Can someone answer this about campaign law?

[A_Possum]

I tried to google but can't phrase it to get anything useful.

I thought that no one outside the campaigns could mention a candidate's name in ads and such starting 60 days before the election?

How can the smearvets keep running these ads?

[mbali]

1. They cannot endorse the election of a particular candidate

They can trash a candidate all they wish, as long as they don't say "vote for X" or "vote for Y."
Strange, eh?

[A_Possum]

2. ah

ok, thanks. my misperception.

[mbali]

8. It IS very confusing, isn't it?

[alcuno]

3. I believe that you can't suggest that someone vote or not vote for

a candidate.

[jefferson_dem]

4. i thiink it also has to do with funding

if a group gets $ from many "small" donors rather than one fat cat or two, it's considered "hard money" and regulations do not apply.

[mbali]

9. The difference betwen "hard money" and "soft money" is not where it comes

from but to whom its given. Money given to a particular candidate is hard money and subject to one set of rules. Money given to a political party, party organization or 527 is soft money and governed by a different set of rules.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Yes, i realize that but

was also under the impression that according to the new m-f guidelines, the funding source of independent expenditures advertising was an important consideration in determining legality. As i understand, the seed money as provided to the Shrimp Boat Liars by Perry would not be allowed today but since the new round will be funded by individual contributions, this makes it "effectively" funded by "hard money" and therefore legal. That is, provided disclosure requirements are met. But i may be totally wrong.

EDITED to delete useless info.

[mbali]

11. The source of the contribution triggers certain reporting requirements

and limitations but does not determine whether a contribution is hard money or soft money.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Here's some info

http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/article/0,,id=117983,00.html
New FEC Filing Required for Some 527 Organizations

As a result of statutory and regulatory changes enacted in 2002, some section 527 political organizations that previously had no filing obligation with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) are now required to disclose certain activity to the FEC.

As required by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), the FEC has approved new electioneering communications rules governing television or radio communications that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and are distributed to the relevant electorate within 60-days prior to the general election or 30-days prior to a primary, nominating convention or caucus. See 11 CFR 100.29. The statute and regulations require, among other things, that individuals and organizations whose aggregate spending on electioneering communications exceeds $10,000 disclose that activity to the FEC within 24 hours of the public distribution of the communication. See 11 CFR 104.20.

The FEC has posted charts on its web site outlining the proposed 30- and 60-day electioneering communication disclosure periods for all regularly scheduled 2004 federal elections. Additional information concerning the electioneering communications regulations, including what groups and advertisements are covered, how one makes disclosures, who qualifies as a clearly identified federal candidate and what constitutes relevant electorate, is also available on the FEC’s web site.

Please note that the electioneering communications rules are part of a court challenge to the BCRA, which is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Court’s opinion could have consequences for the requirements and disclosure of electioneering communications.

Also note that section 527 political organizations that are required to report to the FEC under these provisions may continue to have reporting requirements with the IRS as the exception from filing Form 8871, Form 8872 and Form 990 for FEC filers only applies to those organizations that report to the FEC as political committees.

Also:
http://www.thinkhistory.btinternet.co.uk/uspressuregroupspacsand527s.htm

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.asp

[unblock]

6. actually, i'm pretty sure you CAN

the law just say that the campaign itself has to pay for it.
at least that how i've heard they get around the obvious 1st amendment issues.

which raises the dastardly strategy of running $75,000,000 worth of ads asking the nice citizens of waco, texas to vote for bush, then sending the bush/cheney'04 campaign the tab.

not that i would EVER suggest we actually DO something like that....

[mbali]

7. The campaign has to not only pay for it, but approve it in advance

the "dastardly strategy" would just result in the 527 going bankrupt and out of business - it wouldn't cost the Bush/Cheney campaign a dime.