San Francisco Chronicle reporter Lance Williams evidently doesn’t care much for independent ‘527’ organizations.
Below you will find a point by point correction of the article.
(And for more examples on why people don’t understand campaign finance laws click HERE and HERE.)
Lance Williams: California supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama are using a controversial political committee to rake in donations in excess of what is allowed under tough federal campaign finance laws.
Correction: California supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama have set up a 527 organization and a PAC in order to independently support Obama and comply with federal campaign finance laws.
Lance Williams: Exploiting a legal loophole, the Obama supporters have set up a so-called 527 group – an unregulated committee…
Correction: Complying with federal campaign finance laws, the Obama supporters have set up a 527 – a political organization subject to IRS code.
Lance Williams: The same Obama supporters have also set up a political action committee – the type of fund-raising device used by special-interest groups to funnel donation to multiple candidates.
Correction: The same Obama supporters have also set up a political action committee – the type of fund-raising device used by citizen groups to collectively support candidates of like-minded ideology.
Lance Williams: Experts say political activists and wealthy donors, liberal and conservative alike, are turning to 527s to sidestep a law enacted by Congress in 2002 to try to blunt the influence of big money on national politics.
Correction: Political activists are turning to 527s in order to comply with the McCain-Feingold act that restricted the ability of citizen groups to participate in politics.
Lance Williams: None of Obama’s rivals is believed to have set up fundraising mechanisms similar to Vote Hope.
Correction: None of the supporters of Obama’s rivals have set up fundraising mechanisms similar to Vote Hope. The rivals, who are candidates under federal election law, of course, can not set up a 527 organization.
Update: The Chronicle’s struggle to accurately explain things to its readers is also seen in this column by Carla Marinucci. It seems that Senator Obama is very concerned that voters might be engaging in politics on their own. They ought to be good little boys and girls and "support me through our campaign." So he urges citizens not to participate in a political group, Vote Hope 2008, which is working to, says the Chronicle, "expand voter registration and turnout for Obama." Heavens, no, expanded voter registration and turn out – we wouldn’t want that! But the Chronicle has a tough time explaining things to its readers. To wit:
The Chronicle describes 527s such as Vote Hope as "unregulated." Yet they clearly are regulated, forced to disclose their donors pursuant to federal law, and subject to a variety of fines and penalties if they expressly advocate for a candidate or coordinate activities with a candidate. They are "unregulated" sort of in the way you are unregulated when driving your car – if you register your auto with the state and obey all the traffic laws, no one will bother you. Whether that is quite the same as being truly "unregulated," well – try bombing down the left side of the road at 95 mph with no license plates on your car and see what happens.
The Chronicle further notes that Vote Hope 2008 has raised, "contributions of $90,000 and $50,000 that would be barred under campaign finance laws that cap individual donations to candidates at $2,300 per election." That "would be barred"? What does that mean exactly? That would be barred if the law barred them, which it does not? That would be barred if the law limited 527s to receiving contributions of $2300 per election, which it does not? That would be barred if used for purposes for which Vote Hope 2008, as a 527, is prohibited, by law from using them? (Which seems tough to square with being "unregulated.") If someone were to complain that they were unable to donate $5000 to the Obama campaign, we suspect the Chronicle would never dream of writing, "that would be legal under laws regulating 527 organizations."
Somebody (the Chronicle?) asked Senator Obama if, "the independent organization raising money on his part suggested a hypocrisy and an effort to skirt campaign finance laws." But how could it represent hypocrisy on Obama’s part if it is an independent organization? And so replied the Senator, stating, "It would be hypocrisy if I had anything to do with them, since I just heard of them. This is not something that I authorized or had any part of.” Of course, it would also be illegal if he had authorized the group!
Then Senator Obama decided to display his own ignorance – or perhaps better put, decided to obfuscate and play to misinformation in order to score some political points – saying, ""Get involved in the campaign that we’ve set up, that is above board, that is transparent, that is legal.” From this, one might gather that Senator Obama thinks that a 527 such as Vote Hope is illegal (it is not) or lacks transparency (in fact, as noted above, it is subject to disclosure under the IRS code under which it is organized).
Does Senator Obama think political participation is a bad thing? Maybe so. "We do not think people should be donating to 527s," he told the Chronicle. Really? If I give $50 to Vote Hope 2008, Senator Obama will think less of me? A strange position indeed, for a politician to take. And we wonder why voter participation is so low.
