FEC Fines MoveOn.Org, Swift Boat Veterans

[BPSCG]

Link.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org Voter Fund, two outside groups that played key roles in the 2004 presidential election, reached an agreement with the Federal Election Commission to pay nearly $450,000 for various violations.

I still don't understand why the following isn't blatantly unconstitutional:

The FEC concluded that the three 527 organizations violated campaign finance laws because they expressly stated their desire to influence the presidential election in their fundraising, their public statements or their advertisements. Such activity, the FEC said, could only be conducted by political committee registered with the FEC that abide by contribution limits and public disclosure requirements.

"We welcome the FEC clamping down on pop-up 527s, set up just to influence elections and funded only by big money, since that would almost certainly put Swift Boat Veterans and similar groups out of business," said Wes Boyd, a co-founder of MoveOn.org.

Oh, I'm sure...

 

[a_unique_person]

The election was knife edge, so their 1% would have probably made all the difference. 450,000 is cheap. People go to jail for life for less.

 

[Ian Osborne]

The election was knife edge, so their 1% would have probably made all the difference. 450,000 is cheap. People go to jail for life for less.

My thoughts exactly. Punishing after the event is somewhat pointless here.

 

[Beerina]

That's not the point. The point is that a private organization is being legally punished for speaking political speech.

Is there some bizarre tax law they are trying to take advantage of (say, you can take donations tax free if you agree to these rules)? Although I would find it unsettling if people could not band together, pool their money, and speak political speech without the government attempting to tax the pool of money.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Link.

I still don't understand why the following isn't blatantly unconstitutional:

Oh, I'm sure...

I agree with BPSCG. *shivers* Seriously, doesn't this fall under freedom of assembly and seeking redress?

 

[Cleon]

I agree with BPSCG. *shivers* Seriously, doesn't this fall under freedom of assembly and seeking redress?

Yep. Campaign finance legislation, while theoretically designed to keep politicians "honest," has really just served to criminalize people for getting involved in the political process without proper "authorization."

 

[NoZed Avenger]

A-Frikken-Men

 

[BPSCG]

I agree with BPSCG. *shivers* Seriously, doesn't this fall under freedom of assembly and seeking redress?

What makes you shiver - the unconstitutionality of this whole thing (plus the fact that the Supreme Court says it's just fine), or the fact that you agree with me?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What makes you shiver - the unconstitutionality of this whole thing (plus the fact that the Supreme Court says it's just fine), or the fact that you agree with me?

Both.

 

[corplinx]

I opposed McCain-Feingold. Scotus says its fine. I still oppose McCain-Feingold. However in the meantime I would like to see the more blatant users of the 527 loophole get fined to make an example. I actually approve of this. We don't have free speech in this situation and everyone should have to play by the same rules. Maybe after some fines go out we can finally get some momemntum to throw this nonsense out.

 

[Upchurch]

That's not the point. The point is that a private organization is being legally punished for speaking political speech.

My very limited understanding of the situation is not that they are being punished for speaking political speech, but for speaking political speech in an organization that, by tax designations, was not entitled to the tax breaks/exemptions/whatever that they got if they were going to do that kind of campaigning.

But I could have that wrong.

 

[Beerina]

Now that's what I was getting at with my question.

Next question: Where is Congress authorized to set up restrictions on speech in exchange for tax breaks?

 

[drkitten]

Next question: Where is Congress authorized to set up restrictions on speech in exchange for tax breaks?

Sixteenth amendment.

 

[Skeptic]

McCain-Feingold is a classic case of good intentions gone wrong. The intention was to stop corruption; the result was in effect making it illegal to give money to a political cause.

I'm not surprised, however, that the MoveOn.com people see nothing morally wrong with making it illegal to give money to political parties, as long as it is people who they politically disagree with (you know, those awful "big money" corporations who tend to vote Republican) whose giving is criminalized.

 

[BPSCG]

McCain-Feingold is a classic case of good intentions gone wrong. The intention was to stop corruption; the result was in effect making it illegal to give money to a political cause.

Remember all those promises about how campaign finance reform was going to remove "the corrupting influence of money" on campaigns?

Fast-forward to the 2004 and 2006 elections, which set new records for money spent on campaigns.

You'll remove "the corrupting influence of money" on campaigns the minute TV, radio, newspaper, and magazine ads become free. Until then, someone has to pay for those ads. Could someone smarter than I am explain how you do that without money?

 

[varwoche]

Incidentally(?), Bob Perry, the primary financier of the swift sleaze boat veterans, surpassed Soros in 2006 as the country's largest political donor, again using sleazy tactics indeed.