[Chat] Fwd: Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal

[Crystal]

> --- "Wes Boyd, MoveOn.org"
> <moveon-help at list.moveon.org> wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:52:56 -0800
> > From: "Wes Boyd, MoveOn.org"
> > <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
> > Subject: Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal
> > 
> > Dear MoveOn member,
> > 
> > Are you involved in a local or national non-profit
> > or public interest organization?  As a leader or
> > board director or member?  Please read this
> message
> > carefully, because your organization could be
> facing
> > a serious threat.
> > 
> > The Republican National Committee is pressing the
> > Federal Election Commission ("FEC") to issue new
> > rules that would shut down groups that dare to
> > communicate with the public in any way critical of
> > President Bush or members of Congress. 
> Incredibly,
> > the FEC has just issued -- for public comment --
> > proposed rules that would do just that.  Any kind
> of
> > non-profit -- conservative, progressive, labor,
> > religious, secular, social service, charitable,
> > educational, civic participation, issue-oriented,
> > large, and small -- could be affected by these
> > rules.
> > 
> > Operatives in Washington are displaying a
> terrifying
> > disregard for the values of free speech and
> openness
> > which underlie our democracy.  Essentially, they
> are
> > willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush
> > administration policy.
> > 
> > We've attached materials below to help you make a
> > public comment to the FEC before the comment
> period
> > ends on APRIL 9th.  Your comment could be very
> > important, because normally the FEC doesn't get
> much
> > public feedback.
> > 
> > Public comments to the FEC are encouraged by email
> > at
> > 
> >    politicalcommitteestatus at fec.gov
> >    
> > Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh,
> > Acting Assistant General Counsel, and must include
> > the full name, electronic mail address, and postal
> > service address of the commenter.
> > 
> > More details can be found at:
> >    
> >   
> >
>
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html
> > 
> > We'd love to see a copy of your public comment. 
> > Please email us a copy at FECcomment at moveon.org.
> > 
> > By the way, the FEC’s proposed rules do not affect
> > the donations you may have made in the past or may
> > make now to MoveOn.org or to the MoveOn.org Voter
> > Fund.  They are aimed at activist non-profit
> groups,
> > not donors.
> > 
> > Whether or not you're with a non-profit, we also
> > suggest you ask your representatives to write a
> > letter to the FEC opposing the rule change.
> > 
> > Some key points:
> > 
> > - Campaign finance reform was not meant to gag
> > public interest organizations.
> > - Political operatives are trying to silence
> > opposition to Bush policy.
> > - The Federal Election Commission has no legal
> right
> > to treat non-profit interest groups as political
> > committees.  Congress and the courts have
> > specifically considered and rejected such
> > regulation. 
> > 
> > You can reach your representatives at:
> > 
> >   Senator Paul S. Sarbanes
> >   Phone: 202-224-4524
> > 
> >   Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
> >   Phone: 202-224-4654
> > 
> >   Congressman Elijah E. Cummings
> >   Phone: 202-225-4741
> > 
> > Please let us know you're calling, at:
> > 
> >
>
http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=2540-571892-EhssWwleGW8zD1yI1KEaQA
> > 
> > In a non-election year, this kind of
> administrative
> > overreach would never find support.  It goes far
> > beyond any existing law or precedent. It is a
> > serious threat to the fundamental checks and
> > balances in our system.  But because of an unholy
> > alliance between a few campaign reform groups and
> > GOP partisans, this rule change could actually
> > happen if we don't act now. 
> > 
> > I've attached more details below, prepared by our
> > attorneys and by the FEC Working Group -- a group
> of
> > more than 500 respected non-profit organizations.
> > 
> > If you run a non-profit, don't assume this change
> > doesn't apply to you.  First check out the
> EXAMPLES
> > OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS
> > section below.  It's outrageous.
