent fines imposed on 527 groups such as MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..."
In the case of political speech, that is absolultely correct. However, if you are a virtual child pornographer, the Supreme Court is your best friend.
Hillary will have half a billion dollars spent on her, the FEC may say that it is a problem, but they will do nothing to her. After her inauguration, she will dissolve the FEC so they can't interfere with 2012.
Move On. org received foreign contributions and aid in the form of free production of campaign ads against Bush.
Our elections have gone into an internationally funded effort and there is no turning back. Even the Chi-Coms gave money to the Democrats in 1996 and there was no punishment other than a slap on the wrist.
Yes. we know they are lying. Do you know how to tell? Their lips are moving.
Yes. The FEC's supposed ramped-up efforts are meaningful only to those who play by the rules. For all others, they're a non-factor. Why pay any heed whatsoever when there can be enormous advantage over more principled candidates and consequences, if any, occur well after the fact and are merely monetary?
Whatever fines the FEC manages to mete out 2 or 3 years after the election are cost of doing business to people like Hillary. Even then, as you say, Hillary wouldn't pay. Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool. Part deux.
For failure to declare over 721K in her 2000 campaign, the FEC finally fined her campaign 35K in Dec. 2005. They told her to file a fourth amended report. In Jan. 2006, she had filed on her behalf her fourth fraudulent report. The FEC has refused to do anything about it. Justice won't do anything about it. The Senate Ethics Committee refused to do anything about it. The MSM won't even report it.
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.