MoveOn Balks at Proposed FEC Rules Changes by Scaring Nonprofits (FEC Email Needs FReeping! NOW!)

Talon News ^ | April 2, 2004 | Jimmy Moore

[ElephantMan]

SPARTANBURG, SC (Talon News) -- Liberal anti-Bush online political activist group MoveOn.org sent a warning message to its members this week regarding the upcoming ruling by the Federal Election Commission about the legality of so-called 527 groups accepting soft campaign contributions to run political ads.

"The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission to issue new rules that would cripple groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress," MoveOn.org charged in an e-mail to supporters.

In the e-mail, MoveOn.org attempts to scare "conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation, [and] issue-oriented" groups into believing the rule changes will be detrimental to their cause by alleging that the ruling will prevent them from speaking out on issues.

However, the Republican National Committee, along with President George W. Bush's reelection campaign, has filed a complaint with the FEC over the connection of specific 527 groups like MoveOn.org and the campaign of likely Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry.

Jill Holtzman Vogel, chief counsel for the RNC, said evidence of coordination between MoveOn.org and other Democratic-supporting 527 groups and the Kerry campaign in violation of the new campaign finance law could not be clearer.

"Senator Kerry, who supported the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, is now the beneficiary of the single largest conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws in history," she explained in issuing the complaint to the FEC.

In fact, the Massachusetts senator explained when he voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that he supported it because he wanted "to eliminate altogether the capacity of soft money to play the role that it does in our politics."

Yet, MoveOn.org is now operating illegally as an extension of the Kerry campaign because they accept soft money from corporations and unions, which represents an evasion of the ban on large, unregulated contributions in the new campaign finance law, critics argue.

For example, MoveOn.org has been giving Kerry plenty of free campaign ads by running a relentless schedule of political attack ads against Bush for months using donations from liberal billionaires such as George Soros and others.

Nevertheless, MoveOn.org tells its supporters that any action conducted by the FEC regarding donations to various MoveOn.org fundraising efforts will not be traced back to the specific donors.

Blaming unnamed "operatives" in the nation's capitol for "displaying a terrifying disregard for the values of free speech and openness which underlie our democracy," MoveOn.org states the FEC complaint by the RNC and the Bush campaign is a blatant attempt to squelch attacks against Bush.

"Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush," the e-mail continued.

MoveOn.org is encouraging its members to send the FEC public comments along with the sender's full name, e-mail address, and mailing address to Acting Assistant General Counsel Mai T. Dinh by April 9 at politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov.

In fact, MoveOn.org has requested to see a copy of the messages sent to the FEC.

"We'd love to see a copy of your public comment," MoveOn.org explains, although the group did not indicate whether it wants to receive comments that would support the new rules changes.

Nevertheless, the leftist political group writes, "Please e-mail us a copy [of your comments to the FEC] at FECcomment@moveon.org."

The e-mail lists the names and telephone numbers of the e-mail recipient's two U.S. senators as well as the recipient's U.S. congressman.

Charging the Bush administration with orchestrating an "unholy alliance" with the FEC, MoveOn.org announced the formation of the FEC Working Group to identify "examples of specific consequence for nonprofit groups."

"It's outrageous," MoveOn.org opines.

Nonprofit groups, MoveOn.org warns, who advocate positions for or against congressmen or the president's positions on the issues would be deemed as political groups and be subjected to the laws imposed on them.

"Such changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend funds in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that organizations would be forced to back away from meaningful conversations about public policies that affect millions of Americans," MoveOn.org states.

Groups that would be affected, MoveOn.org adds, include 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, 501(c)(3) charitable groups, labor unions, trade associations, environmental groups, 501 (c)(6) groups, and 527 political action committee groups, such as MoveOn.org.

Also included in the list of affected organizations, according to MoveOn.org, are religious groups that pass out voting record pamphlets, voter registration groups, pro-life groups spreading communication about a lawmaker's position on abortion and civil rights groups.

A public hearing by the FEC is scheduled to take place on April 14-15. A final decision on the rules changes will be made by mid-May and would go into effect by July.

MoveOn.org states the changes could be made retroactive to January 2003.

"It's clear that these rules would immediately silence thousands of groups, of all types, who have raised questions and criticisms of any kind about the Bush Administration, its record and its policies," MoveOn.org concludes, alleging this is nothing more than an election year ploy by the Bush campaign to silence his critics.

If the new rules changes are allowed to go into effect, groups like MoveOn.org will no longer be allowed to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official.

Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved

[CyberAnt]

"have it repealed"

Maybe that was the plan! LOL!

[Peach]

That's how the leftist's respond when they can't respond. ROFLMAO

[muawiyah]

There is something we can do ~ break the law.

Clearly the law is unjust. Obviously it is unenforceable or www.moveon.org would not have gotten away with what it did so far.

