Tech Support Guy banner

Protect are Constitution

1K views 21 replies 6 participants last post by  bassetman 
#1 ·
I stay out of thread and post like this 9.9999% of the time but this is one on something that will effect us all if we don't stop what they want to do with are rights.

Harry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are FREE to think what you may OR say what you think under our
Constitution!
This item is very long but may be one of the most important articles you
may EVER read. Please ACT on it if you feel led to do that. I pray you
will act!!!
The Cold War with Russia is over but now we may have to take on OUR own
government as our Cold War enemy. This attempt smacks of dictatorship
and/or a police state. This is maddening and I hope our people will
soundly respond to these idiotic thoughts or attempts to corral people
and herd us into a stable controlled by the U. S. Government. Sickening
thoughts!!

Are you involved in a local or national non-profit or public interest
organization? As a leader or board director or member? Please read this
message carefully, because your organization could be facing a serious
threat.

The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election
Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would cripple groups that
dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President
Bush or members of Congress. Incredibly, the FEC has just issued -- for
public comment -- proposed rules that would do just that. Any kind of
non-profit -- conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular,
social service, charitable, educational, civic participation,
issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be affected by these rules.

By the way, one thing FEC's proposed rules do not affect is the
donations you may have made in the past or may make now to MoveOn.org or
to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They are aimed at activist non-profit
groups, not donors.

Operatives in Washington are displaying a terrifying disregard for the
values of free speech and openness which underlie our democracy.
Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush
administration policy.

We've attached materials below to help you make a public comment to the
FEC before the comment period ends on APRIL 9th. Your comment could be
very important, because normally the FEC doesn't get much public
feedback.

Public comments to the FEC are encouraged by email at

politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov

Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant
General Counsel, and must include the full name, electronic mail
address, and postal service address of the commenter.

More details can be found at:

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/2004031...rulemaking.html

We'd love to see a copy of your public comment. Please email us a copy
at FECcomment@moveon.org.

Whether or not you're with a non-profit, we also suggest you ask your
representatives to write a letter to the FEC opposing the rule change.

Some key points:

- Campaign finance reform was not meant to gag public interest
organizations.
- Political operatives are trying to silence opposition to Bush policy.
- The Federal Election Commission has no legal right to treat non-profit
interest groups as political committees. Congress and the courts have
specifically considered and rejected such regulation.

You can reach your representatives at:

Senator Bob Graham
Phone: 202-224-3041

Senator Bill Nelson
Phone: 202-224-5274

Congressman John L. Mica
Phone: 202-225-4035

Please let us know you're calling, at:

http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=254...v5pzFxO1v_TrZfg

In a non-election year, this kind of administrative overreach would
never find support. It goes far beyond any existing law or precedent. It
is a serious threat to the fundamental checks and balances in our
system. But because of an unholy alliance between a few campaign reform
groups and GOP partisans, this rule change could actually happen if we
don't act now.

I've attached more details below, prepared by our attorneys and by the
FEC Working Group -- a group of more than 500 respected non-profit
organizations.

If you run a non-profit, don't assume this change doesn't apply to you.
First check out the EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT
GROUPS section below. It's outrageous.

Thanks for all you do,

Sincerely,
--Wes Boyd
MoveOn.org
March 30th, 2004
________________

EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS

Under the proposed rules, nonprofit organizations that advocate for
cancer research, gun and abortion restrictions or rights, fiscal
discipline, tax reform, poverty issues, immigration reform, the
environment, or civil rights or liberties - all these organizations
could be transformed into political committees if they criticize or
commend members of Congress or the President based on their official
actions or policy positions.

Such changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend
funds in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that
organizations would be forced to back away from meaningful conversations
about public policies that affect millions of Americans.

If the proposed rules were adopted, the following organizations would be
treated as federal political committees and therefore could not receive
grants from any corporation, even an incorporated nonprofit foundation,
from any union, or from any individual in excess of $5,000 per year:

- A 501©(4) gun rights organization that spends $50,000 on ads at any
time during this election year criticizing any legislator, who also
happens to be a federal candidate, for his or her position on gun
control measures.

- A "good government" organization [§501©(3)] that spends more than
$50,000 to research and publish a report criticizing several members of
the House of Representatives for taking an all-expense trip to the
Bahamas as guests of the hotel industry.

- A fund [§527] created by a tax reform organization to provide
information to the public regarding federal candidates' voting records
on budget issues.

