Posted on 09/01/2004 10:23:18 AM PDT by neverdem
House Administration Chairman Bob Ney (R-Ohio) is planning to hold hearings on 527 groups in the next few weeks, with the goal of introducing bipartisan legislation soon that would rein in funding for the controversial and largely unregulated organizations.
Ney wants to start the hearings in two weeks and hopes to have a deal hammered out quickly. The Ohio Republican said he has heard from “top Democrats” who are also interested in pushing such legislation through Congress before it adjourns for the fall elections. He declined to name those lawmakers.
Ney hasn’t made any final decisions on what he would like to see in a new 527 proposal, but he suggested that limiting the size of donations that individual donors can give to the tax-exempt groups could play a role. Ney offered $5,000 as one possible limit. That’s the same level that PACs can give a federal candidate for primary or general elections. Currently, there are no limits on the size of contributions 527s can accept.
Ney sees the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which he opposed, as a failure since it did nothing to prevent the flow of huge, unregulated soft-money donations to outside groups, even as it prohibited the national parties from accepting such contributions. Ney believes that Congress must move quickly to impose new limits on 527s.
BCRA, he said, “failed. We need to do something to address this problem now.” Ney expects to win significant Democratic support for his initiative. “I predict we will have bipartisan legislation,” he said.
Ney’s 527 proposal, however, could prove difficult for many Democrats to support. Democratic-leaning groups such as America Coming Together, the Media Fund, MoveOn.org and the Joint Victory Campaign 2004 have far outraised their GOP counterparts, $132 million to $48 million, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. With these funds, the Democratic-leaning 527s have helped support Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) bid for the White House through large-scale TV ad blitzes that criticize President Bush. Because of this, Democratic lawmakers might be unwilling to close off a huge source of financial support for the party.
“There is no way that Democrats are going to agree to any cap [on 527 donations] right now, since they are helping us,” said a Democratic insider. “There’s no way it gets through the Senate, even if the House somehow passed it. I just don’t see that happening anytime soon, not with an election two months away.”
But Ney pointed to the fact that several wealthy individuals have given enormous sums to the 527s, giving these individuals undue influence on federal races since their funds can be used to attack candidates right up until Election Day.
For instance, three wealthy Democratic donors — George Soros, Stephen Bing and Peter Lewis — have given a combined $35 million to 527s, and a leading pro-Republican 527, the Progress for America Voter Fund, has received pledges of $5 million each from Alex Spanos, owner of the San Diego Chargers football team, and Dawn Arnall, a wealthy California Republican.
“Let’s put a limit on what millionaires and billionaires can give” to 527s, said Ney.
The Ohio Republican first took aim at the controversial groups late last year, when he asked the heads of several 527 groups to testify before his committee. Ney’s request prompted an outcry from the targeted organizations, but several of the groups eventually coughed up information about their operations.
Ney faces doubts over whether Congress has the authority to limit donations to 527s. Some campaign finance experts believe it does, although the FEC has refused to take such a step so far. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the principal authors of BCRA, have threatened to sue the agency over its unwillingness to assume control over 527s, which currently register with the Internal Revenue Service.
McCain has also vowed to push legislation that cracks down on 527s through the Senate, but has made no specific proposal so far.
“Essentially 527s would be subject to the same dollar limits as non-connected PACs, and those limits, and even lower ones, have been upheld several times,” said one campaign finance lawyer, speaking on the condition of anonymity in reference to Ney’s proposal. “[The Supreme Court decision] McConnell v. FEC gave Congress and the FEC a great deal of discretion to regulate political contributions.”
GOP attorney Ben Ginsberg, who recently resigned his role in the Bush-Cheney ’04 re-election campaign when it emerged that he had advised an anti-Kerry 527 group, blames the FEC for failing to properly regulate 527s.
The FEC last month issued new allocation rules for 527 groups that will take effect in 2005 and will put limits on fundraising activities by any group if those solicitations are for the purpose of supporting or opposing federal candidates.
But the agency again punted on the larger question of whether the groups should be automatically considered political committees and thus subject to campaign finance laws.
