Who wins and who loses under campaign finance bill

CNN.com ^ | March 20, 2002 | CNN Staff

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't want to get into an argument with you over this, it ain't worth it to me. I am trying to understand it (CFR), and I am a little baffled because what I am reading in the bill itself doesn't jive with what I've been reading in FR.

The term ‘electioneering communication does not include:

a communication appearing in a news story,commentary,or editorial dis tributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station,unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party,political committee,or candidate;or..."

Desn't that address the "freedom of the press" part of the 1st.?

I am still working my way through this bill looking for that section that stops me, as an individual, from buying issue ads 60 days before an election.

[ArneFufkin]

Luis, let us all enjoy these last moments posting to Free Republic, because when the President signs this bill, all free speech will be immediately prohibited.

I know that, because at least 5 thousand aggrieved posters to this forum have proclaimed that their entire right to free speech has been completely and brutally seized from them by this campaign reform legislation.

I anticipate, moreover, that they will be using this forum for the next several years, openly, loudly and without censorship, to bemoan and trumpet their complete loss of Free Speech in this new Gulag hell - formerly known as the United States of America. Mute "Real" Conservative Victim :"I have NO free speech anymore, I have said that again and again around here, and I intend to continue to openly pronounce my lack of free speech in America, I'll do it openly here on Free Republic, and nobody can take my right to speak this truth away from me. I can no longer say anything, and I'll say that without sanction just as long and often as I desire."

The third party folks aren't that much for digging in their own pockets to support a candidate or an issue they claim to revere. That's the job of organizations like the NRA, because you can pay $65 a year and let them do the work whereas in the new milieu you may have to contribute $100 or more to candidates who actively honor your 2nd Amendment priorities. The pure and principled may have to get off their bums and actually work exhaustively promoting candidates and and cultivating opinion to secure their oh-so-sacred principles. That's inconvienient and costly! Next thing ya know, they'll be asked to donate money to keep Free Republic solvent: the purists don't play that game - "What part of "Free" do you not understand? ...."

Look, these CFR laws are not going to take effect until the 2004 elections anyway, and by then we'll all be obliterated by the lethal Mexican horde. We'll be voting for politicians at mandatory bullfights, with punch cards just like we use now to select the MLB All Star team. Cagey, devilishly clever Mexicans! The dirty little secret is that most illegal immigrants are here to conduct unfettered embryonic stem cell research enabled by YOU GUESSED IT - George W. Bush. OK, that's another betrayal to add to the list.

At last count, Luis, I now intend to not vote for George W. Bush five times over. He better not run for President of the Hair Club for Men or anything after his tenure, he's not getting my vote.

Hopefully somebody, somewhere will do something to get a third party going somehow someway at sometime soon. Many "real" conservative patriots here on FR look forward to watching this development from a safe distance.

So much outrage in desperate search of insult around this joint.

[jwalsh07]

It's really nothing new though, unless you can show how somehow citizens or political organizations have somehow been silenced. We get all kinds of info from the media every day. We count on them to do that.

This one took my breath away. :-}

[razorback-bert]

I've been trying to find this in the actual bill. Can you point me to the section where that is detailed?

(b) DEFINITION OF EXPRESS ADVOCACY- Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(20) EXPRESS ADVOCACY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `express advocacy' means a communication that advocates the election or defeat of a candidate by--

`(i) containing a phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of candidate) for Congress', `(name of candidate) in 1997', `vote against', `defeat', `reject', or a campaign slogan or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates;

`(ii) referring to one or more clearly identified candidates in a paid advertisement that is transmitted through radio or television within 60 calendar days preceding the date of an election of the candidate and that appears in the State in which the election is occurring, except that with respect to a candidate for the office of Vice President or President, the time period is within 60 calendar days preceding the date of a general election; or

`(iii) expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as proximity to an election.

[eaglebeak]

I think I'm going to cry.

[eaglebeak]

Why?

[jwalsh07]

Desn't that address the "freedom of the press" part of the 1st.?

Sure it does and they should apply that exemption to everybody. We're all equal but now some are more equal than others.

Ask yourself this Luis. Is the corporation that runs the New York Times a 501(c) non profit? Of course not. So if I buy an ad to criticise Lieberman or Dodd within 60 days of an election by wiritng a company check, I go to jail. If the New York Times slimes conservatives every day of that 60 days, no problem because they are more equal than I am.

