McCain-Feingold Slipping Away?
Campaign finance reform advocates were cringing today as the Federal Election Commission released draft versions of new ground rules for any political ads paid for with corporate or union money.
The commission offered two competing proposals for how this a television commercial must be written if it's underwritten by corporate or unions money. They are scheduled to vote on the drafts at a meeting next week.
Under either version, the ads would be permitted if they focus on a "public policy issue" and don't mention the election or specifics about the campaign, according to Loyola Law Professor Rick Hasen.
One version of the proposed FEC rule changes, Hasen said, will reopen the door to so-called "sham issue ads," which are essentially political attack ads dressed-up to look like they were about a specific policy question. The second version will do that, plus eliminate a requirement that the group that sponsors such an ad disclose the source of the money that funded it.
"This is very troubling," said Paul Ryan of the advocacy group the Campaign Legal Center.
The advocates knew something like this was coming. The FEC's action came in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling that dialed-back Congress's landmark effort to regulate campaign finance laws. While some hailed the court ruling as a repudiation of limits on free speech, others said the practical result would be robust efforts by businesses, unions and special interests to wage ad campaigns during the 2008 presidential and congressional contests.
Hasen responded to the FEC drafts in his blog today with some examples of advertising messages that would have been prohibited under the McCain-Feingold law if paid for by unions or corporations, but would now be permitted.
The Loyola Law School professor offered the following as examples of such hypothetical advertising messages:
"Call Sen. Clinton and tell her to stop coddling illegal aliens and terrorists by supporting the NY drivers' license plan."
"Call Mitt Romney and tell him more of our soldiers shouldn't die in an unnecessary war in Iraq."
"Call Rudi Giuliani and tell him that his support for gay rights is ruining the moral fabric of this country."
But more troubling to some advocates, said Ryan, was the draft version that would eliminate the requirement that the groups funding these ads disclose who is paying for them. That issue had not been addressed in the latest Supreme Court ruling.
"We strongly oppose the draft that would exempt [such ads] from the disclosure requirements," Ryan said. "The disclosure requirements had previously been upheld as constitutional."
Mike Schrimpf, whose group the Center for Competitive Politics has voiced concern about several provisions of McCain-Feingold, said he does not expect there to be sufficient support among FEC commissioners to get rid of the disclosure requirement.
"However, we believe there is a strong argument against disclosure that may mean the disclosure requirement will be the next challenge to [McCain Feingold]," Schrimpf said. "Once a communication is determined to be a genuine issue ad - that is, the ad is not be the functional equivalent of express advocacy - there is no constitutionally recognized interest in compelling disclosure."
--Matthew Mosk
Posted at 5:54 PM ET on Nov 16, 2007
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Giuliani Makes a Federalist Case |
Next: In Ron Paul Coins, Federal Agents Don't Trust
Get This Widget >>
Comments
Posted by: infinity555 | November 17, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
Obama certainly raised some eyebrows yesterday, at the Nevada debate. After some waffling, he gave Wolf Blitzer a yes to the question, Should Illegal immigrants be granted Drivers Licenses? In addition, he said he wanted to pass Comprehensive Immigration reform. Personally, I think he might have cooked his own goose, by offering that ultimatum. With this a burning question on the majority of taxpayers lips, not paling to any other major issue. He has identified himself as a danger to the American economy even unto the small communities. He obviously has sold himself to globalist aggressive agenda of the free movement of itinerant workers throughout America. This has become a growing plague in Europe and is causing major confrontations, even in the United Kingdom. Senator Obama has stepped in it, as the question rising to the ominous political surface of whose going to pay for all the needs of illegal immigrants and their extended families. Certainly not the big business employers, who leave the billion dollar tabs for individual states. However a number of states have realized the devastation to their treasuries, and have enacted strict immigration laws. The by-product being that illegal immigrant families are packing-up and fleeing to more tolerant destinations. There is a strict vigilance on all presidential candidates by anti-illegal alien organizations and they are well aware of each politicians immigration grade. Within days every newspaper throughout America, will have a commentary by anti-advocates informing the taxpayers of the consequences of voting for the wrong public servant? Governor Richardson has also shown his true colors, along with Hillary who cannot be trusted in my book. I would have voted for her on Universal health care, but the would definitely have to omit illegal aliens. The rush for millions more for foreign laborers to break into our sovereign nation, would be catastrophic thinking they could be eligible for citizen health-care. I have yet to see how the other presidential wanna-bees stand regarding a path to citizenship, guest worker programs or anything else to do with the momentum growing with this massive controversy? Mark my words the question of illegal immigration, is going to be raised over and over again during the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries. It will not go away and the motley crew better listen to the U.S. Taxpayers! Even the globalist NEOCOMS better watch their step, as the drop in polls for Sen.McCain. He played with the liberal Ted Kennedy and will unlikely survive. All anti-illegal immigration activists have a cautious eye on all oval office contenders, and that doesn't mean Democrats?