[July 4th]

Are you saying posts 101,112, and 116 are wrong?

I'm not saying it's flat-out wrong, but a lawyer who said that it was right would be committing malpractice. Here is the problem.

527's were left out when it came to rule-making for quasi-corporate political groups. No one is quite sure what laws apply and how. Supposedly, and under the actual text of the law, the 60 day ban does not apply to 527's. But there were a lot of things that the Supreme Court read into the law the first time around, so if there is a legal dispute with the Swifties, who knows what they'll decide. The court has already decided it's in their power to rewrite parts of the law to make it work.

Here is the other problem. There just may be a new definition of "issue ads." 527's are free to run them, but the old rule may have changed in the court's eye. With the advent of the word "electioneering," and increasing reference to a famous 9th Circuit case known as Furgatch, a court could limit "issue ads" to exactly what the term states. Only an issue. No candidates, no names, etc.

As a lawyer, I would advise any 527 to seriously watch their step on this. But as a conservative Republican, I'd be more practical and say that you should run whatever the hell you want now, because the courts won't deal with you until after the election.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Thanks, nice response. I thought there might be more too it.

[dennisw]

527's were left out when it came to rule-making for quasi-corporate political groups. No one is quite sure what laws apply and how. Supposedly, and under the actual text of the law, the 60 day ban does not apply to 527's

60 day ban does apply to 527s. No corporate or union money can be spent on electronic communications in the 60 days prior to the November election. Individual donor money can be used 60 days prior, whether it's my money ($400) or Steven Bing's money ($10,000,000)