Trouble at work? Boss got you down? Visit "Working In These Times," our new workers' rights blog, for news and commentary.

The Fall of the 527

New legislation aims to rein in groups that can collect unregulated documents

By Tracy Van Slyke

The rise of 527s was one of the big political stories of 2004. But the influence of these groups could be relegated to a historical footnote if a bipartisan group in Congress can fast-track the next phase in campaign finance reform. In 2002, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) wrote and helped pass the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (10)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    I have a big problem with regulations that, in effect, prohibit speech, especially political speech. To me, the better solution is that those who wish to make public comments and opinions concerning political candidates should be required to disclose what they are (ie: a 527 propaganda group), and what political party and candidate they support and the purpose of the statement (ie: to influence the election).  Anyone stupid enough to blindly believe the representations of such a group, knowing who they are, without independent investigation deserves the government they get (except in Bush’s case since both of his victories were stolen by his brother, the governor of Florida).

    United States Posted by Lefty on Mar 21, 2005 at 3:38 PM

    I agree with Lefty regarding free speech. The problem we have stems from something most people really don’t want to look at, as it also involves their personal life. That has to do with being open and honest with who you are and what you are doing. Secrecy is the by-word in today’s America. As it notes in the article above, “But basically that was just a wink and a nod.” And that is how we all get into trouble! With the proverbial “wink and a nod.”
    Further regulation will do little good and probably much harm as the critics contend. The reality is that money is somewhat like mercury. You try and put your thumb on it (regulation) and it squirts away to somewhere else. I would rather press for honesty in reportage so we can really see where the money goes and who is behind it. You ain’t gonna stop it from being spent as the power brokers want it to be.

    United States Posted by Merlin on Mar 21, 2005 at 8:04 PM

    While reining in these groups is a great idea, I don’t see how this will work.  The article states that if a “527’s sole purpose is to influence a federal election it must be funded with “hard money”.  It seems logical that every 527 group will attach a small campaign that is not related to the Federal election so they can circumvent this clause.

    I think a better approach may be to require prior fact-checking for any political ad and administering a strict “truth in advertising” policy.  If facts cannot be substantiated by hard data, then it cannot run.  Also, each ad must have a disclaimer stating who the funding party is, such as Swift Boat or ACT. 

    I don’t mind hearing facts that don’t fit my perseption as long as they are facts, tried and true and I know who’s putting it “out there”.

    United States Posted by Margaret on Mar 21, 2005 at 8:14 PM

    Want to reign it in?

    Eliminate the 527s, eliminate ALL political ads put out by “3rd Parties”. All ads should be sanctioned and STATED in the ad as coming from a particular campaign. Then…

    Bring back the fairness doctrine.

    United States Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Mar 21, 2005 at 8:25 PM

    L&P

    I think we are basically saying the same thing.

    United States Posted by Margaret on Mar 21, 2005 at 8:43 PM

    I didn’t do more than skim the article because I simply want to bring oyur attention to the fact that being a lawyer can augment the nature of reality into paradoxes which do not benefit humankind efficiently.

    Money talks regardless of jurisprudence.

    United States Posted by anonymous on Mar 22, 2005 at 12:56 AM

    I SECOND THE RECOMMENDATION TO BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!  SINCE THE TV AND CABLE STATIONS CAN SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS SUPPORTING THEIR PARTY T0 THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS - IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE - IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY - TO INSTITUTE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ONCE AGAIN.  IT WOULD DO WONDERS FOR THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH! PARTICULARLY GIVEN OUR EXPERIENCE DURING THE PAST FOUR YEARS.

    United States Posted by Dee on Mar 22, 2005 at 4:38 AM

    Bring back the Fairness Doctrine? I’m not so sure it would work without changing the basic thrust of it. Sadly, the situation now is very different from the 1960s when it was formed. Then there was a better chance of it working. Ethics still did exist to some degree then. (There was enough good feeling, that the stations were left to be “fair and balanced” by themselves. There were many stations coming on board then, and competition was there.) Do you really believe that, if the old doctrine could be brought back today, it would be effective?
    Don’t we have “fair and Balanced” “news” now on FOX News? Actually, even though they do bring on to their programs a “liberal” for balance, I don’t see much fairness or balance at all. FOX controls what is seen, by editing out the portions of the dialog that they don’t like, and the audience is not aware of that. So the coverage wears the clothes of fairness when in reality it is a sham.
    However, that aside, my real problem is that “fair and balanced” “news” is really not news at all. It is a bunch of pundits, on both sides of the issue, editorializing the news their own way. That is what FOX is all about, IMO. True, you get to hear both sides (supposedly) but where is the real news sans the pundits opinion. I want straight reporting and investigative reporting, separated from editorializing and the editorializing should be introduced, as that is what it is. That would give the American public the real info they need to be informed and judge the pundits views more accurately.
    What are the chances of getting anything passed in the near future ? IMO, it just ain’t possible. Maybe after we kick the neocon wingnuts out of control in 2008 and take back the congress the old rules might have a chance of being reinstated. Passed the way I want it? When hell freezes over.

    United States Posted by Merlin on Mar 22, 2005 at 8:14 AM

    I think the legislature should tell the FEC and the FCA to require media outlets (at the promoters expense) to make a statement before or at the top of any politically motivated program or ad, to state that: “The viewpoints, opinions or propaganda stated in this program/message are those of the proponents and not necessarily those of this media outlet”. If the the program contains any commercials or news breaks, this statement should be repeated after each break.

    United States Posted by Stan the Man Unsual on Mar 24, 2005 at 10:27 PM

    Stan, I agree.

    United States Posted by William on Apr 5, 2005 at 10:29 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Popular Discussions