[Peace-discuss] Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal (fwd)

[patton paul]

Ordinarily, I forward posts from Moveon.org to the peace-action list,
since posts advocating actions such as contacting one's representatives is
the primary purpose of that list.  This issue however, seems of
such exceptional importance that I'm sending it to both the peace-action
and peace-discuss lists.  Briefly, the Federal Election Commission, under
pressure from the Republicans, is considering regulating the political
speech of all non-profit organizations under the guise of campaign finance
law (presumably including groups like AWARE, if we express any opinions
or provide any public information about presidential or congressional
candidates).  These rules, if enacted, would have drastic effects on open p=
olitical
debate in America.  They would severely curtail the ability of all public
interest groups to provide information about candidates and their stances
on the issues which concern them.
-Paul P.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:48:39 -0800
From: "Wes Boyd, MoveOn.org" <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal

Dear MoveOn member,

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

The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commissi=
on ("FEC") to
issue new rules that would shut down groups that dare to communicate with t=
he 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, chari=
table, educational,
civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be affected =
by these rules.

Operatives in Washington are displaying a terrifying disregard for the valu=
es of free speech and
openness which underlie our democracy.  Essentially, they are willing to pa=
y 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 no=
rmally the FEC
doesn't get much public feedback.

Public comments to the FEC are encouraged by email at

   politicalcommitteestatus at fec.gov

Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General C=
ounsel, 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/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html

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

By the way, the FEC=92s proposed rules do not affect 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 ai=
med at activist
non-profit groups, not donors.

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

Some key points:

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

You can reach your representatives at:

  Senator Richard J. Durbin
  Phone: 202-224-2152

  Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald
  Phone: 202-224-2854

  Congressman Timothy V. Johnson
  Phone: 202-225-2371

Please let us know you're calling, at:

http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=3D2540-483317-OqzinKv0BmWSvssWtGVvGg

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

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.  Fi=
rst check out the
EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS section below.  It's=
 outrageous.

Thanks for all you do,

-Wes Boyd
 MoveOn.org
 March 30, 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 iss=
ues, immigration
reform, the environment, or civil rights or liberties - all these organizat=
ions 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 i=
n 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 tr=
eated as federal
political committees and therefore could not receive grants from any corpor=
ation, even an
incorporated nonprofit foundation, from any union, or from any individual i=
n excess of $5,000
per year:

- A 501(c)(4) gun rights organization that spends $50,000 on ads at any tim=
e 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 [=A7501(c)(3)] that spends more than $50=
,000 to research and
publish a report criticizing several members of the House of Representative=
s for taking an
all-expense trip to the Bahamas as guests of the hotel industry.

- A fund [=A7527] created by a tax reform organization to provide informati=
on to the public
regarding federal candidates' voting records on budget issues.

- A civil rights organization [=A7501(c)(3) or =A7501(c)(4)] that spends mo=
re 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 Con=
gress as supporters
of the legislation, if those Members are running for re-election.

- A civic organization [=A7501(c)(6)] that spends $50,000 during 2004 to se=
nd 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 repo=
rt card covering all
members of Congress on a broad range of issues would be unable to accept mo=
re than $5,000 from
any individual donor if the report indicated whether specific votes were go=
od or bad.

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

- A 501(c)(3) civil rights group that has been designated as a political co=
mmittee can no longer
hold its annual fundraiser at a corporate-donated facility, and it must ref=
use 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 re=
gister and file
reports with the FEC and can accept contributions only from individual pers=
ons (and other
federal committees), and only up to $5,000 per year from any one donor ("ha=
rd 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, atta=
cks 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=92s "major purpose" is to influence t=
he election of any
federal candidate; or
   (b) Spending more than $50,000 this year or in any of the last 4 years f=
or any nonpartisan
voter registration or get out the vote program, or on any public communicat=
ion that "promotes,
supports, attacks or opposes" any federal candidate.

What=92s more, any group that gets turned into a federal "political committ=
ee" under these new
rules has to shut down all its communications critical of President Bush (o=
r any other federal
candidate) until it sets up "federal" and "non-federal" accounts; and raise=
s enough hard money
contributions to "repay" the federal account for the amounts spent on all t=
hose communications
since the beginning of 2003.

These proposed rules would apply to all types of groups: 501(c)(3) charitab=
le  organizations,
501(c)(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 ty=
pes 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, lea=
flets, 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 ef=
fect as early as
July, right in the middle of the election year, potentially retroactive to =
January 2003.

It=92s 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 Administrat=
ion, 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. Implement=
ing 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 organi=
zations 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=
=92s decision upholding
it provides any basis for these rules.  That law is only about banning fede=
ral candidates from
using unregulated contributions ("soft money"), and banning political parti=
es from doing so,
because of their close relationship to those candidates.  It=92s clear that=
, with one exception
relating to running broadcast ads close to an election, the new law wasn=92=
t supposed to change
what independent nonprofit interest groups can do, including political orga=
nizations (527=92s)
that have never before been subject to regulation by the FEC.

- The FEC can=92t fix the problems with these proposed rules just by imposi=
ng 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 full=
y and publicly
disclose their finances, through the IRS and state agencies, not to restric=
t their independent
activities and speech.  The FEC has no authority to go further.

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

- 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(c)(3) ch=
arities from
intervening in political candidate campaigns, and IRS rules for other 501(c=
) groups prohibit
them from ever having a primary purpose to influence any candidate election=
s -- federal, state,
or local.

- As an example of how seriously the new FEC rules contradict the IRS polit=
ical and lobbying
rules for nonprofits, consider this:  Under the 1976 public charity lobbyin=
g law, a
501(c)(3) group with a $1.5 million annual budget can spend $56,250 on gras=
sroots lobbying,
including criticism of a federal incumbent candidate in the course of lobby=
ing 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 pe=
rhaps even loss of
its tax-exempt status.

- The chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be overst=
ated. Merely
expressing an opinion about an officeholder's policies could turn a nonprof=
it group
OVERNIGHT into a federally regulated political committee with crippling fun=
d-raising restrictions.

- Under the most draconian proposal, the FEC would "look back" at a nonprof=
it group's activities
over the past four years - before McCain-Feingold was ever passed and the F=
EC ever proposed
these rules - to determine whether a group's activities qualify it as a fed=
eral political
committee. If so, the FEC would require a group to raise hard money to repa=
y 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 g=
roups.

- 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 inc=
umbent candidate in
2000 or 2002, to be classified as a political committee now, even though th=
e 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 fac=
to "gag rule" on
public policy advocacy. They would insulate public officials from substanti=
ve criticism for their
positions on policy issues. They would actually diminish civic participatio=
n in government
rather than strengthen it. This would be exactly the opposite result intend=
ed 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 spectr=
um 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 sm=
all -- 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(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 527 organizati=
ons.

- 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 Prepa=
red by the FEC
Working Group http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=3D14670

>From two prominent reform organizations:

Soft Money and the FEC
Common Cause
http://www.commoncause.org/news/default.cfm?ArtID=3D282

Public Campaign Statement regarding FEC Draft Advisory Opinion 2003-37
Public Campaign http://www.publiccampaign.org/pressroom/pressreleases/relea=
se2004/statement02-17-04.htm

_______________

This is a message from MoveOn.org.  To unsubscribe from this list,
please visit our subscription management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=3D2540-483317-OqzinKv0BmWSvssWtGVvGg