Outside Groups
News & Commentary | Archive

"Outside Groups" is a term for organizations other than party committees, registered federal political committees, or candidate committees. BCRA seeks to limit the ability of these groups to introduce soft money into the federal electoral process. It prohibits corporations and unions from naming a federal candidate in ads run in the candidate's state or district within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. An additional and complex provision is designed to prevent outside groups from "coordinating" with candidates their communications to the public, such as mail, phone or broadcast communications.

James Bopp and the Legal Significance of His "Truth" in Issue Advertising

     Jim Bopp and the editorialists at the New York Times are not of one mind on the issues of the day and if there is an exception here or there, no one would expect to find it in the realm of campaign finance doctrine.  And yet now, it seems that just that has happened:  a strange and expected convergence in their perspectives of 527 and other "issue advertising."  It has shown up in their beliefs that what an organization may or may not do legally depends, somehow and unexpectedly, on whether by one measure or the other, what it says is true.

 

The Times and the Issue of "527" Enforcement in 2008

     The New York Times grabbed the attention of CCP and others with its editorial on 527 "smears."  The Times applauded a court refusal to block application of existing rules that require 527s, such as the Real Truth About Obama, to comply with federal campaign finance laws.  What rubbed the critics the wrong way was the emphasis on the nature of the speech paid by the 527.  It seemed to them that, in the Times' worldview, the object of the campaign finance laws—of the 527 rules in particular—is to keep vile and dishonest speech off the air.

 

More in the Weekly Standard on AIP

     The Weekly Standard reprinted in full my response here  to Allison Hayward, on the subject of AIP’s waywardness and that of its sugar-daddy. September 15, 2008, pp.5-6. Allison was given space for a short reply, and for those who do not have subscriptions to the Weekly Standard, these are her key points:

1.   She worries that I am addressing only the “facts…in hand” and not ones that only a regulatory authority could uncover. True, and this is all I could reasonably be asked to do—expose the damning facts available to me and turn the task of completing the picture to the investigators.

2.   She is further troubled that the Obama campaign alleges a criminal violation, and this difference between criminal and civil enforcement drives her to object, once again, to criminal liability based on “hyperformalism”.  To allow Allison to speak for herself:

Bauer agrees that Harold Simmons would have the right as an individual to spend his own money in unlimited amounts on this same ad, and so he must agree that the crux of the issue is whether, by giving that same money to AIP, he committed a crime. That is precisely the point I felt worth making. Whether the money comes from Simmons or Soros, it seems like “hyperformalism” to recognize the one type of spending as protected First Amendment activity and the other as criminal.

 

Answering Hasen and CCP, on ALP

     Rick Hasen wants to hear from me about the reason why the Obama campaign has not renewed its complaint against the American Leadership Project, a 527 that drew a complaint when spending on behalf of Hillary Clinton and that is now on the loose, so far unchallenged, against John McCain.  The Center for Competitive Politics started this, raising the question, and it uses the occasion to make its case that the law is used—abused—as an “electoral sword.” 

 

Allison Hayward Tries to Explain

Her Defense of the AIP, in the Weekly Standard

     Allison Hayward knows a good deal about election law, and she writes with verve and wit, making good entertainment of what is often the dreariest subjects.  In the Weekly Standard, she turns these talents to the task of defending the American Issues Project and its financier Harold Simmons.  

 

Also...

Re-thinking How, or in What Ways, McCain-Feingold Affected Corporate Support for 527s  8/7/08

Tea Leaves, at the Federal Election Commission  8/6/08

On the EMILY's List Case  8/5/08

The "Real Truth" about Jim Bopp’s New Case  7/31/08

The FEC Is Back—With an Interesting First Test  7/24/08

SpeechNow Put Off for a While: a Damage Report  7/2/08

The Courts and the FEC: Sad Lessons To Be Drawn from the Shays Case  6/16/08

More on McCain and His "Outside Group" Policy  6/3/08

“Major Purpose” As A Major Issue in Coming Campaign Finance Battles  5/12/08

Nonprofit Asks Supreme Court To Review "Support or Oppose" Standard  3/12/08