Free Republic

An Associated Press story is here: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FEC_RESIGNATION?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm Other good comment is here http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/001647.html and here: http://skepticseye.com/2005/06/more-on-smith-resignation/

So what are you trying to do now Smith?

Don't blame the messenger. The article makes pretty clear that Smith isn't eager to do this, but he's under court order. I read it as a cry for help to the public to get energized.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I wonder what the FEC thinks this means?

I think this means the FEC thinks (correctly) it is under court order to ignore the Constitution and to write the regs how McCain/Feingold have demanded.

I don't know about Rove, but I know that the Bush legal team sucked and hurt the campaign. First, they thought that McCain-Feingold would be overturned by the Supreme Court, so that the parties would still be able to raise and spend soft money and they wouldn't need GOP leaning 527s. The Democrats, though, set theirs up and started raising money. Then the Supreme Court upheld CFR, and the Republicans were way behind the 8 ball. Rather than try to catch up immediately, though, they launched a legal challenge claiming all 527s were illegal, even though the Supreme Court has specifically said that they were OK under McCain-Feingold. Not only didn't they didn't have a sound legal case, but they then ignored the fact that the Federal Election Commission, led by its two most conservative Republican members, Bradley Smith and David Mason, made clear as early as February that the the FEC believed that the law did not prohibit 527s. Still, the Republican lawyers kept scaring away GOP donors by claiming giving to 527s could get them sent to jail, while the Democrats kept racking up a dollar advantage. When the Republican lawyers finally gave up their legal challenges, the party was way behind the Democrat 527s, and never did catch up.

Then Bush-Cheney's chief lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, decides to sign on as lawyer for the most effective Republican-leaning 527, the Swift Boat Vets. What a stupid thing to do, allowing the Democrats to charge illegal collusion between the Swift Vets and the campaign, and giving the media a hook to discredit the Swift Vets. Ginsberg's been around Washington, and should have seen that coming.

The Republicans need to fire some lawyers.

So long as Democrats have so little understanding of why they are losing, they will continue to lose. Sid Vicious's little caracatures show just how out of touch many prominent Democrats are.

I realize it's a bit late, but for what it's worth, the FEC *did* rule on 527s, in August, holding basically that 527s were still governed by the same rules under which they have always been governed, pre-McCain-Feingold, but changing some of the ways in which federal PACS (all federal PACs - for example, Americans Coming Together - are 527s, but not all 527s - for example, Swift Boat Vets, Media Fund- are federal PACs, and some groups -MoveOn - have both a federal PAC and a 527) operate, with those changes effective after the election.

My gosh but you are generous to Bush!

There is no plan here at all. It is all tactics of the moment.

What are you saying? That the FEC should more vigorously enforce unconstitutional laws?

This article makes it sound like only left wing groups oppose this FEC rule. But so do most conservative groups, including Right to Life, the Chamber of Commerce, Citizens United, United Seniors, Focus on Family, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, the Club for Growth, the NRA, and many others. Many of them also testified at the hearing. The FEC's Republican Chairman, Bradley Smith, argues that this rule would prohibit conservatives from criticizing John Kerry or Tom Daschle.

But short of that - of specifically saying "vote for x" or "vote against x" - they can say whatever they want about candidates.

They can say anything they want, the question is whether their activities and expenditures fall under the soft money or hard money rules.

And what determines whether they fall under the hard or soft money rules is what they say. If they don't say "vote for," they have, for the past 30 years, been able to spend soft money.

I refer you to the FEC opinion published Feb 29, 2004 regarding specific questions regarding 527 activities from Americans for a Better Country here.

This opinion obviously is not controlling, or there wouldn't be this whole question. Americans for a better country was a political committee already subject to hard money rules. The groups now under consideration are not.

The NRA is a C-3, but also have a C-4 and PAC under their umbrella. Don't know about a 527.

By definition, a PAC is always a 527. All PACs are 527s. Not all 527s are PACs, however.

527 rules are very clear, no candidate specific marketing. A 527 cannot put out anything that would urge a person to vote either for or against any one candidate.

And your authority for this is...? In fact, 527s have existed since the Federal Election Campaign Act was first passed in 1974, and they have never been regulated in the manner being proposed. True, they can't urge people to vote in a specific way. But short of that - of specifically saying "vote for x" or "vote against x" - they can say whatever they want about candidates. Nothing in McCain-Feingold changed regulation of 527s, except that they can't run ads that mention a candidate within 60 days of an election. If 527 rules were clear, why would the RNC be asking the FEC to write a new rule?