Of course some day they will target "hateful right wing media" and they will have to adjust the exemption but by then nobody will give a crap.

Peace bro.

[jwalsh07]

If you have to ask, I am wasting skin cells on the tips of my fingers.

[Miss Marple]

Arne, could I follow you around and hold your coat or something? I am laughing so hard the dog is looking at me strangely! Hahahahaha!

Howlin, read post #62!

[Miss Marple]

Reply # 62!!! Hahahahahahaha!!!

[eaglebeak]

With all due respect, jwalsh, I think you read something into my post that was not there.

[RAT Patrol]

When they were defined as a group of INDIVIDUALS exercising their right to freely assemble.

[jwalsh07]

Then I apologise for the sarcasm.

[NittanyLion]

We get all kinds of info from the media every day. We count on them to do that.

Yes of course. That Dan Rather provides great info, and he's so evenhanded in his analysis. I'm satisfied to just let his story get out, because I know there's no need to counter his rampant bias, right? He'll make 100 references to the "ultra-right GOP" every night, and people like myself won't be able to do a damn thing to get our side out.

Have you even thought about the implications of this?

[jwalsh07]

And PETITION their government.

[eaglebeak]

Did I say anything about which media? Did I say anything about analysis? I merely pointed out that we count on media to provide information. It's up to us to assess the quality of that information and to decide which media are most reliable in that respect. I agree with you that much of the media are now trash. But we have been dependent on it for information, well, as least as long as I've been alive.

[deport]

That makes a lot of sense and is true that once a bill is passed by the Congress and is enacted it is constitutional until the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional. I haven't went and looked up the SCOTUS decision in 1976 regarding Buckley v. Valeo but that will give a lot of weight I think to somethings contained in this bill assuming they follow precedent.

Nothing is changing until the 04 cycle anyway which will begin basically on Nov. 6, 02. I do like the upping of hard money limits.

[NittanyLion]

It's up to us to assess the quality of that information and to decide which media are most reliable in that respect. I agree with you that much of the media are now trash. But we have been dependent on it for information, well, as least as long as I've been alive.

What do you think media is, if not a collection of individuals who get together to provide news? Why can't other collections of individuals also get together and provide their viewpoint on events? What makes their views any less legitimate than CBS, NBC or FOX?

[jwalsh07]

Here, wrap your arms around this.

National Right to Life Committee National Rifle Association

National Right to Life Committee
National Rifle Association

March 19, 2002

Senator Mitch McConnell
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Rules and Administration
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

RE: Coordination Minefield in Section 214 of H.R. 2356

Dear Senator McConnell:

Under current law, no relationship of "coordination" exists unless there is an actual prior communication about a specific expenditure for a specific project which results in the expenditure being under the direction or control of a candidate, or which causes the expenditure to be made based upon information provided by the candidate about the candidate’s needs or plans.

However, Section 214 of the Shays-Meehan bill (H.R. 2356), in the form passed by the House on February 14, 2002, would obliterate that clear rule, and replace it with a new standard for "coordination" that would place incumbent lawmakers, advocacy groups, and unions at great legal risk for engaging in cooperative or parallel activities in support of common legislative goals – or even merely for transmitting information about an incumbent lawmaker’s position on public policy issues.

Section 214 of the bill explicitly nullifies the current Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations governing "coordination." The bill commands the FEC to develop new regulations that "shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination." [emphasis added] The bill goes on to dictate a number of issues that must be addressed in new regulations.

"Substantial Discussion" Trap

Section 214 requires new "coordination" regulations that must, among other things, address "payments for communications made by a person after substantial discussion about the communication with a candidate . . ." [emphasis added]

Many groups submit questionnaires to members of Congress and other "candidates," some of them covering many different specific issues. Other groups use standardized forms by which a candidate can "pledge" to endorse a certain legislative initiative -- for example, the balanced budget amendment, or the Equal Rights Amendment, or "a ban on soft money." These written inquiries are often accompanied by written or verbal communications intended to convey why the position(s) advocated by the group are good public policy, worthy of the support of a lawmaker or would-be lawmaker. But even completing the questionnaire or pledge alone could be sufficient to constitute "substantial communication," since the lawmaker presumably returns the document to the group with the clear understanding that the group intends to convey his or her position to members of the public.

