Letters to the Editor
-
@ melthough
The Hill team can file a complaint, but it would not be wise to go attacking a 527 that has been crucial in getting Democrats elcted. Never mind the whole origin story.
We all know why Move-On was started, I won't mention it because its irrelevant to the race.
But it would seem to me that Hilldog should be very grateful for everything they have done for the party. Something she cannot fathom.
Dem 08
-
@ dfield
There is a real and significant difference between groups like American Leadership Project and groups like Moveon.org. The American Leadership Project exists only for the purpose of assisting Clinton.
What's a little bizarre is that MoveOn essentially was started in order to assist Bill Clinton.
If one was so inclined, one could read all sorts of things into this dynamic.
-
@calgodot
My, you are a charmer, aren't you. Just come right into a room and make new friends right away!
The minutiae of campaign finance law are ridiculously obscure, as Obama himself has pointed out. Since the blogger did not clarify, I am asking for other people with expertise to do so. If you have such expertise, perhaps you'd care to share it instead of addressing others as though they are drooling imbeciles (sajwan is a Republican troll, so there's no point addressing him anyway).
So ... what is the difference, both legally and ethically, between a 527 running campaign ads and a 501(c)(4) running campaign ads?
And in case you can't stand the suspense or are too lazy to click on my history, I am an Obama voter. Contrary to popular opinion, that does not mean I left my brain at the voting booth and forgot to get it back.
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman
My unblinking irony gaze is fixed upon the American Leadership Project. They shall not escape my cold, metallic scrutiny.
-
C'mon Koppleman
What is the jist of Obama's complaint? HOW are they operating outside of campaign finance law?
-
@cab305
You're so right about MoveOn and the debt the Clintons, both of them, owe this group.
As for the 527 beef with MoveOn, it's just not a 527. It doesn't work to elect primarily one person. The ALP is just a front for the Clinton campaign and everyone knows it. I like that the Obama camp is filing a big complaint with the FEC. Let everyone, especially bitter (yes, bitter) Dems from 2004, soak in the connection between the hated Swiftboaters and ALP.
-
A cold chill runs down my spine when I read:
"There is a question of what the FEC can actually do about this right now -- a fight between the Senate and President Bush over Bush's nominees to the commission has left the FEC essentially powerless to make rulings."
"Right now" and for how long? Into the general?
Very scary indeed.
-
To be clear...
ALP is breaking the law. 527's can be formed to advocate a position (such as pro or anti-abortion or gun or values or whatever), but the law specifically states that they cannot be formed ONLY to support a candidate.
That's how the Swift Boaters were able to be a 527, they claimed they were "just trying to tell the truth about Kerry", not that they were supporting Bush. ALP is not even trying to disguise the fact that their sole purpose is to support Hillary.
The FEC is so weak that even in the last election, they didn't punish anyone 'til after the election (and they are weaker now). There were several fines for doing the exact thing that ALP is doing. ALP and groups like this just assume the large fines after the election are part of the cost of doing (dirty) business.
-
Who's swift-boating?
In fact, not only is moveon.org, a pro-Obama group, a 527, it was the ninth-largest 527 during the last election cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group
Also, moveon violated FEC rules, and paid fines for it in 2006. Along with a little group you might remember called the "Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/moveon_swift_bo.html
So, good luck, Mr. Obama. Make the case that a minuscule Clinton 527 MIGHT have done something wrong even while you have a massive, giant 527 endorsing you with a proven track record of violations AND an uncomfortable association with the original swift-boaters.
-
@calgodot
Calgodot is wrong, by the way. moveon has a subsidiary that is a 501(c)4 and another that is a PAC formed under 527.
http://www.moveon.org/about.html
-
@swinick
From what others are saying, it appears that MoveOn's "massive giant"ness is the very thing that makes its activities legal. In other words, it does not exist solely to be for or against a particular candidate - which is the reason I supported them to begin with. Because, unlike the Democratic Party, of which I am not a member and to which I never give money, they actually take stands on issues that are important to me - even when the candidate they endorsed does something they don't like, such as agreeing to be interviewed on what I am guessing is your favorite TV network. I read the wikipedia articles too, but I don't think they are up to date with the latest nuances and rulings on 527s.
-
@ swinck
If MoveOn's endorsement of Obama is against the law, why hasn't the Clinton campaign filed a complaint? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Somehow I don't think so.
-
@bearpaw
I never said moveon.org had broken the law in this election cycle...but they did last time, and were fined for it along with the swift-boat guys.
I think the question of whether this particular 527 is breaking the law is one of those meaningless ones that sidetrack intelligent discussion. As an example: if a group does not exist solely to support a candidate, but does in fact endorse that candidate, it can collect unlimited money, and decide for itself how much goes to support the candidate, and what "supporting the candidate" means (as opposed to just "telling the 'truth' about his opponent"). But if a group was created JUST to support a candidate, it has limits. So...who is to say that a group does or does not "just" support a given candidate? moveon itself has changed its raison d'etre more than once, in fact. So this argument seems like legal hairsplitting which is not in harmony with Obama's message of "a new kind of politics."
The question to me is, is there a moral difference between being endorsed by a PAC or other pre-existing 527, which then gives you tons of money, and being endorsed by a group of people with no legal status, who then band together to give you tons of money. I don't really see why one is bad and the other is OK.
As to why Clinton doesn't file a complaint against moveon, that's a reasonable question. I think there are two reasons. (1) If she should win the nomination, she will need their help. (2) since moveon was created to take the heat off her husband during his impeachment woes, it would be a PR disaster for her to go after them.