“I think the FEC failed in its duty to describe a clear set of rules. I think they took a pass,” Ginsberg said in an interview last week. Ginsberg also acknowledged that there are constitutional disagreements over whether the government may exercise limits over such groups’ activities.
“Whether these groups qualify as political committees is obviously a legal question upon which honorable and smart people disagree,” Ginsberg said.
Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub has rejected the notion that her agency is somehow responsible for the 527 explosion and suggested that Congress could have dealt with the issue if it had wanted to do so.
“There is this other issue that Congress actually looked at, the issue of 527s,” Weintraub told Congress earlier this summer. “They’re not new. Back in 2000, this big issue about stealth PACs came up. And Congress looked at it, considered making them all report and be registered with us, rejected that and instead decided to have them report to the IRS.”
Since when was MORE regulation the solution to ANYTHING? And what's worse, we have a Republican at the helm of this movement.
If you ask me, the First Amendment should be the exclusive guide on political speech in any and every election. The McCain-Feingold CFR is nothing but an unconstitutional abomination. Period.
the next few weeks!! this is nothing more than changing the rules of the game because they are taking a beating from the SBV's
What a delusioned dumbass to think that the cure to a bad law is another bad law.
Exactly what I was thinking.
It's OK, he's a Republican. They're on our side, remember? ;-)
Well said! The best thing Congress can do is repeal this monstrosity and let people give money to whichever candidate they feel like it, as long as it isn't from foreign sources and that there's full disclosure over a certain amount, say $100,000.
You are free to express any opinions issued to you by the Federal Bureau of Political Expression. Anyone expressing unapproved opinions will be imprisoned.
McCain knew his bill had massive flaws but just wanted to have a major piece of legislation pushed through with his name on it. It's an old manufacturing trick--send it out broken to make the shipping date and fix it later when if comes back for warranty repair.
Being a Republican doesn't make him any less delusional or a dumbass. Remember we are a big tent party now and while we're all bozos on this bus some of us are bigger bozos than others. He may be a republican but he's probably a career politician and that is a dangerous thing.
If the Democrats had a credible candidate (not a communist/socialist or deviant huckster), I would not be supporting the Republicans.
"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."
McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. Though I don't like Soros, he has a right to spend his money as he sees fit, provided he is a U.S. Citizen and subject to our laws...
But, the dems haven't had a credible candidate since JF Kennedy and he would be a republican today. Before Kennedy, Jefferson I think...
Forget this crap, first the Republicans should re-nominate Estrada for a vote and force the dems to filibuster or vote. Keep em all there till the election if necessary.
MF is not unconstitutional. Congress is specifically empowered to "...at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations [effecting the Manner of holding elections], ..."
When many here were in hysterics about the "chilling effect" of the MF law I said it would have NO significant impact. I was correct.
You also need to be aware that the Founders did not intend the first amendment to cover States. They would have never supported a system where a few rich guys could buy most of the advertising. At least none that I am aware of.
This refers to the holding and conducting of elections.
The 1st Amendment "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" comes 1st because it was the preeminent condition for a free people to remain free.
And, indeed, it was to cover the states as a condition for their admission to the Union.
Polution of interpretation does not mean clarity of reason.
Can't have any unregulated Free Speech going on out there... especially when there's an election afoot!
Why, political speech is exactly what the Founders decided needed the most regulating, right?!?
(This is what the GOP is becoming... and as a result, one of several reasons why I'm not so eager to vote for GWB in November.)
So...was the goal to get the money out of politics or to shut down free speech? Sure looks like the latter to me. The money is out but the speech is in, yet they are still not happy. Tell me, what favors are the Swift Boat Veterans buying? And from whom? For that matter, what favors is Soros buying? He doesn't need any favors. All he wants to do is influence the way people vote. He has the right to do that. Certainly he is as entitled to try as Dan Rather is. He cannot coerce people. He cannot buy their vote. But he can try and persuade them.
Vote out the speech police.
WOW, you are utterly clueless. The Founders fought for and successfully implemented a system where only wealthy (read: land-owning) white males had ANY voice in government. Are you not aware of that little tidbit? Try breaking open a history book, and not just citing your fantasies about what you think they should have been advocating.
They would have never supported a system where a few rich guys could buy most of the advertising. At least none that I am aware of.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.