- A civil rights organization [§501©(3) or §501©(4)] that spends
more than $50,000 to conduct non-partisan voter registration activities
in Hispanic and African-American communities after July 5, 2004.

- An organization devoted to the environment that spends more than
$50,000 on communications opposing oil drilling in the Arctic and
identifying specific Members of Congress as supporters of the
legislation, if those Members are running for re-election.

- A civic organization [§501©(6)] that spends $50,000 during 2004 to
send letters to all registered voters in the community urging them to
vote on November 2, 2004 because "it is your civic duty."

Other potential ramifications include the following situations:

- A religious organization that publishes an election-year legislative
report card covering all members of Congress on a broad range of issues
would be unable to accept more than $5,000 from any individual donor if
the report indicated whether specific votes were good or bad.

- A 501©(3) organization that primarily encourages voter registration
and voting among young people will be required to re-create itself as a
federal PAC.

- A 501©(4) pro-life group that accepts contributions from local
businesses would break the law by using its general funds to pay for any
communications critical of an incumbent Senator's position on abortion
rights after the Senator had officially declared himself for reelection
more than a year before the next election.

- A 501©(3) civil rights group that has been designated as a political
committee can no longer hold its annual fundraiser at a
corporate-donated facility, and it must refuse donations or grants from
donors that have already given $5,000 for that year.

BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

Under federal campaign finance laws, federal "political committees" must
register and file reports with the FEC and can accept contributions only
from individual persons (and other federal committees), and only up to
$5,000 per year from any one donor ("hard money"). The FEC is now
proposing to redefine "political committee" to include any group that:

1. Spends more than $1,000 this year on nonpartisan voter registration
or get out the vote activity or on any ad, mailing or phone bank that
"promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" any federal candidate; and

2. Supposedly has a "major purpose" of election of a federal candidate
as shown by:

(a) Saying anything in its press releases, materials, website, etc. that
might lead regulators to conclude that the group's "major purpose" is to
influence the election of any federal candidate; or

(b ) Spending more than $50,000 this year or in any of the last 4 years
for any nonpartisan voter registration or get out the vote program, or
on any public communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or
opposes" any federal candidate.

What's more, any group that gets turned into a federal "political
committee" under these new rules has to shut down all its communications
critical of President Bush (or any other federal candidate) until it
sets up "federal" and "non-federal" accounts; and raises enough hard
money contributions to "repay" the federal account for the amounts spent
on all those communications since the beginning of 2003.

These proposed rules would apply to all types of groups: 501©(3)
charitable organizations, 501©(4) advocacy organizations, labor
unions, trade associations and non-federal political committees and
organizations (so-called "527" groups, as well as state PACs, local
political clubs, etc.).

The new rules, including those that apply to voter engagement, cover all
types of communications -- not just broadcast TV or radio ads -- but
messages in any form, such as print ads, mailings, phone banks, email
alerts like this one, websites, leaflets, speeches, posters, tabling,
even knocking on doors.

The FEC will hold a public hearing on April 14 & 15. Written comments
are due by April 5 if the group wants to testify at that hearing;
otherwise, by April 9. The FEC plans to make its final decision on these
proposed rules by mid-May and they could go into effect as early as
July, right in the middle of the election year, potentially retroactive
to January 2003.

It's clear that these rules would immediately silence thousands of
groups, of all types, who have raised questions and criticisms of any
kind about the Bush Administration, its record and its policies.

SOME TALKING POINTS

- The FEC should not change the rules for nonprofit advocacy in the
middle of an election year, especially in ways that Congress already
considered and rejected. Implementing these changes now would go far
beyond what Congress decided and the Supreme Court upheld.

- These rules would shut down the legitimate activities of nonprofit
organizations of all kinds that the FEC has no authority at all to
regulate.

- Nothing in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law or the Supreme
Court's decision upholding it provides any basis for these rules. That
law is only about banning federal candidates from using unregulated
contributions ("soft money"), and banning political parties from doing
so, because of their close relationship to those candidates. It's clear
that, with one exception relating to running broadcast ads close to an
election, the new law wasn't supposed to change what independent
nonprofit interest groups can do, including political organizations
(527's) that have never before been subject to regulation by the FEC.

- The FEC can't fix the problems with these proposed rules just by
imposing new burdens on section 527 groups. They do important issue
education and advocacy as well as voter mobilization. And Congress
clearly decided to require those groups to fully and publicly disclose
their finances, through the IRS and state agencies, not to restrict
their independent activities and speech. The FEC has no authority to go
further.

