FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

[treedancer]

I hope they shut all of these operations down before the next election. What’s wrong with running on your own ideas?

How about putting a very low limit on total spending?

Why are election being bought and sold to the highest bidder?

What is the highest bidder getting in return?

Any more questions post them.

For Immediate Release
December 13, 2006 Contact:
Bob Biersack
FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS
WASHINGTON – The Federal Election Commission announced today that it has reached settlements with three 527 organizations accused of violating the federal campaign finance laws during the 2004 presidential election. The League of Conservation Voters 527 and 527II, MoveOn.org Voter Fund, and Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth have collectively paid almost $630,000 to settle charges that they failed to register and file disclosure reports as federal political committees, and accepted contributions in violation of federal limits and source prohibitions. The Commission approved all three conciliation agreements by a vote of 6-0.

· League of Conservation Voters 527 and 527II -- $180,000

· MoveOn.org Voter Fund -- $ 150,000

· Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth -- $ 299,500

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061213murs.html

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

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 would our founding fathers say about how the political system has matured? The USSC has said that giving money to political entities is a form of free speech. Some would call it a bribe or payoff

 

[KaGee]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Another "unintended consequence" of Liberal legislation.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

Liberals never consider that... they always view the world as "Static".

"McCain/Feingold" was to reduce the amount of money in politics. The past election saw new record amounts spent.

 

[aspeck]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Just another way to ensure that the politicians keep getting elected, and to make it near impossible for a "common man" to run for office outside his/her local municpality.

Wish there was some way to have a spending limit on an election, and that included the amounts that the 527's spent. Don't know how it could be done, though.

 

[PW2]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

If the FEC would force the various politicos to be at least as truthful as the average...say...toothpaste ad, I think we'd all be better off.

That's probably too much to ask, and establishing spending limits are probably the wrong way to attack this problem.

 

[aspeck]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

So, PW, how do you propose we address this problem. I am not being confrontational with this post, but sincerely wanting your opinion. I do not know how we can effectively address it, but I know it needs addressed.

You mentioned making the political ads be as truthful as toothpaste ads. I agree with that. I hate it when the opponent claims that Senator X voted against benefits for the handicapped, when that was a $500,000 appropriation attached to a $100 million bill for funding for research on how an ant can lift a bread crumb.

And I think it is shameful that only the wealthy - the Bushes, Heinz-Kerry's, etc. have access to the political machine. We would do better with more Larry the Cable Guys being able to run for office. Well, maybe not that far ... :%8)

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

That's the only thing that keeps me from running, money or lack thereof.

 

[treedancer]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

I’d vote for ya SBN,you probably kept my foot out of my mouth a few times on this board

 

[Bondo]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

you probably kept my foot out of my mouth a few times on this board

I guess SBN should keep a Closer eye on You.......

 

[rolmops]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

The most worrysome part of this is that it really does not matter how much you fine these clubs.The punishment comes long after they have achieved their goal.Besides, the people who initiated these organisations are not being punished at all.The organisations have probably already disbanded and they planned all along to leave some petty cash in the drawer for the inevitable fines.
Now it might help if law enforcement would go after Karl Rove for setting up these "independent" movements.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

PACs in general remind me of the old argument back in the days when bigotry was rampant and socially acceptable. The montra that all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. These shadow-campaign funders and PACs parallel that a bit so that freedom of speech means more freedom of speech to those with the resources to pay for it. :|

 

[POINTER94]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

I think I agree with all the above posts. After the fact, liberal programs gone bad, truth in advertising. Whats the point. I hope George Soros or the benefactors of the other groups can afford 180K. Big deal, might as well fine me twenty five cents for insider trading. Meaningless, headline grabbing, useless penalties with no meat to change the political landscape. I think fines should be based on previous years income. 60% of all funds raised. That would have a strong impact. And have them linked to any other groups that can be linked to the offending group. Swift boats vets for freedom, or swift boat vets for truth, or moveon.org / moveon.net / moveon.com. I think you get the pic.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Up until the ratification of the 17th amendment of the Constitution, state Senators were appointment positions by state legislatures.
This ensured that Senators were available and responsible to local constituents. "We the people", had more oversight and control over our Senators and local legislatures and the laws they pass.
Repealing the 17th amendment would go most of the way in meaningful campaign reform.

