They are now having talks about shuting down all 527 adds?

[Cheswick2.0]

No way. I hope Kerry doesn't think he is going to silence Move On just to get rid of the swiftboat liars. After the damage is done we ae all supposed to just shut up?
Move On existed long before the Kerry campaign and I for one am disgusted that they have been smeared because the DNC and the Kerry campaign can't figure out how to fight back.
There is nothing wrong with 527s or third party adds. Why have the democrats allowed that idea to remain? Bob Kerrey did a good job yesterday trying to separate the swiftboat liars from the other 527s, and now no one is backing him up.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. 527s are part of the IRS and FEC codes

I think it would take an act of congress to ban them, wouldn't it?

[Cheswick2.0]

2. I don't know, but they are talking about banning them

they have allowed the 527s to be seen as the problem rather than the lies of one group tied to the bush campaign.

[Poiuyt]

4. Bush is trying to get an act of congress

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/campaigns.527s/index.html

LAS CRUCES, New Mexico (CNN) -- President Bush wants to work with Sen. John McCain to take legal action against "shadowy" outside groups that have been spending millions of dollars on ads criticizing the president and Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry, the White House said Thursday.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush called the GOP senator from Arizona on Thursday morning and said that, if legal action does not work, he wants to pursue legislative action against the groups.

McClellan said McCain told Bush that he thought it was a good idea that the two men work together.

more -

[stellanoir]

16. hope so

also hope there is not enough time to ban them before 11/2.

The issue is not whether independent or partisan organizations should have a voice in who will hold the most powerful position in the land. Everyone should have a voice in that matter.

The issue is one of blatant falsehood regarding a candidate.

Many of the 527's are merely encouraging people to register and vote and are really quite nonpartisan. That is only good for both parties.

Banning all 527's would ultimately violate 1st amendment rites and muzzle the voices of the masses and only make us more reliant on tainted media bias. Ughhhh.

Perhaps we should stay on this. . .the issue is one of falsehood, and that whatever is aired should be backed up by documentation. 527's need to be vetted for truth by nonpartisans. They should not banned by some draconian measure based on the SBV's proclivity to be pathological liars. They say they are "for truth," when in fact. they are challenged to tell the truth, they strive for it , simply because they fall wayyyyyyyy short of being the embodiment or personification of it.

I had a friend who once worked on a floor cleaning detergent commercial and the company had to fly in a "dirt specialist" at an exhorbitant high hourly rate, to verify that the dirt was legit. 527's need "dirt specialists."

Why silence the voices of so many, based on the deviant and spitefully distorted acts of a few.

Scrutinize don't silence 527's. "It's the falsehood, stupid."

Rant over.

[StClone]

3. I doubt it

The SBVT plan was to muddy the water and confuse voters as well as, maybe, destroy the 527 conduit for which the Dems have major control. Though, the Pubs seem to be getting them together big time.

[Malva Zebrina]

5. Move on was so comforting to have after the coup

I share your concern--

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Here's an analogy

going into a fist fight. One side throwing rocks and hitting the other side and the side that threw rocks trying to get the other side to agree to a ban on throwing rocks.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. exactly

[mzmolly]

7. Nope, they are not. ... McCain clarified this today.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040826/ap_on_el_pr/bush_swift_boat_ads_5

"I want to emphasize if I could that we're not saying that 527s should be abolished. We're just saying they should live under the same campaign finance restrictions (as hard money groups) because they are engaged in partisan activity." ~ John McCain

[Guaranteed]

8. Right, but then other

quotes make use of phrases like "shutting down"...

I don't like this at all.

[mzmolly]

10. It's not gonna happen, and certainly not in THIS election BGL.

I think idiot in chief used the term "shutting down" and ... he's a dork.

McClellan said the goal is "to shut down all of this activity by these shadowy groups.

Shut down *shadowy activity* in other words, they want more regulation. This works in our favor, because we dems have operated honestly - with the possible exception of the Dean/Osama ad earlier in the year.