- In the McConnell opinion upholding McCain-Feingold, the U.S. Supreme
Court clearly stated that the law's limits on unregulated corporate,
union and large individual contributions apply to political parties and
not interest groups. Congress specifically considered regulating 527
organization three times in the last several years - twice through the
Internal Revenue Code and once during the BCRA debate - and did not
subject them to McCain-Feingold.

- The FEC should not, in a few weeks, tear up the fabric of tax-exempt
law that has existed for decades and under which thousands of nonprofit
groups have structured their activities and their governance. The
Internal Revenue Code already prohibits 501©(3) charities from
intervening in political candidate campaigns, and IRS rules for other
501© groups prohibit them from ever having a primary purpose to
influence any candidate elections -- federal, state, or local.

- As an example of how seriously the new FEC rules contradict the IRS
political and lobbying rules for nonprofits, consider this: Under the
1976 public charity lobbying law, a 501©(3) group with a $1.5 million
annual budget can spend $56,250 on grassroots lobbying, including
criticism of a federal incumbent candidate in the course of lobbying on
a specific bill. That same action under the new FEC rules would cause
the charity to be regulated as a federal political committee, with
devastating impact on its finances and perhaps even loss of its
tax-exempt status.

- The chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be
overstated. Merely expressing an opinion about an officeholder's
policies could turn a nonprofit group OVERNIGHT into a federally
regulated political committee with crippling fund-raising restrictions.

- Under the most draconian proposal, the FEC would "look back" at a
nonprofit group's activities over the past four years - before
McCain-Feingold was ever passed and the FEC ever proposed these rules -
to determine whether a group's activities qualify it as a federal
political committee. If so, the FEC would require a group to raise hard
money to repay prior expenses that are now subject to the new rules.
Further work would be halted until debts to the "old" organization were
repaid. This rule would jeopardize the survival of many groups.

- The 4 year "look back" rule would cause a nonprofit group that
criticized or praised the policies of Bush, Cheney, McCain, or Gore in
2000, or any Congressional incumbent candidate in 2000 or 2002, to be
classified as a political committee now, even though the group has not
done so since then. This severely violates our constitutional guarantees
of due process.

- These changes would impoverish political debate and could act as a de
facto "gag rule" on public policy advocacy. They would insulate public
officials from substantive criticism for their positions on policy
issues. They would actually diminish civic participation in government
rather than strengthen it. This would be exactly the opposite result
intended by most supporters of campaign finance reform.

- The FEC's proposed rule changes would dramatically impair vigorous
debate about important national issues. It would hurt nonprofit groups
across the political spectrum and restrict First Amendment freedoms in
ways that are unhealthy for our democracy.

- Any kind of nonprofit -- conservative, liberal, labor, religious,
secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation,
issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be affected by these rules. A
vast number would be essentially silenced on the issues that define
them, whether they are organized as 501©(3), 501©(4), or 527
organizations.

- Already, more than five hundred nonprofit organizations - including
many that supported McCain-Feingold like ourselves - have voiced their
opposition to the FEC's efforts to restrict advocacy in the name of
campaign finance reform.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Resources on FEC Proposed Rule Changes Threatening Nonprofit Advocacy
FEC Working Group
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.a....aspx?oId=14670

From two prominent reform organizations:

Soft Money and the FEC
Common Cause
http://www.commoncause.org/news/default.cfm?ArtID=282

Public Campaign Statement regarding FEC Draft Advisory Opinion 2003-37
Public Campaign
http://www.publiccampaign.org/pressroom/pr...ent02-17-04.htm
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Hewee

I like Moveon. I think it is a great organization and I like its apparent goal to defeat President Bush in November. I truly believe that for the good of our democracy that this should happen.

Moveon is an independent organization. Independent of candidates or a party.

Moveon does not play at my level. Others do.

This Saturday I am holding my first fundraiser. It looks like it is going to be a success. All of the money brought in so far for, "Team Rep" is from my area. No special interest money. I have received two checks from people outside of my area. One for $15.00 & the other for $50.00. They are from two high school classmates of mine. I am proud that after 35 years, they were willing to send me money. Thus far, the average contribution is under fifty bucks. I do not think that percentage will change all that much by Sunday morning. If I bring in 5K it will be the largest fundraiser I have ever had.

I will end up accepting some special interest money. Historically, that money makes up about 30% of my expenditures. The special interests that I accept money from is mostly from organizations that make no difference in my policy making process. If you were to know me, and my background, you would see how I can accept that money and hold my head up.

My first campaign cost, 36K, the second 32K, the third 28K and in 2002 I spent 22K.