Unenforceable and unjust laws must not be respected by honest people.

[Samurai_Jack]

Sent to FEC, I wouldnt give the moveon hags the time of day.

[Valin]

The campaign finance law is joke and I am still sick over the fact the supreme court didn't overturn it. Actually, It should have never had to make it there.

I have a feeling (based on absolutely nothing) that what happened was Congress and the President got "cute" and thought I'll go along with this and the USSC will bail us out. Well the court(or some on the court) got tired of this kind of crap being laid at their doorstep for them to fix, so they ok'ed the law and on the ball is back in congress's side of the field.
Fortunately there is a little something called
First Amendment Restoration Act
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=5269186

First Amendment Restoration Act
Bill # H.R.3801

Original Sponsor:
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th)

Cosponsor Total: 52
(last sponsor added 03/30/2004)
2 Democrats
50 Republicans
(snip)
On February 11, 2004, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, along with
several other members of The Liberty Caucus, introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act" (H.R. 3801). This legislation would restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing sections of the McCain-Feingold law that forbid issue-advocacy groups, such as The Liberty Committee, Gun Owners of America, American Conservative Union, Concerned Women of America and the National Rifle Association, to inform their members about important issues and votes relative to incumbent candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.

So during that 30-60 day period when the U.S. Congress takes a vote on abortion, immigration, gun control, United Nations, taxes, treaties, etc., we won't be able to tell you about it without committing a federal crime and risking jail time! Even a simple
E-mail alert will violate the law!

McCain-Feingold, passed by Congress, signed by President Bush, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, muzzles the average American who doesn't have a high-priced lobbyist to represent his views in our nation's capital. Under the guise of "cleaning up our political process," incumbent politicians increase their job security by making it illegal for average Americans to participate.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Another proposition which could explain at least some of the results of today’s opinion is that the First Amendment right to spend money for speech does not include the right to combine with others in spending money for speech. Such a proposition fits uncomfortably with the concluding words of our Declaration of Independence: “And for the support of this Declaration, . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”(Emphasis added.) The freedom to associate with others for the dissemination of ideas--not just by singing or speaking in unison, but by pooling financial resources for expressive purposes--is part of the freedom of speech.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia on BCFR.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Not only did someone get "cute" but as the law was written, Congress banned any money, hard and soft, in the context of this thread, but the Court made a statutory change and read any to mean "soft" money, trying to read into the word "any" money the kind of money that Congress was trying to limit with the rest of BCFR.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Kennedy:

The majority.s upholding §323(d) is all the more unsettling because of the way it ignores the Act as Congress wrote it. Congress said national parties "shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct any donations to" §501(c) nonprofit organizations that engage in federal election activity or to §527 political committees. The Court, however, reads out the word "any" and construes the words "funds" and "donations" to mean "soft money funds" and "soft money donations". See ante, at 72 ("This construc- tion is consistent with the concerns animating Title I, whose purpose is to plug the soft-money loophole"). The Court's statutory amendment may be consistent with its anti-soft-money rationale; it is not, however, consistent with the plain and unavoidable statutory text Congress has given us. Even as construed by the Court, moreover, it is invalid.

The majority strains to save the provision from what must seem to it an unduly harsh First Amendment. It does so by making a legislative determination Congress chose not to make: to prefer hard money to soft money within the construct of national party relationships with nonprofit groups. Congress gave no indication of a prefer- ence to regulate either hard money or soft in this context. Rather, it simply proscribed all transfers of money between the two organizations and all efforts by the national parties to raise any money on the nonprofit groups' behalf. The question the Court faces is not which part of a text to

Cite as: 540 U. S. ____ (2003) 23 Opinion of KENNEDY, J.

sever and strike, but whether Congress can prohibit such transfers altogether. The answer, as the majority recognizes, is no. See ante, at 71 ("[P]rohibiting parties from donating funds already raised in compliance with FECA does little to further Congress' goal of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of federal candidates and officeholders"). Though §323(f) in effect imposes limits on candidate contributions, it does not address federal candidate and officeholder contributions. Yet it is the possibility of federal officeholder quid pro quo corruption potential that animates Buckley's rule as it relates to Acts of Congress (as opposed to Acts of state legislatures). See 424 U. S., at 13 ("The constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established"). When one recognizes that §§323(a), (b), (d), and (f) do not serve the interest the anticorruption rationale contemplates, Title I's entirety begins to look very much like an incumbency protection plan. See J. Miller, Monopoly Politics 84.101 (1999) (concluding that regulations limiting election fundraising and spending constrain challengers more than incumbents). That impression is worsened by the fact that Congress exempted its officeholders from the more stringent prohibitions imposed on party officials. Compare new FECA §323(a) with new FECA §323(e). Section 323(a) raises an inflexible bar against soft money solicitation, in any way, by parties or party officials. Section 323(e), in contrast, enacts exceptions to the rule for federal officeholders (the very centerpiece of possible corruption), and allows them to solicit soft money for various uses and organizations.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Congress made clear with their passage of BCFR that it is only a first step, that they would be revisiting the issue to take a bigger bite out of the 1st Amendment.

