PDA

View Full Version : Political Veterans for Censorship



Tommy Duncan
08-29-2004, 10:25 PM
www.reason.com/sullum/082704.shtml (http://www.reason.com/sullum/082704.shtml)

August 27, 2004

Political Veterans for Censorship
Bush and Kerry try to silence their critics

Jacob Sullum
Reason

Observers dismayed by the bitter partisanship of this presidential campaign should be happy now that George W. Bush and John Kerry finally agree on something: It turns out they both believe in using the government to silence their critics.

Kerry has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) demanding the removal of TV ads that question his Vietnam record. He argues that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), the group sponsoring the ads, is illegally coordinating its activities with the Bush campaign. The Democrats have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation of the group.

Oddly, since Kerry's supporters say SBVT is nothing but a front group for the Republicans, they also demand that Bush "denounce the smear." In response, the president has called for the elimination of all ads sponsored by independent political groups that, like SBVT, are tax-exempt under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Bush pronounced himself amazed that such groups, known as 527s, are still allowed to have their say. "I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill," he told reporters the other day, referring to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which was aimed at preventing freedom of speech from interfering with democracy. "I don't think we ought to have 527s... I think they're bad for the system."

By "the system," of course, Bush means the Republican Party. Bush thought McCain-Feingold, which banned unlimited "soft money" contributions to the parties while raising the limits on regulated "hard money" donations, would help the Republicans, who historically have been more successful at raising hard money. He didn't count on the 527s, which are not explicitly addressed by the law and which Democrats have been using to raise huge wads of cash for anti-Bush ads and get-out-the-vote efforts.

After unsuccessfully urging the FEC to crack down on Kerry-supporting groups such as the Media Fund and America Coming Together, the Republicans belatedly got into the game with their own 527s. But they are still whining that the Democrats have an unfair advantage when it comes to getting rich guys like George Soros and Peter Lewis to open their checkbooks.

Bush said he was "disappointed that for the first...six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money—billionaires writing checks." And what, exactly, is wrong with billionaires writing checks, aside from the fact that the checks were not made out to Republicans? Shouldn't Americans be allowed to spend their money on whatever political cause they like?

The problem, according to the president, is that people can "just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising." White House spokesman Scott McClellan likewise complains about "negative attacks from these shadowy groups" that are "funded by unregulated soft money."

Yet it's no mystery who is running these groups, which candidate they want to win, or where their money comes from. We read about these details in the newspaper and hear about them on TV every day. Likewise, claims about Kerry's military service and Bush's National Guard record have been closely scrutinized and vigorously debated.

One suspects that Bush's problem with 527s is not that they're unaccountable to the public but that they do not answer to him. Although their preferences are obvious, they can still act independently, an ability that is especially important now that McCain-Feingold has silenced traditional advocacy groups at election time.

For the candidates, this potential for independence is troubling. While the attacks on Kerry's Vietnam service probably helped Bush initially, for instance, there is no way for the president to call them off now that they seem to be backfiring.

Although FEC Chairman Bradley Smith voted on August 19 to impose new restrictions on 527s beginning in 2005, his response to Kerry's complaint about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth revealed a clearer understanding of what's at stake than either Bush or Kerry has demonstrated. "I think it's great we live in a country where 260 average guys can go out and put their point of view out there before the public and influence a major presidential race," Smith told Bloomberg Television. "I am not one who agrees it is illegitimate for citizens to take a stand on these kind of issues and only the politicians should be able to say what they want about the issues they want to talk about."


Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use (Tarcher/Putnam).

© Copyright 2004 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

SpursWoman
08-30-2004, 12:09 AM
:shootme

exstatic
08-30-2004, 02:20 AM
"I think it's great we live in a country where 260 average guys can go out and put their point of view out there before the public and influence a major presidential race," Smith told Bloomberg Television. "I am not one who agrees it is illegitimate for citizens to take a stand on these kind of issues and only the politicians should be able to say what they want about the issues they want to talk about."


Um, wasn't about half the money donated by one Bush supporter from H-Town? Those 260 dudes ain't gettin' heard without the dollahs.

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 02:24 AM
Yeah and?

Nbadan
08-30-2004, 02:26 AM
One suspects that Bush's problem with 527s is not that they're unaccountable to the public but that they do not answer to him. Although their preferences are obvious, they can still act independently, an ability that is especially important now that McCain-Feingold has silenced traditional advocacy groups at election time.

The Democrats gave up to much with McCain-Feingold. As the article mentioned, Republicans have always been better at raising hard money, and it doesn't help that many rich people find creative ways to circumvent election contribution limits imposed on corporations and private citizens.

As I've said before, there is no inherently wrong with 527's, but what we need is a crackdown that makes these organizations libel for the claims they are making in their advertisments about a particular candidate. If a contested claim cannot be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, they should be immediately removed.

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 02:29 AM
If a contested claim cannot be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, they should be immediately removed.

...unless that claim is made against an incumbent Republican president, apparently.

Nbadan
08-30-2004, 02:39 AM
...unless that claim is made against an incumbent Republican president, apparently.

Exactly which 527 ad are you refering to? None of the ones I have seen have attacked W. with nearly the same level of viciousness, outright lies, and cronyism as the ads put out by the SBVFT.

Have the democrats pointed out that W. had a serious drinking and drug problem? No.

Have the democrats mentioned Prescot Bush's association with a corporation with close ties to the Nazi party? No.

Have the democrats mentioned that Bush forced a high-school sweetheart to have an abortion? No.

Have the democrats attacked Laura bush for Killing her HS sweetheart in a questionable automobile accident? No.

Tell me again, which political party is above the infantile mud-slinging that accomplishes nothing?

exstatic
08-30-2004, 11:41 AM
Yeah and?

The gentleman implies that the 527, SBVFT, is all about little guys being heard. Not true. It's about big money getting their viewpoint out using their money, and any organization that puts a face on it other than their own.

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 12:01 PM
Exactly which 527 ad are you refering to? None of the ones I have seen have attacked W. with nearly the same level of viciousness, outright lies, and cronyism as the ads put out by the SBVFT.

You can start with the ones for which MoveOn provided a forum that equated Bush to Hitler. Cronyism? As if the Kerry campaign doesn't have any ties to 527s. If we are going to say that a campaign attorney cannot have 527s as clients then there are a few Kerry campaign lawyers who need to quit.

"Lies"? You mean Kerry was really in Cambodia on Xmas 1968? You know, the event that was "seared" into his memory.



Have the democrats pointed out that W. had a serious drinking and drug problem? No.

Some have.




Have the democrats mentioned Prescot Bush's association with a corporation with close ties to the Nazi party? No.

Some have. For years that has been out there.




Have the democrats mentioned that Bush forced a high-school sweetheart to have an abortion? No.


Some have.




Have the democrats attacked Laura bush for Killing her HS sweetheart in a questionable automobile accident? No.

Some have. For example. (http://www.childbutcher.com/)

Take your partisan blinders off. The Demos are just as underhanded and nasty as you find the GOP.

Tommy Duncan
08-30-2004, 12:03 PM
The gentleman implies that the 527, SBVFT, is all about little guys being heard. Not true. It's about big money getting their viewpoint out using their money, and any organization that puts a face on it other than their own.

It's called fundraising. The money does not necessarily make the message illegitimate.