Posted on 09/18/2007 5:13:35 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
ALEXANDRIA, Va., Sept. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Conservative Union (ACU) chairman David A. Keene announced today that ACU has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against MoveOn.org Political Action and the New York Times Company for violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
On Monday, September 10, 2007, MoveOn sponsored a full-page advertisement in the New York Times attacking General David Petraeus prior to his report to Congress regarding the status of the United States military operations in Iraq. The open rate for a full-page black and white advertisement in the New York Times is $181,692. MoveOn only paid $65,000 for the ad, according to multiple press reports.
The New York Times Company's "discount" is in effect a corporate soft money contribution to a federal political committee. MoveOn's acceptance of this corporate soft money contribution exceeds federal contributions and is a clear violation of FEC laws.
"ACU demands a full and thorough investigation of the cost of the Ad and the discount given by the New York Times Company to MoveOn.org
Political Action, for payment by MoveOn of the usual and normal charge for the costs of the Ad and the requisite civil money penalty for violation of federal law by each of the Respondents," ACU Chairman David A. Keene stated in the FEC complaint. The complaint may be viewed at the ACU website:
http://www.conservative.org.
I know radio stations have to fix their rates in elections years, so it makes sense this violates some rule. Not sure I agree with all these rules, but I know the FEC would come after conservatives if the shoe were reversed.
It’s my understanding that if the IRS finds out someone sold you propety under the reasonable market value, you can be taxed on the difference as income.
Seems to me this is the same thing, whether a political argument is made or not.
I wonder if the IRS has caught wind of this?
This will go nowhere, for a very simple reason.
Attacking a military man does not constitute a political campaign. They are not advocating or opposing any candidate for political office.
The NYTimes is perfect free to offer a large discount for ads urging armed revolutionary struggle against capitalism and imperialism, but may not offer such discounts on a preferential basis to leftist candidates running for office.
It is on O’Reilly NOW.
O’Reilly agreed with that argument.
I’m glad the ACU filed this, but I really suspect that the consequences, assuming we win this, are probably not very major.
It does put forward the point that the NYTimes and Move ON are
allies. That should be pointed out whenever possible.
I wish the ACU would suit against McCain-Feingold instead... blech.
While on ecan certainly view the Times’ gift of cheap space to Moveon.org as a “contribution” - no one in their right mind would misconstrue their giving Rudy the same rate as being charitable. No, that time, it was simply a matter of Rudy putting the screws to them.
Mccain-feingold is toast if another constitutional challenge up to SCOTUS can be mounted. The current Court would not uphold it.
It’s a bunch of lefties.
Nice try, but I don’t see this sticking in our unbiased, non partisan activist left wing court system...
On O’Reilly again.
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.