> >    
> > Thanks for all you do,
> > 
> > -Wes Boyd
> >  MoveOn.org
> >  March 30, 2004
> >  
> > ________________
> > 
> > 
> > EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT
> > GROUPS
> > 
> > Under the proposed rules, nonprofit organizations
> > that advocate for cancer research, gun and
> abortion
> > restrictions or rights, fiscal discipline, tax
> > reform, poverty issues, immigration reform, the
> > environment, or civil rights or liberties - all
> > these organizations could be transformed into
> > political committees if they criticize or commend
> > members of Congress or the President based on
> their
> > official actions or policy positions.
> > 
> > Such changes would cripple the ability of groups
> to
> > raise and spend funds in pursuit of their mission
> > and could be so ruinous that organizations would
> be
> > forced to back away from meaningful conversations
> > about public policies that affect millions of
> > Americans.
> > 
> > If the proposed rules were adopted, the following
> > organizations would be treated as federal
> political
> > committees and therefore could not receive grants
> > from any corporation, even an incorporated
> nonprofit
> > foundation, from any union, or from any individual
> > in excess of $5,000 per year:
> > 
> > - A 501(c)(4) gun rights organization that spends
> > $50,000 on ads at any time during this election
> year
> > criticizing any legislator, who also happens to be
> a
> > federal candidate, for his or her position on gun
> > control measures.
> > 
> > - A "good government" organization [§501(c)(3)]
> that
> > spends more than $50,000 to research and publish a
> > report criticizing several members of the House of
> > Representatives for taking an all-expense trip to
> > the Bahamas as guests of the hotel industry. 
> > 
> > - A fund [§527] created by a tax reform
> organization
> > to provide information to the public regarding
> > federal candidates' voting records on budget
> issues.
> > 
> > - A civil rights organization [§501(c)(3) or
> > §501(c)(4)] that spends more than $50,000 to
> conduct
> > non-partisan voter registration activities in
> > Hispanic and African-American communities after
> July
> > 5, 2004.
> > 
> > - An organization devoted to the environment that
> > spends more than $50,000 on communications
> opposing
> > oil drilling in the Arctic and identifying
> specific
> > Members of Congress as supporters of the
> > legislation, if those Members are running for
> > re-election.
> > 
> > - A civic organization [§501(c)(6)] that spends
> > $50,000 during 2004 to send letters to all
> > registered voters in the community urging them to
> > vote on November 2, 2004 because "it is your civic
> > duty."
> > 
> > Other potential ramifications include the
> following
> > situations:
> > 
> > - A religious organization that publishes an
> > election-year legislative report card covering all
> > members of Congress on a broad range of issues
> would
> > be unable to accept more than $5,000 from any
> > individual donor if the report indicated whether
> > specific votes were good or bad.
> > 
> > - A 501(c)(3) organization that primarily
> encourages
> > voter registration and voting among young people
> > will be required to re-create itself as a federal
> > PAC.
> > 
> > - A 501(c)(4) pro-life group that accepts
> > contributions from local businesses would break
> the
> > law by using its general funds to pay for any
> > communications critical of an incumbent Senator's
> > position on abortion rights after the Senator had
> > officially declared himself for reelection more
> than
> > a year before the next election.
> > 
> > - A 501(c)(3) civil rights group that has been
> > designated as a political committee can no longer
> > hold its annual fundraiser at a corporate-donated
> > facility, and it must refuse donations or grants
> > from donors that have already given $5,000 for
> that
> > year.
> > 
> > BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES
> > 
> > Under federal campaign finance laws, federal
> > "political committees" must register and file
> > reports with the FEC and can accept contributions
> > only from individual persons (and other federal
> > committees), and only up to $5,000 per year from
> any
> > one donor ("hard money").  The FEC is now
> proposing
> > to redefine "political committee" to include any
> > group that:
> > 
> > 1.  Spends more than $1,000 this year on
> nonpartisan
> > voter registration or get out the vote activity or
> > on any ad, mailing or phone bank that "promotes,
> > supports, attacks or opposes" any federal
> candidate;
> > and
> > 
> > 2.  Supposedly has a "major purpose" of election
> of
> > a federal candidate as shown by:
> >    (a) Saying anything in its press releases,
> > materials, website, etc. that might lead
> regulators
> > to conclude that the group’s "major purpose" is to
> > influence the election of any federal candidate;
> or
> >    (b) Spending more than $50,000 this year or in
> > any of the last 4 years for any nonpartisan voter
> > registration or get out the vote program, or on
> any
> > public communication that "promotes, supports,
> > attacks or opposes" any federal candidate. 