FreeRepublic is currently trying to gather funds from freepers and lurkers to continue doing what we are doing, pooling our resources, our fortunes, to gather together and debate, to associate and to share ideas. What will happen when those who are arguing for a strict enforcement of the unconstitutional BCFR begin to feel the pinch from new restrictions already forecast by Congress?

[WhiteyAppleseed]

What part of BCFR makes it illegal for the NRA to inform me about issues 60 days before an election? You say that even an e-mail alert would violate a section of BCFR? I realize there is enough about the BCFR that if I hear correctly, even some in Congress had to have it explained to them. I'm in need of some explanation. Thank you.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Would it be Section 203--banned: "communications that be received by 50,000 or more persons in the candidate's district."

The operative word being communications? Truly Orwellian.

[samtheman]

CFR is the short version of the name. The full name is CFRFR.

Campaign Finance Reform For Republicans.

(Democrats get to keep on truckin' the old fashioned way!)

[Liz]

ACTION PING

Email the FEC:

politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov

Let the FEC know that you are opposed to MoveOn.org's blatant support of the John Kerry campaign and urge them to implement the rule changes they are considering and no longer allow MoveOn.org to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official--and to make the change retroactive to January 1, 2004.

[Liz]

ACTION PING

Email the FEC:

politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov

Let the FEC know that you are opposed to MoveOn.org's blatant support of the John Kerry campaign and urge them to implement the rule changes they are considering and no longer allow MoveOn.org to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official--and to make the change retroactive to January 1, 2004.

[Valin]

I think you must assume I approve of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I DON"T! Fro more no this see keyword "CFRDAILYTHREAD". The only way we are going to get rid of this abortion of a law is if you, I, along with others get on the stick and make our representatives/senatore know we are not happy campers. Remember this is an election year and the boys and girls from DC are going to be coming around and wanting our suppport, let them know how you feel.
Also
If You Think Campaign Finance "Reform" Offends the First Amendment, Join This Effort
http://www.armorforcongress.com/index.php?submit=cfrad
(This is Congressman Billybob)

[Thebaddog]

I think that we should be following the old Clinton playbook here and run our own issue/attack ads while we are taking out the liberal groups doing the same. The first rule is that there are no rules in the Clinton play book.

[doug from upland]

NRA and Right to Life are clearly different than Moveon. Moveon is a direct arm of the RAT party. NRA and RTL have spoken against politicians from both parties on their issue.

[MeekOneGOP]

Excellent ! Thanks.

Great letter on #6 there ElephantMan ! I sent them mine and copied MoveOn.org Moron.org too !

[Gen. Longstreet]

BCRA only bans broadcast ads within 60 days of an election. So an email from the NRA would still be OK.

BUT... If the FEC adopts the rule that so many on this list seem enthusiastic about - apparently under the mistaken belief that it is possible to adopt a rule that only affects MoveOn and Soros - then the NRA and, indeed, probably Free Republic would become "political committees" and be unable to communicate with members by email if they a) take even a nickle in corporate contributions, including Sub-S sole proprietorships; 2) are incorporated themselves, as most non-profits are; or 3) take any individual contributions in excess of $5000.

[Gen. Longstreet]

NRA and Right to Life are clearly different than Moveon. Moveon is a direct arm of the RAT party. NRA and RTL have spoken against politicians from both parties on their issue.

Doesn't matter my friend. Legally they have the same status. You can't have a law that only gets Democrats. It just doesn't work that way. The rules that the FEC is proposing will decimate conservative groups. The RNC doesn't care for precisely the reason you cite above - they don't control Right to Life and NRA and Club for Growth in the same way the MoveOn marches lock step with the official Democratic Party, so they couldn't give a damn if those groups are silenced, too. Besides, the RNC is totally controlled now by the White House, which doesn't really care what happens after November, 2004. So the RNC is all hyped about this and eager to sanction this infringement of our rights. But conservatives shouldn't be.

[Liz]

ACTION PING

Email the FEC:

politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov

SAMPLE COMMENTS

Let the FEC know that you are opposed to MoveOn.org's blatant support of a candidate----the John Kerry campaign.

Urge them to implement the rule changes that they are now considering to no longer allow MoveOn.org to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official.

Request that the FEC make the change retroactive to January 1, 2004.

__________________________________________________________
NOTE: In trying to get this message distributed, you may have been pinged more than once. Sorry 'bout that.