Does anyone understand the FEC vote limiting moveon.org from spending $ ?

[Woodstock]

Am I right? How about the following example -

Say moveon.org wants to put on a 30 second commercial that costs $100,000.

If the commercial targets something negative about Bush (FEDERAL CANIDIDATE) only, it has to be paid for with hard money only (ie, we are screwed, thanks to the DINOS on the FEC.)

If the commercial targets something negative about Bush (FEDERAL CANDIDATE) AND, say, Governor Ehrlich of Maryland, for example (STATE CANDIDATE), then it can be paid for with hard AND soft money.

So for the $100,000 commercial, could $50,000 of the second be paid for by someone like Soros, or a movie star, for example? The other $50,000 then would have to be from people who had donated no more than $2,000 to moveon.org that year? Or would that be from people who had donated no more than $2,000 to the Democratic party that year?

The details apparently haven't been worked out. Both Bush and Ehrlich suck on the environment, among other things, so that angle could be used to tie the two together, I guess. Would 50% of the ad have to be talking about one, 50% the other? Then pay with 50% hard money/50% soft money? What if you talked about Bush, then said 10 Republicans agreed with him on the sucky policy. Would it then be a mix of 10% hard money/90% soft money? Are they going to time how long you talk about each and pro-rate the money mix?

This sounds like the DINOS on the FEC just voted to amend the Constitution.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/19/MNGH253NAP1.DTL

[loudsue]

1. I wish a knowledgeable person would comment...I'd like to know 2

Good question, Woodstock.... I hope someone can tell us. And, how come the repukes get to play by DIFFERENT rules than we do??? That's how it seems to me, anyway.
:shrug:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Woodstock]

4. It does come out that way, but they cleverly make it seem not

Everyone warned that campaign finance reform would hurt the Democrats, since the people who vote Democratic can't afford to send in $2,000 checks and don't have buddies who can, either. We are seeing it now, the Republicans have raised far, far greater amounts than the Democrats. Bush can literally flood the airwaves with negative ads, and his opponent cannot afford to respond. From what I understand, the 527's were an attempt by Democrats to level the playing field, but even before this ruling, it would be far from level - the Republicans would still have far, far more money to spend than the Democrats. This ruling makes it even worse. So in that sense, when the Democrats tried to level the playing field a little, the Republicans made it impossible. Unfortunately, there were 3 DINOs on the FEC who handed the Republicans what they wanted with this fictional ABC case they brought before them (a case that could not even be appealed, since it isn't a real organization getting the adverse decision - never let it be said the Republicans are not diabolical.) Two Republicans voted against it, and one was particularly pointed in his criticism of the Republican attempts to stifling free speech in order to win.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52815-2004Feb18.html

...Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, in contrast, said the ruling will put out of business "groups like America Coming Together , the Media Fund, Partnership for America's Families and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund." All are pro-Democratic groups organized under Section 527 of the tax code.

... On philosophical, not partisan, grounds, two of the Republican commissioners -- Chairman Bradley A. Smith and David M. Mason -- voted against regulation of the Democratic groups, rejecting pressure from the RNC. "If Republicans think they can win by silencing their opponents, they are wrong," said Smith, and "they are going to deserve to lose."

[LiberalFighter]

2. Would there be a difference if the candidate is named?

Supports cyanide in our water.
Supports tax cuts for the wealthy fat cats.

[Woodstock]

3. I think it only applies if the candidate is named

But am far from sure of that.

[rhino91063]

5. It seems to me

Since these organizations are not candidates nor are they affiliated with any politician. The unelected clowns at the FEC can kiss their asses for all Move On could care. Much as the Republicans would like, they only have limited powers to take away our first amendment rights.

[SaddenedDem]

6. So, let me see if I get this right.....

MoveOn should be able to run any advertisement they see fit, but the NRA shouldn't?

Isn't that what I am hearing here?

When the right wingers were screaming about 1st Amendment rights, DU mocked them. But now, it's somehow different?