> > 
> > What’s more, any group that gets turned into a
> > federal "political committee" under these new
> rules
> > has to shut down all its communications critical
> of
> > President Bush (or any other federal candidate)
> > until it sets up "federal" and "non-federal"
> > accounts; and raises enough hard money
> contributions
> > to "repay" the federal account for the amounts
> spent
> > on all those communications since the beginning of
> > 2003.  
> > 
> > These proposed rules would apply to all types of
> > groups: 501(c)(3) charitable  organizations,
> > 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations, labor unions,
> > trade associations and non-federal political
> > committees and organizations (so-called "527"
> > groups, as well as state PACs, local political
> > clubs, etc.).
> > 
> > The new rules, including those that apply to voter
> > engagement, cover all types of communications --
> not
> > just broadcast TV or radio ads -- but messages in
> > any form, such as print ads, mailings, phone
> banks,
> > email alerts like this one, websites, leaflets,
> > speeches, posters, tabling, even knocking on
> doors.
> > 
> > The FEC will hold a public hearing on April 14 &
> 15.
> >  Written comments are due by April 5 if the group
> > wants to testify at that hearing; otherwise, by
> > April 9.  The FEC plans to make its final decision
> > on these proposed rules by mid-May and they could
> go
> > into effect as early as July, right in the middle
> of
> > the election year, potentially retroactive to
> > January 2003.  
> > 
> > It’s clear that these rules would immediately
> > silence thousands of groups, of all types, who
> have
> > raised questions and criticisms of any kind about
> > the Bush Administration, its record and its
> > policies.  
> > 
> > SOME TALKING POINTS
> > 
> > - The FEC should not change the rules for
> nonprofit
> > advocacy in the middle of an election year,
> > especially in ways that Congress already
> considered
> > and rejected. Implementing these changes now would
> > go far beyond what Congress decided and the
> Supreme
> > Court upheld.
> > 
> > - These rules would shut down the legitimate
> > activities of nonprofit organizations of all kinds
> > that the FEC has no authority at all to regulate.
> > 
> > - Nothing in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform
> law
> > or the Supreme Court’s decision upholding it
> > provides any basis for these rules.  That law is
> > only about banning federal candidates from using
> > unregulated contributions ("soft money"), and
> > banning political parties from doing so, because
> of
> > their close relationship to those candidates. 
> It’s
> > clear that, with one exception relating to running
> > broadcast ads close to an election, the new law
> > wasn’t supposed to change what independent
> nonprofit
> > interest groups can do, including political
> > organizations (527’s) that have never before been
> > subject to regulation by the FEC.
> > 
> > - The FEC can’t fix the problems with these
> proposed
> > rules just by imposing new burdens on section 527
> > groups.  They do important issue education and
> > advocacy as well as voter mobilization.  And
> > Congress clearly decided to require those groups
> to
> > fully and publicly disclose their finances,
> through
> > the IRS and state agencies, not to restrict their
> > independent activities and speech.  The FEC has no
> > authority to go further.
> > 
> > - In the McConnell opinion upholding
> > McCain-Feingold, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly
> > stated that the law's limits on unregulated
> > corporate, union and large individual
> contributions
> > apply to political parties and not interest
> groups.
> > Congress specifically considered regulating 527
> > organization three times in the last several years
> -
> > twice through the Internal Revenue Code and once
> > during the BCRA debate - and did not subject them
> to
> > McCain-Feingold.