I work hard. I have an excellent core group of people that I can call upon to help me. I ask Team Rep to develop a well tuned and efficient grassroot campaign.

None of it matters anymore.

In Wisconsin, it is not unheard of for targeted legislative races to approach $100,000.

That money is money that comes in late and often times used in, "dirty" campaigns. I have had colleagues accused of being wife beaters. Former members were accused of voting against legislation that they could not have voted for as they were not in the legislature to vote on it. Then, the attacks went out against their children. That money is spent to attempt to overcome a third party that enters the race.

I can compete at that 30-40K level. My opponent can as well.

But when legislative, or special interest leaders decide to target us, there is little we can do.

We become nothing more than cannon fodder.

The solution? 1) A population willing to cut through the BS, take some time to learn the issues and develop their own basic political and policy related philosopy, or, 2) Campaign finance reform. Some components of campaign finance reform can be implemented without destroying the freedom of speech. That is another topic.

Hewee, number 2 is the solution that I think must happen until the better solution, #1 happens. But number one does not look like it will happen anytime soon.
 
#3 ·
What I don't get is how did something like this even get this far in the first place.
I mean there most be a lot of people in office that need to be remove because you think something as bad as this would of never gotten any where but it has.

I think you have done great if your campaign cost is a small as it is.
Here they spend millions on campaign cost and it is always dirty.
 
#5 ·
hewee - how refreshing that someone like yourself (I presume one of the silent majority) comes out in the open like this :up:

Since my wife and myself retired to Malta 12 years ago we have been on a carousel of never ending drinks / cocktail parties - Embassy lunches Etc . One thing we have learned from these bashes is that western governments rely heavily on the silent majority being just that silent. The biggest fear of most western governments is that the silent majority begin to voice their opinion. It is happening right now in both Italy and France. Check out CNN.

In Mulders somewhat controversial thread here in CivDeb I posted the fact that your Carnegie think tank is rumoured to be concerned at "extremism" creeping into USA politics. I was corrected on the word extremism. It is a fact. There is concern.

LAN (my respect to) stated that the two party system are two opposing philosophies. I stated that they (politics) are Ideologies and not philosophies.

regards - Oldie
 
#6 ·
Hewee, I agree with oldie, its great to see someone speak up who would not normally do so!
And oldie is right, that the people pushing this are counting on us to behave like sheep and not say anything as this gets enacted! :(

Keep talking dude! :D
 
#7 ·
Whats a constitution? The government hasn't paid much attention to this "constitution" word for a while... :eek:
 
#11 ·
Hewee,

First, welcome to the party!

(now for all, no particular addressee)

Second, my oh my how moveon.org shakes in its boots when reform would actually affect them. Guess we don't want to "move on" too far when it comes to money. ;)

These proposed rules would apply to all types of groups: 501©(3) charitable organizations, 501©(4) advocacy organizations, labor unions, trade associations and non-federal political committees and organizations (so-called "527" groups, as well as state PACs, local political clubs, etc.).
By very definition, campaign finance reform, when applied, will "limit" how one can communicate with government officials. In fact, that is exactly what proponents of it want! (talk with your mouth, not with your wallet)

I have been very vocal in my support of PAC's and SIG's here, at least at a conceptual level, and this article (or whatever one wants to call it) pretty much points out why. Similar minds get together and work together to make politicians know what they think.

Of course, that doesn't mean you need your wallet to talk.

Now, if I am reading this correctly, the only "limitation" being imposed is that the definition of a political committee is being expanded, and thus they will be required to file reports with the FEC. Amazing how scared groups can get when they have to provide a paper trail of their donations!

Under federal campaign finance laws, federal "political committees" must register and file reports with the FEC and can accept contributions only from individual persons (and other federal committees), and only up to $5,000 per year from any one donor ("hard money"). The FEC is now proposing to redefine "political committee" to include any group that:

1. Spends more than $1,000 this year on nonpartisan voter registration or get out the vote activity or on any ad, mailing or phone bank that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" any federal candidate; and

2. Supposedly has a "major purpose" of election of a federal candidate as shown by:

(a) Saying anything in its press releases, materials, website, etc. that might lead regulators to conclude that the group's "major purpose" is to influence the election of any federal candidate; or

(b ) Spending more than $50,000 this year or in any of the last 4 years for any nonpartisan voter registration or get out the vote program, or on any public communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" any federal candidate.
If your dropping 50K a year "supporting, attacking, or opposing" any federal candidate, you are a major player in the game. If you are concerned about only being able to take in 5k per person, and have to file FEC reports, then I have concerns about where the money comes from and where it goes to.