Color me confused, but I think if we support the 1st Amendment, we do so for all and NOT just left leaning organizations.

I don't want the NRA running ads against my candidate, do you?

[Woodstock]

9. No, the NRA ad will get on no matter what

I'd rather have the NRA run ads and be able to counter them.

While this decision also negatively impacts the NRA, they were dead silent in response. Why? Because they have the money to get their message out either way you look at it. If people don't give to the NRA, they will just give to the Republicans. The NRA commercial - it's content, anyway - gets on no matter what.

But the Democrats don't have that option. The hard money will literally run out. Our commercial to respond will NOT get on the air.

[Woodstock]

7. Take the award winning Bush in 30 seconds commercial

Here's the still from it:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/images/childspay9.tif

"Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion Defecit?"

The whole commercial rests on that statement.

This commercial could no longer be paid for with soft money.

This WILL affect moveon.org adversely.

Here's what we are facing if we depend only on hard money:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=25101

The disparity of funds is extraordinary. Despite Kerry's claims (really hopes) that he can counter Bush's plump and growing war chest, only a week ago he made an urgent plea for more money to even finish the primary campaign he is already assured of winning. But, even if he can last through the primaries, Kerry won't get any of the Democratic Party's money until the end of July. It seems inconceivable, given the present circumstances, that he can keep afloat until then. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Bush has so much money already he has delayed the Republican National Convention until the end of August, the latest ever, so as to use all of it in his blitz against Kerry. After the conventions, unless Bush decides to fund his campaign independently, a feat never before attempted by any presidential candidate, both candidates will have about 75 million for the rest of their election. Either way, Bush's flood of campaigning in these coming months will squash Kerry.

This potential devastation is historically proven by the last two presidential elections. Gore suffered extremely from a three week stretch in 2000 when he ran out of money and Bush was able to dominate the airwaves in key swing states and make the critical first impression to major audiences. This held true in 1996, as Dole was dead broke after the primaries, allowing him to get swamped by Clinton before the conventions even happened. History will repeat itself, in monumental proportions, unless Kerry exercises the only out he has available to him.

The one and perhaps only hopeful thing that Kerry has going for him is that he opted out of federal matching funds at the very start of the primary process, believing he could raise more than 45 million. This means that, unlike those above mentioned candidates who went broke after the primaries burned their 45 million, Kerry can run to all his ex-rivals' donors and ask them for more money. Some say he can get $50 million from that alone. With organized labor and big name Democratic contributors, Kerry may well be able to get $100 million. However, this number, while significant and unprecedented for any candidate in his position, is still not enough to counter the mass that Bush has amassed and continues to amass. Many expect Bush will surpass his goal of $170 million by the RNC and reach $200 million.

[chiburb]

8. Here's Maha's take on it....

But Democrats are better positioned to take advantage of yesterday's 527 ruling than Republicans. George Soros can contribute only $2000 directly to a Democratic candidate, but he can apply his pledge of $10 million to anti-Bush advertising and other activities. And Moveon.org, with its "Bush in 30 Seconds" ads, should also benefit.

Republicans can form 527s also, of course, but so far they haven't put as much energy into it as Democrats. Contributing big bucks to a 527 doesn't get you access to the candidate, which to Republicans is what fund-raising is all about. Bush in particular is very, very good at rounding up lots of $2,000 donations through the Rangers. (See in particular "Bush's Bounty Hunters" in the Texas Observer.) Democrats cannot compete with that. But yesterday's ruling on the 527 could prove to be significant in a very few months.

More here, but v e r y slow loading on dial-up:

Scroll down to Thursday :http://www.mahablog.com/

[Woodstock]

10. I don't think it will be as easy to "get around it" as he says

Moveon.org is putting on a brave face, but this was a blow.

Here is an analysis in The American Prospect of how this decision will hurt us:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/meyerson-h.html

[DeepModem Mom]

11. kick -- important