> > 
> > - The FEC should not, in a few weeks, tear up the
> > fabric of tax-exempt law that has existed for
> > decades and under which thousands of nonprofit
> > groups have structured their activities and their
> > governance.  The Internal Revenue Code already
> > prohibits 501(c)(3) charities from intervening in
> > political candidate campaigns, and IRS rules for
> > other 501(c) groups prohibit them from ever having
> a
> > primary purpose to influence any candidate
> elections
> > -- federal, state, or local.
> > 
> > - As an example of how seriously the new FEC rules
> > contradict the IRS political and lobbying rules
> for
> > nonprofits, consider this:  Under the 1976 public
> > charity lobbying law, a 501(c)(3) group with a
> $1.5
> > million annual budget can spend $56,250 on
> > grassroots lobbying, including criticism of a
> > federal incumbent candidate in the course of
> > lobbying on a specific bill.  That same action
> under
> > the new FEC rules would cause the charity to be
> > regulated as a federal political committee, with
> > devastating impact on its finances and perhaps
> even
> > loss of its tax-exempt status.
> > 
> > - The chilling effect of the proposed rules on
> free
> > speech cannot be overstated. Merely expressing an
> > opinion about an officeholder's policies could
> turn
> > a nonprofit group OVERNIGHT into a federally
> > regulated political committee with crippling
> > fund-raising restrictions.
> > 
> > - Under the most draconian proposal, the FEC would
> > "look back" at a nonprofit group's activities over
> > the past four years - before McCain-Feingold was
> > ever passed and the FEC ever proposed these rules
> -
> > to determine whether a group's activities qualify
> it
> > as a federal political committee. If so, the FEC
> > would require a group to raise hard money to repay
> > prior expenses that are now subject to the new
> > rules. Further work would be halted until debts to
> > the "old" organization were repaid. This rule
> would
> > jeopardize the survival of many groups.
> > 
> > - The 4 year "look back" rule would cause a
> > nonprofit group that criticized or praised the
> > policies of Bush, Cheney, McCain, or Gore in 2000,
> > or any Congressional incumbent candidate in 2000
> or
> > 2002, to be classified as a political committee
> now,
> > even though the group has not done so since then. 
> > This severely violates our constitutional
> guarantees
> > of due process.
> > 
> > - These changes would impoverish political debate
> > and could act as a de facto "gag rule" on public
> > policy advocacy. They would insulate public
> > officials from substantive criticism for their
> > positions on policy issues. They would actually
> > diminish civic participation in government rather
> > than strengthen it. This would be exactly the
> > opposite result intended by most supporters of
> > campaign finance reform.
> > 
> > - The FEC's proposed rule changes would
> dramatically
> > impair vigorous debate about important national
> > issues. It would hurt nonprofit groups across the
> > political spectrum and restrict First Amendment
> > freedoms in ways that are unhealthy for our
> > democracy.
> > 
> > - Any kind of nonprofit -- conservative, liberal,
> > labor, religious, secular, social service,
> > charitable, educational, civic participation,
> > issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be
> > affected by these rules. A vast number would be
> > essentially silenced on the issues that define
> them,
> > whether they are organized as 501(c)(3),
> 501(c)(4),
> > or 527 organizations.
> > 
> > - Already, more than five hundred nonprofit
> > organizations - including many that supported
> > McCain-Feingold like ourselves - have voiced their
> > opposition to the FEC's efforts to restrict
> advocacy
> > in the name of campaign finance reform.
> > 
> > FOR MORE INFORMATION
> > 
> > Resources on FEC Proposed Rule Changes Threatening
> > Nonprofit Advocacy Prepared by the FEC Working
> Group
> >
>
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=14670
> > 
> > From two prominent reform organizations:
> > 
> > Soft Money and the FEC 
> > Common Cause
> >
>
http://www.commoncause.org/news/default.cfm?ArtID=282
> > 
> > Public Campaign Statement regarding FEC Draft
> > Advisory Opinion 2003-37
> > Public Campaign
> >
>
http://www.publiccampaign.org/pressroom/pressreleases/release2004/statement02-17-04.htm


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html