 

[PW2]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

So, PW, how do you propose we address this problem. I am not being confrontational with this post, but sincerely wanting your opinion. I do not know how we can effectively address it, but I know it needs addressed.

You mentioned making the political ads be as truthful as toothpaste ads. I agree with that. I hate it when the opponent claims that Senator X voted against benefits for the handicapped, when that was a $500,000 appropriation attached to a $100 million bill for funding for research on how an ant can lift a bread crumb.

And I think it is shameful that only the wealthy - the Bushes, Heinz-Kerry's, etc. have access to the political machine. We would do better with more Larry the Cable Guys being able to run for office. Well, maybe not that far ... :%8)

I don't take it as confrontational, and I don't have a clue what to do about it. Until we start somehow penalizing candidates (and the PAC's that support them) at the ballot box for misleading information and outright lies, I suspect there is no law anywhere possible to achieve the desired result.

Perhaps public funding of campaigns might be an idea, but I suspect it is somehow unconstitutional, and at minimum wildly difficult to control and regulate.

Perhaps some sort of publically funded bi-partisan voter pamphlet that gave an honest assessment of each candidates positions on various key issues--at least then you might get a better idea of whether a specific candidate represents your values or not.

Money is power, and is what drives politics, and has forever in human history. I don't think any law is going to alter that truth.

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Sorry for the following C&P but this is from the Dallas Morning News. It names some members of one of the parties but the problem is NOT limited to one party.

Eight ways to close those loopholes and clean up Capitol Hill

05:20 AM CST on Wednesday, January 11, 2006

As Robert W. Ney gazed across St. Andrews' fabled golf course, he must have paused to take the measure of his rags-to-riches life. After all, he was a regular Joe who once scraped by on the salary of a low-level bureaucrat in Bellaire, Ohio (population 4,892; annual median income $19,480).

Now he was in Scotland for a quick getaway – at the finest hotels, the finest restaurants and at the world's most famous golf course.
Also Online

And it didn't cost him a thing.

Mr. Ney is a member of the House of Representatives, and his trip was arranged by the now-infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the central figure in a broadening scandal of influence peddling and bribery in Washington. Mr. Abramoff confessed to federal crimes last week and promised to cooperate against politicians who sold their offices for free vacations and sports tickets.

The fact is, such improprieties are all-too-common in Washington. The recent revelations about Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., add fuel to the fire. Mr. Cunningham left a paper trail of gifts such as a Rolls-Royce (and $17,890 in repairs), use of a corporate jet, silver candelabra, Persian carpets, a sofa, a sleigh bed and much more, all courtesy of the defense industry.

Although there are calls for reform, the smart money in Washington has to be on the long-armed lobbyists. Just in case anyone is serious, however, here are eight simple changes that would clean up Congress:

1. Close the "outside income" loophole. Members of Congress routinely legislate in areas where they have direct and sizable financial interests. That's because the ethics code prohibition on outside income doesn't include money earned from investments such as stocks.

Researchers at the University of Memphis found that 75 percent of randomly selected members had "stock transactions that directly coincided with (their) legislative activity."

The way to deal with this problem is simple: Require members to put their investments into a blind investment portfolio or trust.

2. Bar quid pro quo arrangements. Members accept sweetheart financial deals from individuals who then get generous government contracts and legislative perks. Some members have gotten no-interest loans; others have made 500 percent profits on deals in just a few years.

The solution is to force members to recuse themselves from any legislation or official action that benefits their business associates or family members.

3. Deter nepotism. Members have become increasingly bold in seeking offices and appointments for their children, siblings, spouses, etc. Again, the simple solution is total recusal. No member of Congress or his or her staff should be allowed to participate in any appointment or hiring of a family member.

4. End family lobbying. Lobbyists aren't allowed to give money directly to members, so they routinely give it to members' spouses or children. How? They hire them. Dozens of children and spouses of members of Congress are working in Washington lobbying firms – often with no pertinent experience or skills. Members should be barred from any involvement with legislation or from committee assignments that bear on issues a family member represents.

5. End "educational" trips. A rule bars congressional junkets paid for by lobbyists, but as long as the lobbyist uses a shell "research" group and calls the vacations "educational," members can go and take their families. All trips paid for by any outside group should be banned.