As for "legal right"...

The Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. ---, 124 S. Ct. 619 (2003) recognized that regulation of certain activities that affect Federal elections is a valid measure to prevent circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s contribution limitations and prohibitions. Consequently, the Commission is undertaking this rulemaking to revisit the issue of whether the current definitions of "political committee" adequately encompasses all organizations that should be considered political committees subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the Act.
Blocking mine. Guess the Supreme Court disagrees.

I also have concerns with how this notice characterizes the proposal.

Skimming thru the 26 page notice (there are multiple ideas being put forth. This is not like a bill or resolution. There are several alternatives, each of their own, being proposed. In fact, the notice is full of open questions that they seek answers to.), one of the subjects they address is how corporations and labor unions are able to side-step the rules because of the phrase "the major purpose..." being political and should it read "a major purpose..." so that, as in the case of a corporation, where "the" major purpose is far from political, would still be held to reporting standards because the cash they shovel out certainly makes it appear as "a" major purpose.

Rep,

The special interests that I accept money from is mostly from organizations that make no difference in my policy making process.
In talking with you here for a year, I am inclined to believe that. If we could say that of every politician, there would be no contribution conversations. ;)

If you have the time to read the FEC proposal, I would love to hear your comments.

In the end, I am left against Moveon.org's "outrage", because while I do believe we are FREE to speak, we are not so "free" to bribe, which is what unregulated contributions have become. My brief review of some of what the FEC is proposing is to redefine what we consider a "major player" in the campaign process when it comes to the money, not the speech. The fact that moveon wants to make it about speech, not money (and the reporting of it), leaves me concerned about their objectivity, and given some of their other messages, their sincerety.
 
#13 ·
BM,

And oldie is right, that the people pushing this are counting on us to behave like sheep and not say anything as this gets enacted!
I thought you were irate at how corporations and large cash donating groups are able to side-step FEC reporting and regulation?

Have you become a Bush-zombie? :eek: ;)

(sorry BM, I just couldn't resist the last line. Take it in jest :) )
 
#14 ·
This is a partial list of what they want to do!

...- A "good government" organization [§501(c)(3)] that spends more than $50,000 to research and publish a report criticizing several members of the House of Representatives for taking an all-expense trip to the Bahamas as guests of the hotel industry.

- A fund [§527] created by a tax reform organization to provide information to the public regarding federal candidates' voting records on budget issues.

- A civil rights organization [§501(c)(3) or §501(c)(4)] that spends more than $50,000 to conduct non-partisan voter registration activities in Hispanic and African-American communities after July 5, 2004.

- An organization devoted to the environment that spends more than $50,000 on communications opposing oil drilling in the Arctic and identifying specific Members of Congress as supporters of the legislation, if those Members are running for re-election.

- A civic organization [§501(c)(6)] that spends $50,000 during 2004 to send letters to all registered voters in the community urging them to vote on November 2, 2004 because "it is your civic duty." ...
And I did take it in jest! :D
 
#15 ·
Yup, those groups would have to report the related expenditures to the FEC. (again I ask, why is that a bad thing?)



So would Halliburton. :eek: (do I have to ask why this would be a good thing?)



(YES! I finally get to use a Halliburton dig! :D )













(all a part of the new lighter version of CF ;) )
 
#16 ·
Oh, btw, I notice moveon.org musta forgotten ( ;) ) to include this link in the "useful links" section....

It's the actual notice!

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/political_comm_status/04-5290.pdf

Simple oversight I am sure, as they do link to the press release. (actually do mean this line without sarcasm, I'm giving them a hard time, but I'll bet that is why there isn't a link to the PDF itself.)
 
#19 ·
Originally posted by bassetman:
I don't think its about the reporting CF, they are talking about them not being able to advertise their opposition to legislation or certain politicans.
No, they aren't.

They are talking about applying the same financial reporting and contribution limitations that exist for the obvious groups under current regulation.

Unfortunately, you and I recognize that there are groups that are "obvious" to us, but not to FEC requirements. The idea, as I see it, is to bring what most people would regard as a significant political player in line with what the rules do.

If there is language in the above PDF that says they cannot advertise, please point it out to me, for I missed it.
 
#21 ·
You and me both BM, I'm trying not to be too presumptuous on what I've read so far....else I know I will have to eat it later :D


gotta run for a bit...look forward to your thoughts.....
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top