An entire post about the RNC and Moveon and a recent letter sent by the former to target activities done by the latter and campaign finance rules just got flushed into the ether. Grumble, grumble, groan.
Anyway, to summarize (because I don’t think that I can summon up the deathless prose that graced the original):
RNC: Stop showing Moveon ads! They’re violating McCain-Feingold! (Brandishing and pointing at a piece of paper) See?
MoveOn: No, we’re not! We’re within the rules! (Brandishing and pointing at a piece of paper) See?
RNC: Hypocrites.
MoveOn: Fascists.
RNC: Liars.
MoveOn: Right back at you, buddy.
RNC: I know you are but what am I?
MoveOn: I’m rubber, you’re glue, bounces off of me…
RNC:… and doesn’t get past my deflector shield.
MoveOn: Geeks.
RNC: Takes one to know one.
MoveOn: Hey, at least we get laid.
RNC: Well, that’s one way to describe the relationship between you and Soros.
… and so on. Myself, I’d like to junk the whole thing, let anybody spend whatever they like (as long as there’s full transparency) and have it be generally recognized that political speech is covered by the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has unaccountably decided to disagree with the opinions of a thirtysomething real estate researcher.
Go figure.
Now this is an area for a Constitutional Amendment.
Only individual citizens can contribute (no hiding behind a corporate veil), immediate reporting and transparency.
As I understand it, the FEC ruling only prevents groups from spending soft money on attack/endorsement ads, and MoveOn collects hard and soft money (hard money from its small donor list, soft money from Soros). So what’s the big deal here? Even under McCain-Feingold and the FEC ruling, MoveOn should be able to spend upwards of 10 million on anti-Bush and pro-Kerry ads on as many networks as it likes, and spend its Soros money on cable and print ads (over which the FCC has no jurisdiction). Am I missing anything here?
My law-illiterate mind can’t get around this one…if Moveon.org has indeed raised “$10 million for advertising from 160,000 donors, in amounts averaging $50-$60,” is the RNC’s argument that the $5 million Soros gave them is indistinguishable from that other money, therefore none of Moveon.org’s money can be used in ads that directly attack Bush?
Also, in a race where Bush is supposed to be raising a record-breaking $200 million war chest, this $10 million dollars is getting an amazing amount of attention from the RNC…
If they’re right, that it’s against the law, then they’re right…but it’s ludicrous all the same.
“Am I missing anything here?”
The Federal Election Commission has no jurisdiction over cable and print political ads? I could see why the Federal Communications Commission might not, but why wouldn’t the FEC?
Of course, this is one reason for all the tumult and the strife: federal election advertising policy is about as clear as chocolate fudge, and the players in it come from all over the map. It’s entirely possible that nobody understands all the rules, honestly.
Moe
PS: One thing that got lost in version 2.0 of this post was the link to the Weekly Standard article that sparked my last post on this subject. It’s trying to make sense of it all, and doing better at it than I could.
On the larger issue of campaign finance and soft money, I’ve never been sold on the argument that money is speech, but the current law leaves so many loopholes that it just further unbalances an already-broken system. Before, Democrats and Republicans were both dependent on their respective special interests for the vast majority of their fundraising, but McCain-Feingold just tipped the scales toward the special interests who could bundle the highest donors together. The practical upshot of this is that the party representing the sympathies of about half the country has a candidate who’s five million in the hole right now, and the party representing the sympathies of the other half of the country has over a hundred million on hand.
I do think there needs to be serious campaign reform in this country – if for no other reason than to prevent anyone, whether it’s an energy conglomerate or a teachers’ union, from buying a vote – but the ultimate goal should be to minimize the impact of money in politics. I don’t believe that any genuine reform bill would stand a snowman’s chance in Crawford of passing, and I have no idea what it would look like, and at this point I’ve deflated everything I’ve said, but I’ve typed it, and there you have it.
Well, if I read that article correctly, Moe, MoveOn has been running print and cable ads (over which the FCC has no jurisdiction). It’s their network ad buys the RNC is contesting.
And you’re right, nobody really gets federal election ad policy. But to the tiny – VERY VERY VERY tiny extent that it’s been explained to me – I think they can run Soros-sponsored ads on cable.
Personally, if the RNC wants to go there and question what money MoveOn’s using for what ads, I think MoveOn should buy the ads and let the FEC audit them – as long as the RNC is willing to let the feds run over their own books with a fine-toothed comb.
“Well, if I read that article correctly, Moe, MoveOn has been running print and cable ads (over which the FCC has no jurisdiction). It’s their network ad buys the RNC is contesting.”
Ah, so it was me who got confused by the acronyms, not you. Gotcha. As to your point… shoot, the more I look at this the less certain I am about any of it. 🙂
But transparency is good. Let’s see everybody’s books, one right after the other. Open ’em all.