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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (19706)	12/14/2003 12:40:51 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793699

Why bother to have Financing laws? washingtonpost.com Democratic 'Shadow' Groups Face Scrutiny GOP, Watchdogs to Challenge Fundraising By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page A05 Leading campaign finance watchdog organizations as well as Republican activists intend to challenge the new "shadow" Democratic Party -- a network of independent groups gearing up to spend as much as $300 million on voter mobilization and pro-Democratic TV ads. The organizations -- the Center for Responsive Politics, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 -- contend that the pro-Democratic groups are violating prohibitions on the use of corporate and labor money for partisan voter registration and mobilization drives. Trevor Potter, chairman of the Campaign Legal Center, said the groups have become "the new soft money loophole. . . . This is the beginning of an important discussion about how these groups are going to operate." Judith L. Corley, who represents America Coming Together (ACT) and other groups under fire, disputed Potter's contention. "The law has permitted this type of activity all along," she said. Harold Ickes, who runs the pro-Democratic Media Fund, contended the Republican and watchdog critics are "one, trying to tie us up; two, divert out attention; three, force us to spend money on legal fees rather than electoral activities; and four, to try to chill our contributors." Republican activists have created a group, Americans for a Better County (ABC), in part for the purpose of getting the Federal Election Commission to rule on the legality of the objectives and practices of the pro-Democratic groups. "There is this gray area that right now liberal groups are operating in," said Craig Shirley, one of the founders of ABC. "We'd like to operate in that area if it is legal. . . . We are still at the starting gate, and they are four furlongs ahead of us." The 2002 McCain-Feingold law upheld by the Supreme Court last week banned parties from raising "soft money." Although supported by overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats were far more dependent on those donations, than the GOP, which has been more successful raising smaller, and still-legal, "hard money" contributions. New pro-Democratic organizations such as ACT, Voices for Working Families (VWF), America Votes and the Media Fund have stepped in this year to attempt to fill the vacuum created by the soft money ban. These groups are accepting large, sometimes exceeding $1 million, contributions from labor unions that the parties are prohibited from accepting. Most are explicitly opposed to President Bush: "In the process, ACT, VWF, America Votes and the others are taking over many of the functions traditionally associated with the parties, including voter registration, canvassing, turnout. The Media Fund plans to run radio and television "issue" ads critical of Bush and supportive of Democrats. Now the watchdog organizations contend that ACT and some of the other groups have become "pass-throughs" or "conduits" for labor unions seeking to use treasury money for partisan registration and turnout efforts. The unions, they argue, are effectively violating federal law and FEC regulations prohibiting corporate or labor treasury money being used for partisan purposes with the general public. They cite FEC regulations that say: "The corporation or labor organization shall not make any communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of any clearly identified candidate[s] or candidates of a clearly identified political party as part of the voter registration or get-out-the-vote drive. . . . The registration drive shall not be directed primarily to individuals previously registered with, or intending to register with, the political party favored by the corporation or labor organization." Corley said the Campaign Legal Center and allied organizations are "trying to expand the soft money ban to all activities, but they are doing it increment by increment by increment." "What we are trying to do is get the FEC to enforce the law as intended," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "All we are saying is: Enforce this law as intended, and don't repeat the mistakes of the past." washingtonpost.com