In response to the controversy over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, President Bush came out againt the whole idea of 527 political groups. "I don't think we ought to have 527s," Bush remarked.

The Democrat and Republican parties, along with the major media, shouldn't have a monopoly on political discourse. This is a free country. The Club for Growth, MoveOn, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and any other group of individuals has the right to say anything they want. It's lamentable that the President of the United States--last time I checked, we still have a First Amendment--would call to ban 527s from participating in the process. "I think they're bad for the system," Bush argued yesterday. What system? Isn't our system of electing federal office holders largely outlined in the Constitution?

My only possible qualm with 527s is that they are tax-exempt. But if political parties don't pay taxes on their incoming donations, why should they? While both parties use 527s to their advantage, neither party really likes them because they ultimately don't control their message.

We have too many election laws, not too few. It's a topsy-turvy system that encourages government subsidization of campaigns, but restricts private support of candidates and issues. McCain-Feingold, signed into law by President Bush after he opposed it on the campaign trail, restricts freedom. It bans issue ads by non-party groups sixty days before elections--the time when voters pay the closest attention. As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent in McConnell v. FEC, "This litigation is about preventing criticism of the government." So is a ban on 527s.

I worry at times like this Dan. I wonder if in my grandchildren's time the only light on the Statue of Liberty will be the fire of the burning books.

Speech is speech, and should not be restricted at all.

Be well,

Sponge

Dan, the fact is the framers simply didn't forsee all the technological and economic changes that make election laws nessacary. I share your distrust of goverment regulation in the economy, the free market should be governed by the invisable hand. But why should market principles nessacarily extend into political elections? The fact is that political decisions are not market-based, nor should they be. You don't have to be an elections expert to know that whoever has the most money will most likely win, and whoever has the most money isn't nessacarily the person who has the most suporters. That is not democracy. That is plutocracy.

Republican lawyers made that argument before the court, not because they truly believed it, but because the Republican party stood to loose out under the new rules. Because the republican party had always been a very centralized operation, all fundraising had been coordinated by the RNC. Now that coodination is illegal. The Democrats, by contrast, had always had a looser structure, and this allowed them to adapt to the new rules more easily. This isn't about free speech, or market solutions or anything like that. The fight over campign finance was a fight over election strategy. And the Republicians lost.

Dan,

I have to agree that both groups should have the freedom to allow 527's to do their bidding.

The fact that Kerry is now back on his heels and railing about Republican dirty tricks because the truth is leaking out about his alleged record shouldn’t put this process in jeopardy. In trying to stop the hemorrhaging, instead of proving his record, he is crying foul.

Certainly, if there was any negative information that the Dems could use to advance their cause, they would keep hammering away long and hard.

This practice should continue to be an equitable process for both parties and a wink and a nod by both candidates while disclaiming partisanship should be all that is required here.

The fact that GW has to appear to be more fair minded than Kerry in this regard just highlights the huge differences in public perception and philosophies that the two parties are subjected to.

The President and his people should be more Reaganesque and refuse to answer questions about this kind of thing and let the political chips fall where they may. I think it benefits us all to let the truth come out no matter what the approach.

527's are not tax-exempt.

I think your right. they're not.

527s are tax exempt in the exact way I said they were in the blog post. Here is what I said: "But if political parties don't pay taxes on their incoming donations, why should they?" In other words, 527s don't have to pay taxes on most of the revenue that comes in--meaning donations--whereas just about any other place of business does. Donors to 527s, on the other hand (I'm fairly sure), are not eligible for tax deductions--like donors to 501(c)3s are.

Ah ok.