[Guaranteed]

14. MMmmm..

that's not exactly what McClellan said....he said shut down activity BY shadowy groups...not shadowy activity by groups....

[mzmolly]

22. Yea, I guess your right, but I trust McCain over McClellan any day.

Bush can't do anything alone, and certainly not before November. I watched some analysis of this last night on cable news after which, I am not concerned. :shrug: :hi:

[Carni]

26. I don't trust McCain as far as I could pick him up and throw him

Don't be fooled by him.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. which is equivalent to shutting them down

And of course because it is the only place we have financial advantage.

[JDPriestly]

11. If they shut down 527s,

we the people will have only the streets and the Interne, and it will just be a matter of time until those are also completely closed. The streets are already narrowed to approved areas and pens that look like slaughter pens. The Patriot Act gave the government control over the Internet.

Read the history of NAZI Germany. Hitler did not put an end to freedom in a day. He did it over time, nibbling away, just as the Republicans are doing it today.

Republicans despise freedom, yet they control the legislature, the courts, the presidency and many state governments. Unless we act now, freedom will soon be but a memory.

[kentuck]

12. They can only run for another week, is that correct ?

:shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

15. I think they can continue to run if they don't mention the candidates

My understanding.

[TheRovingGourmet]

17. They could switch to Section 501(c)(4)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x671901

[goodhue]

18. It's just talk.

Polical bluster is all.
527 ads are not going anywhere.

[JI7]

19. shutting down 527s does not shut down moveon

the 527 is a way to get around the new campaign finance rules. moveon formed it after those rules just as many others did. but moveon existed before and will continue to exist even if 527s are no longer allowed.

[TheRovingGourmet]

20. 527s are old but I think they get new treatment now.

http://www.brookings.org/gs/cf/headlines/527_intro.htm

I. Introduction

A political organization under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527) is defined as a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function. Id. The "exempt function" of a "political organization" is defined as "influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization. . . ." § 527(e)(2).

II. Brief History of 527 Political Organizations

Section 527 was added to the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") in 1974 to provide an exemption from federal income tax and gift tax to "political organizations." In creating Section 527, Congress reasoned that campaigns, party committees, and PACs should not pay taxes on funds contributed to such political entities and used for political purposes. Presumably because these political organizations already registered and reported their contributions and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") or state agencies, Congress created no special registration and disclosure provisions for Section 527 political organizations at the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). In fact, the only report they were required to file with the IRS was a (confidential) tax return.

In 1996, the IRS was asked whether an "issue advocacy" organization that was not registered as a candidate committee, party committee, or PAC could qualify for Section 527 "political organization" tax exempt status if its principle purpose was to influence elections. In several private letter rulings, the IRS said that groups seeking to influence elections through candidate-specific issue advertising would qualify as political organizations, regardless of whether they were registered with the FEC or state election agencies. The IRS reasoned that Congress intended Section 527 of the tax code to cover all political entities, whether or not their activities also fell within federal or state election law. The IRS also apparently was motivated by a desire to have election-influencing activities done by Section 527 groups, rather than by Section 501(c)(4) organizations.

The problem with this approach became all too apparent in the 1998 election cycle and the 2000 presidential primaries: advertising that attacked specific candidates (but avoided using "magic" words such as "vote for" or "oppose") from new Section 527 political organizations with generic names like "Americans for Better Government" flooded elections. These groups (frequently called "Stealth PACs") often had no apparent existence beyond a registered agent and a post office box and filed no registration statements. Accordingly, their officers and contributors (and often even motives) were a mystery.

Cut here - - - - - -

[SidDithers]

21. About moveon...

from: http://www.moveon.org/about/

The MoveOn family of organizations consists of three entities. MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values. And MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 organization, primarily educates voters on the positions, records, views, and qualifications of candidates for public office.

I don't know what the rules are governing the different types of organizations, but MoveOn seems to have all the bases covered.

