Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (1471)	12/19/2001 1:52:27 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

About-Face on Campaign Reform The New York Times Editorial December 19, 2001 For months Republican leaders in the House have pleaded that the legislative calendar is just too crowded to include campaign finance reform. Now in this season of miracles, the calendar appears ready to open up - not to pass campaign reform, but to repeal a campaign disclosure law enacted last year. Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is promoting a measure to water down a law requiring secret campaign slush funds to disclose their donors. It should be stopped cold. After failing for several years to ban unregulated "soft money" campaign donations by corporations, unions and rich individuals, Congress acted in 2000 to outlaw so-called "stealth" campaign funds. These funds became notorious in the presidential campaign when a sham group calling itself Republicans for Clean Air ran advertisements in New York attacking Senator John McCain during the presidential primary season. The donors turned out to be fund-raisers for George W. Bush, then governor of Texas. Other groups have run ads in other contests. They are exempt from paying income taxes under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code but did not, until last year, have to identity their donors. Aides to Mr. Thomas say the Republican bill merely refines cumbersome disclosure procedures. The measure, for example, would drop the requirement that 527 groups report donor identities to the federal government if they already report on donations to state and local authorities. This provision opens a potentially huge loophole freeing political groups from even the most simple reporting requirements. It would allow anyone to avoid federal disclosure laws simply by declaring a group to be operating under the most lax state laws. Clever fund-raisers could drive truckloads of anonymous cash through that kind of change in the law. The law enacted in 2000 also required that state and local political fund-raising groups file annual disclosure forms to the Internal Revenue Service on expenses, finances, assets and other activities. Such reporting requirements apply to all charitable groups so that the I.R.S. can determine whether they are living within what the law requires for tax- exempt organizations. The Thomas bill, as circulated in draft form, would exempt state and local political groups from these reporting requirements, on the ground that they are burdensome. That is a specious argument. Groups that enjoy the privileges of tax-exempt status should be willing to comply with rules ensuring that their activities fall into the tax-exempt category. What is odd about the Thomas drive is that Republican opponents of campaign reform usually say they favor stricter disclosure requirements over any curbs on the amounts of donations. Now they are changing their tune, trying to repeal the strict disclosure rules they imposed just last year. The other irony is worthy of black humor. The Shays-Meehan soft-money ban sits frozen in committee, lacking enough signatures on a petition to get it to the floor for a vote. Most House members say they favor the bill. But Republican leaders say there is not enough time to vote on it. Going forward with the Thomas measure to weaken the rules on 527 groups put the lie to that claim. There can now be no excuse to avoid taking up the Shays-Meehan bill this week. If there is time to take a step backward, there ought to be time for a step forward. nytimes.com