If the group does so by means that cost money, the group may soon be the target of a complaint that it made an illegal campaign "contribution," due to the "coordination" that occurred between the lawmaker and the group. Moreover, as explained below, if the group’s spending constituted an illegal corporate "contribution," then the member of Congress has also "received" an illegal corporate contribution (and, no doubt, committed another violation by failing to report this "contribution"). Such a complaint may well do the incumbent lawmaker both legal harm and political harm, even though he did no more than convey his position(s) to a group of interested citizens.¹

Here is another example of "substantial discussion" that could lead to legal difficulties for a group (and for an incumbent lawmaker). Early in a congressional session, representatives of six groups met with Senator Doe to discuss what language they, and he, will use to collectively promote Doe’s landmark bill to ban widgets. The six groups then spend money to communicate with the public, including Senator Doe’s constituents, regarding the urgent need to enact the "Doe-Jones Widget Ban Act." The campaign manager for the senator’s challenger then files a complaint, alleging that the groups have a "coordinated" relationship with Doe, and therefore the expenditures promoting Doe’s bill are actually "contributions" to Doe’s campaign. The legal consequences for the groups could be grave, because "contributions" by incorporated groups and unions have long been illegal.

But the consequences for the incumbent lawmaker could be equally grave, because if the groups’ expenditures to promote his bill are deemed to be "contributions," then he also has violated three provisions of law: (1) he has received illegal "contributions" from corporations or unions; (2) he has received "contributions" in excess of the $2,000 limit; and (3) he has failed to report the "contributions" that he received from the groups.

"Common Vendors" Trap

The bill also commands that the FEC’s new regulations must address "payments for the use of a common vendor." This provision is a license for regulations under which both members of Congress and groups would be at constant risk of entering into a "coordination" relationship merely because they both purchase services from the same pollster, ad agency, or other "common vendor." Under such a regulation, a group can establish "coordination" with a member of Congress without the lawmaker being able to prevent it, or even knowing about it until after the fact. On the other hand, a member of Congress could unilaterally make it more difficult for numerous groups of their right to express themselves about his record, merely by making purchases from the leading vendor or vendors of certain services (e.g., mailing houses, pollsters) in a given area.

The bill also requires the new regulations to address communications made by "persons who previously served as an employee of a candidate or a political party." The bill contains no time limit on the "disability" that would result from such prior employment. The bill’s language would permit, for example, the FEC to write regulations under which involvement in a group’s public communications by someone who had worked for a political party years earlier would automatically "coordinate" all federal candidates of the same political party who is discussed in that group’s communications to the public.

Political Action Committees

Above, we have described ways in which a member of Congress could unwittingly and unknowingly become "coordinated" with an incorporated group or union, and thereby be charged with receiving illegal "contributions." There is an additional consequence once this has occurred: If the political action committee (PAC) connected to the "coordinated" corporation or union expends more than $5,000 on any activities in support of the lawmaker (or in opposition to his opponent) – even without any prior knowledge or involvement by the candidate – then those contributions also would also be regarded as illegal "contributions." This is because once the parent corporation or union is deemed to have become "coordinated" in any of the ways outlined above, its connected PAC also becomes "coordinated" and thus loses its legal right to make independent expenditures in excess of $5,000 to support or oppose any candidate – and the candidate is guilty of "receiving" an illegal contribution if the PAC makes such expenditures.

Consequently, a Member of Congress could easily become guilty of violating federal election law if he unknowingly becomes "coordinated" with a group, and the group’s PAC subsequently makes expenditures over $5,000 without the Member’s prior knowledge, much less consent.

In closing, we believe that the coordination provision (Section 214) in the Shays-Meehan bill infringe upon our First Amendment right to free speech and right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Therefore, we strongly oppose this provision.

 

Respectfully,

David N. O’Steen, Ph.D.                                 Charles H. Cunningham
Executive Director                                           Federal Affairs Director
National Right to Life Committee                      National Rifle Association

[NittanyLion]

I merely pointed out that we count on media to provide information. It's up to us to assess the quality of that information and to decide which media are most reliable in that respect.

To complete my thought, why should the information available for consumption be limited to that which the media is willing to put out there? Allow anyone who wants to participate to present their story, and the voters can pick and choose what they want to believe.