Sid

[TheRovingGourmet]

29. Probably more than you want to know here:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-04-6.pdf

[mzmolly]

23. This information deserves a thread of it's own. People are concerned

today.

[TheRovingGourmet]

28. Is this what you are looking for?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=671901&mesg_id=671901&page=

[Cheswick2.0]

24. Move on is a 527 and I LIKE THEIR ADDS

They are also a PAC. I like ACT too and they are a 527.

[Carni]

25. We need a new 527 to spew dirt

I think what needs to happen is an independant org (not moveon)needs to form a 527 and run an ad featuring bush drunk and doing cocaine
(they can quote passages in "Fortunate son")

Showing Laura mowing over her boyfreind with her car and having a voice intone "and she was never even ticketed" would also be a plus.

IMO this would be the way to go at this juncture, but the Kerry campaign/moveon and other known 527's should not be involved.

In the new 527 there should be no ties to noted Dem organizations,
PR companies, fundraisers etc.

The possibilities are endless IMO!

[Pathwalker]

27. Don't they all have to end Sept. 2 anyway?

I'd like to know, because if so, then it looks like Bush is trying to make it look like he'll be the reason they stop.
Can someone answer this question?

[TheRovingGourmet]

30. I'm trying to verify that date based on tax code classification.

At this point, I am not too sure if anyone really knows.

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachment.html/Fran+Tax+Notes+Article+for+Posting.pdf?id=1209

Why do exempt organizations prefer regulation by the Service under the code and attempt to use tax law as the basis for a claim that FECA should not apply to them? The planning strategy becomes apparent if one compares the two compliance systems. The most important differences between FECA and the code is that FECA reporting and
enforcement are geared to the timing of federal elections, while tax reporting and enforcement are geared to the appropriate taxable year without regard to the timing of federal elections. To argue that only the code should apply to the election activities of organizations exempt from federal income tax means that all reporting and enforcement activities will occur after the relevant federal election. To argue that FECA also applies means that reporting and enforcement will be conducted on a timetable that protect the purposes of FECA. There are other important differences as well.
Tax-exempt organizations are not subject under the code to disclosure of their contributors or their expenditures, with the exception of the disclosure requirements enacted in 2000 and applying to certain section 527 organizations that do not report to the FEC. Exempt organizations are subject to no limitations on the identity of contributors or the amount of contributions, contrary to the limitations imposed on contributors and contributions under FECA. The Service has no formal complaint process akin to that available under FECA, and no third party has standing to challenge the exempt
status of an exempt organization. All tax audits of exempt organizations are confidential, while the adjudicatory actions
of the FEC are conducted in public. If an entity wishes to choose a statute and an agency to oversee its electoral
campaign activities, the code administered by the Service offers distinct advantages. The consequence of these differences in the two statutes is that money can be collected and deployed by an exempt
organization subject only to the code for the same activities that are regulated as to disclosure, source, and amount if
collected and spent by a political committee. Failure to bring all organizations that engage in the same activities under
FECA means that the FEC yet again will facilitate the creation of multiple forms of political money with no statutory
basis just as it did in creating soft money. Money collected by those section 527 organizations that do not report to the
FEC is, under tax law, "semi-hard" money subject only to disclosure but not subject to limitation on the identity of
contributors or the amount of the contribution. Money collected by section 501(c) organizations is "softer money" that
is not subject to disclosure of any kind. Perhaps one could call money collected by section 501(c)(3) public charities
"the softest money" because the contributors qualify for a charitable contribution deduction./162/ The argument must be
that FECA provides no place for such money in federal elections and the FEC has no more authority to create semi-
hard money or softer money than it had to create soft money in the 1970s. The code cannot be used to circumvent
FECA.

Exemption is a tax status, not a claim of privilege on either Constitutional or statutory grounds. Exemption is not a
safe-harbor from FECA. To the extent that the FEC regulations on electioneering communications suggest that section
501(c)(3) status is such a safe- harbor, they are misguided and should be corrected./163/

Cut here - - - - - - -