Campaign Finance Rules Overturned by Court

[welshTerrier2]

The FEC is evil ... this week's Bill Moyers show is supposed to be focussing on the FEC ... among the allegations I believe will be made is that the FEC caters to the whims of the two major parties at the expense of a fair elections process ...

According to the article below, the FEC attempted to weaken recently enacted campaign finance laws ... it appears the court's intent is to have its ruling take effect immediately ... this could have a substantial impact on this year's elections ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0920-02.htm

<snip>

The decision was a victory for the lawmakers who sponsored the 2002 law and accused the FEC of weakening some of the restrictions on big money. A campaign watchdog group hailed the ruling.

It "represents a massive and stinging repudiation of the Federal Election Commission and its repeated failures to properly interpret and implement the new campaign finance law," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 and a member of the legal team that brought the lawsuit.

<snip>

The judge overturned several FEC rules, including those that:

1. Imposed a narrow test to determine whether a lawmaker is violating the soft money solicitation ban. Under the FEC rules, the only way a federal candidate or officeholder could violate the solicitation ban would be by explicitly asking for soft money.

2. Exempted an entire class of tax-exempt organizations from a ban on the use of corporate or union money for ads mentioning presidential or congressional candidates within a month before a primary or two months before a general election.

3. Defined coordination as only cases where there was agreement between a spender and candidate or party.

4. Exempted Internet ads from rules on coordination among interest groups, federal candidates and national party committees.

5. Excluded coordinated ads aired more than 120 days before an election or excluding a federal candidate or political party from those that would be considered a contribution to a candidate or party committee.

"To exclude certain types of communications regardless of whether or not they are coordinated would create an immense loophole that would facilitate the circumvention of the act's contribution limits, thereby creating 'the potential for gross abuse,'" the judge wrote.

[democratreformed]

1. So does this mean the 527s have to stop now?

Is that the gist of it?

[welshTerrier2]

2. good question ...

i was hoping some DU legal eagle might be able to interpret this ruling better than I can ...

if you read the last paragraph, the phrase "whether or not they are coordinated" would seem to address the "coordination" issue that is frequently raised about the 527's but it is not clear to me whether they come under the umbrella of activities addressed by the ruling ...

much of the discussion seemed to center around corporations and unions so i'm not clear whether this extends to 527's or not ...

can anyone help interpret this ruling ??

[democratreformed]

3. I was hoping someone would know too.

Maybe it just refers to funding sources?

[TexasSissy]

4. Well, hasn't the deadline ended when candidates can take donations?

So if it affects this year's election, it must be referring to funds other than direct campaign contributions.

[ieoeja]

5. More likely they mean to refund improper donations.

You can NOT tell people not to spend their own money campaigning. That would strike at the very heart of the freedom of speech.