There are many Republican and conservative 527s: The Republican Main Street Coalition; The Republican National Lawyers Association; The Club for Growth; Citizens United; etc. etc. They will also be limited in their ability to criticize Kerry, Dashle, Kennedy et al. Be careful what you wish for.

The point is to reelect Bush. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps for you. Not for me. First, let me ask you this: if Bush announced that he had decided to support repeal of all his tax cuts plus an increase in the top bracket beyond that, appoint pro-choice judges to the bench, etc., would you still say that? Of course not. So the point is not only to reelect Bush - presumably we care about why we reelect Bush. I care about the First Amendment and our rights to free speech over the long term.

Second, one element in this discussion has been whether or not the GOP approach would work. I've laid out reasons why it is very unlikely to work. I don't think you've offered much in the way of a convincing response. So now you throw in the towel - well, let's just do it anyway, you say, because the purpose is to reelect Bush. Well, the purpose of massive welfare programs is to improve society. The question is do they work? Same question here, will it work? Should we abandon principle and long-term objectives for possible, but in no way certain, short term gain?

There is no guarantee that what is done with 527s will be a determining factor in Bush's reelection one way or the other. It's quite likely he'll win either way; it's certainly possible he'll lose either way. It's possible - in my view likely - that the GOP strategy on this issue is harming the campaign - they're discouraging conservatives from giving, while the liberals are going ahead. Meanwhile, the effort to shut down the 527s is firing up the most liberal Democrats - especially the Deaniacs and such, who might otherwise sit it out or vote Nader.

you'd best go over to DU and play. You'll be more welcome there.

Cheap, really cheap. That's the kind of thing people say when they're out of real arguments.

Yeah, the RNC (which is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bush-Cheney campaign) doesn't care what happens to other conservative groups. In fact, they'd like to shut them down too, and have the RNC and Bush-Cheney campaigns be the sole recipients of conservative dollars. May not be best for conservatives, for the Constitution, nor even for the party or even, perhaps, for Bush-Cheney, but it's best for the folks running the campaign and the party.

Alright. Let's hear your strategy. What do you suggest?

Quit whining, quite scaring conservative donors, quit having party officials discourage conservatives from giving to conservative groups other than the party and Bush-Cheney, get our groups going, and beat the Democrats.

CFR already negatively affects conservatives. The point of this exercise is to stop Soros, moveon.org. and lawless liberals. Conservatives are smarter. They'll know what to do next.

LOL! If this were so, we wouldn't have CFR, and we wouldn't be at this disadvantage. Why are the Dem groups up and running and ours aren't? Precisely because we're not smarter when it comes to CFR. GOP lawyers have been discouraging conservatives from giving, and GOP officials and officeholders have done the same. That's because the Bush people want to control everything. They don't want Republican MoveOn type organizations to exist. And that's why we're so far behind in this area.

It's nice to say that the point is to get Soros. (Nice, but unprincipled, but we'll leave that little point aside). Because the point is that it can't be done. These rules, if adopted, will clobber the Club for Growth, Citizens United, Grassfire, the Republican Lawyers Association, Americans for Tax Reform, and make things much tougher for the NRA, NRTL, etc. That's why all of these groups are opposing these rules. Did you know that, by the way? Did you know that Club for Growth, Right to Life, the NRA, and ATR oppose these rules? Does that make you think twice?

Finally, this isn't going to stop Soros in 2004 in any case. If the FEC adopts these rules in May - which is when they have a vote scheduled - the earliest they can take effect is late July or August, by which time Soros and Move On will have spent much of their cash. (By law new rules can't take effect for 30 legislative calendar days - so far this year there have been only about 30 legislative days.) Then the Democrats have already announced plans to sue if the rules are adopted, which will tie them up till the election. All this is just further proof that the Republican lawyers don't know what they're doing.

I would urge you to do some more thinking.

When you sent you letter, did it dawn on you that the FEC does not have the power to only get Democrat groups? This rule, if adopted, will also mean that no conservative group can criticize Kerry, or any other liberal candidate in the future. That's why groups such as the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform are opposed. This is poision.

Just so long as you understand, Liz, that this will not only affect MoveOn, but any conservative group that dares criticize Kerry, or any Democrat candidate in the future.

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.

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.