The Federal Elections Commission announced yesterday that they have reached agreements with three 527s in connection with violations of federal campaign finance law during the 2004 presidential elections. Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth has agreed to pay the largest civil penalty – $299,500. MoveOn.org will pay $150,000 and The League of Conservation Voters will pay $180,000.
Through their public statements, solicitations for contributions, and various communications to the public, these organizations clearly established that they were political committees during the 2004 campaign. Their failure to register with the Commission, abide by contribution limits and prohibitions, and file disclosure reports resulted in the organizations agreeing to pay…
It might be a little late, but at least it was done. Perhaps others will learn from this.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Perhaps others will learn from this.
What I learned is that free speech only applies to flag burning and pornography. Political speech is tightly controlled.
Somehow, I don’t think that was the point of the first amendment
Roci has this one right. Our campaign finance “reform” laws are principally designed to ensure the reelection of incumbents.
The primary purpose of any government regulation should be to ensure open and honest behavior. The public interest is served when we know who contributes to whom. Limiting campaign contributions, however, stifles competition. That only serves the interests of incumbents.
The League of Conservation Voters… Ah yes, the organization that some officers of the VBDC are a part of. Nothing learned.
I have no problems with people being penalized for breaking the law.
Fines aren’t enough. $300k is just another business expense.
vjp
Do you have selective hearing? Roci and I object to the law itself, not the fact that it is being enforced. Would you like to address whether the law is actually constitutional?
Question, Tom: do you think that Bono should be allowed to say “Fuck yeah!” on prime time broadcast television?
(Yes, it’s related, and I promise at least one follow up)
MB
Frankly, I have little use for prime time broadcast television, and I do not waste much time worrying about it. It may not work for other people, but I think turning the knob to the off position works quite well.
That said, because we each have a beast within us, every society in history has enforced certain standards of behavior and dress. If some stranger walked up to my wife and started calling her names and exposing himself, I do not think his right to free speech would be a relevant. Even if this rude fellow was running for political office, I am certain I would not need to call the FEC to make him stop.
There is a clear difference between the political speech protected by the Constitution and indecent behavior, but lawyers can be quite skillful in confusing matters. So to protect political speech, we put up with some indecent behavior. Nonetheless, I fail to see what this FEC ruling has to do with any of that. So have at it, and while you are at it, would you like to address whether the law is constitutional?
That’s speech, too, Tom, and if I’m understanding your post correctly, you’re fine with restricting it. So if (and I grant that I may be misreading you) you’re fine with limiting speech there, it seems that you’re okay with limiting free speech in furtherance of some social good/standard. I’d say that proponents of campaign finance limits have at least as good an argument in favor of those limits as you might in favor of keeping profanity off of broadcast television (which can absolutely be political speech).
I believe it was Machiavelli that said you have the right to do something as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of another person. I suppose the question really is; what violates the rights of another person? Swearing? Ignoring fundraising laws? etc
You’re going off the deep end here, MB. The ban on profanity bans specific words, not the ideas behind the words. The campaign law restricts IDEAS, no matter what words are used to express them.
MB
Here is the text of the first amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What did the writers of the Constitution mean by freedom of speech. Given the context of the amendment (The Constitution is a political document.), I think it is safe to say the writers were concerned about the rights of people to participate in the political process. Specifically, they did not want the Federal Government to stop the People from involving themselves in the election of their leaders.
Now on occasion I might want some individual restrained from engaging in behavior and speech that interferes with the rights of others. Such behavior or speech could be criminal just extremely rude. It might be juvenile or attributable to mental illness. Whatever it is, such behavior has nothing to do with politics or religion.
Because I do not think all speech is protected by the first amendment, I suppose you think that makes me a hypocrite. So if I can be a hypocrite, I guess you think it is OK for you to be a hypocrite. It is OK to ignore the Constitution and restrict what is clearly political speech protected by the Constitution. Is that sum of your argument?
MB, I’m not sure what your argument is. My argument is that profanity on public airwaves may be restricted under the 1st Amendment, because that ban only applies to the public airwaves, which is why Howard Stern went to satellite, and because it does not ban ideas. The campaign finance laws prohibit nearly ALL anti-incumbent advertising close to an election, no matter what words are used to do that, and therefore those laws are unconstitutional.
Reading your last post, I’m not even sure where you stand here.
Thanks for the text, Tom. I’m quite familiar with it. But yes, I do think that if you’re standing on the First Amendment in an absolutist position to complain about campaign finance laws, then you are a hypocrite if you otherwise support exceptions to the First Amendment. And while you might like to brush it aside by saying that that it’s simply extremely rude to say “The Bush Administration is a fucking abomination and we should impeach that son of a bitch tomorrow.” on Hannity & Colmes, it’s the core of political speech.
You might argue that the same sentiments can be gotten across without the “fucking” and “bitch” (I’d disagree, but for the purposes of this argument, I’ll set that aside). What you’d essentially be arguing for, though, is a time/place/manner restriction on political speech. Which is very much what the campaign finance laws could be characterized as.
In any event, to get anywhere with the argument, you’ve got a pretty difficult burden to carry in arguing that money = speech. If you think you’ve got a way to cinch that, well, you just might have a way to shut down taxes, regulatory fees, heck . . . pretty much everything.
(And fwiw, your hypocrisy has absolutely no bearing on any I might have, thanks.)
Didn’t the S.C. already rule that money = speech?
But I guess they ruled that the campaign finance law was constitution, too.