6. Bar private-jet travel. Congress allows members to accept flights on private or corporate jets, often with lobbyists tagging along, if members reimburse those companies for the equivalent of a first-class ticket. The problem is that the value of such travel is far greater than a first-class ticket. Members should be required to reimburse for the total cost of a jet charter.

7. Change the valuation of gifts. Members are supposed to accept no gifts worth more than $50, but it happens all the time. For example, the owner of a major basketball team reportedly valued tickets to his skybox at $49.50, at least when they were given to a member. The valuation of gifts should be independently calculated.

8. Create a truly independent ethics office for both houses. With members in control of their own ethics rules, as is now the case, ethical behavior is just one more commodity to be traded in the political market. For example, when ethics charges were flying a few years ago, members simply agreed on a moratorium on such charges – creating in effect an ethics-free zone for the corrupt.

These loopholes were maintained by members of both parties, despite years of objections by outside groups. It's not that they didn't know how to govern ethically, they simply preferred not to, if given the choice.

One of the things that the Republican party has done that I take issue with is a procedural change in the way PAC funds are dispersed.

Basically it makes lobbyists take the funds they have to distribute and instead of giving directly to a Representative they wish to influence they are to give it to the leadership of the Republican hierarchy. The hierarchy then distributes the funds to the members as it sees fit.

What this does is allow the few members at the very top to dictate the votes of all Republicans. If a Republican member wishes to vote against something the few in power support that member can expect retaliation from the leadership. So what you have is a corruption of a corrupt system.

It takes funds to be elected. If the leadership wishes they can cut off funding, select one of their patsies as your opponent and support him. Again, this allows a few members at the upper level to control who gets elected anywhere in the nation.

Reform is sadly needed but neither side is willing go at it with the vigor required. The only time this will change, I feel, is when the American voter gets so torqued off it changes out a large percentage of the elected in one election.

Using money in this manner is not a First Amendment issue IMHO. I think this is the very thing our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

How about eliminating all ads except the ones in which the candidates themselves actually are the spokes-person(s). That would eliminate 527's, Hollywood actors, past political cronies, etc. Swear them in prior to taping the ad and prosecute for perjury if found lying.

It would also affect spending. If one candidate outspent another by a significant amount, he/she would run the risk of overexposure and alienating the voters.

Just my wild-a$$ed, off-the-wall 2¢.

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

How about eliminating all ads except the ones in which the candidates themselves actually are the spokes-person(s). That would eliminate 527's, Hollywood actors, past political cronies, etc. Swear them in prior to taping the ad and prosecute for perjury if found lying.

It would also affect spending. If one candidate outspent another by a significant amount, he/she would run the risk of overexposure and alienating the voters.

Just my wild-a$$ed, off-the-wall 2¢.

I like this......

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

How about eliminating all ads except the ones in which the candidates themselves actually are the spokes-person(s). That would eliminate 527's, Hollywood actors, past political cronies, etc. Swear them in prior to taping the ad and prosecute for perjury if found lying.

It would also affect spending. If one candidate outspent another by a significant amount, he/she would run the risk of overexposure and alienating the voters.

Just my wild-a$$ed, off-the-wall 2¢.

I like this......

8) Very good thought............. i can hear there response to this type of legislation.............OKOK not so damm fast plzzzz just slow down..........

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Or even just the words at the end "I'm blankety blank and I approved this message". No endorsement, no go. Violators get mega fines and eternal banishment from lobbying. Stations that air them lose their broadcast license and politicians that endorse lies automatically removed from office if they win.

Jeez, it's so dang simple! Couldn't possibly work, could it?

 

[PW2]

Re: FEC COLLECTS $630,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FROM THREE 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Sorry for the following C&P but this is from the Dallas Morning News. It names some members of one of the parties but the problem is NOT limited to one party.

Eight ways to close those loopholes and clean up Capitol Hill

05:20 AM CST on Wednesday, January 11, 2006

As Robert W. Ney gazed across St. Andrews' fabled golf course, he must have paused to take the measure of his rags-to-riches life. After all, he was a regular Joe who once scraped by on the salary of a low-level bureaucrat in Bellaire, Ohio (population 4,892; annual median income $19,480).

Now he was in Scotland for a quick getaway – at the finest hotels, the finest restaurants and at the world's most famous golf course.
Also Online

And it didn't cost him a thing.

Mr. Ney is a member of the House of Representatives, and his trip was arranged by the now-infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the central figure in a broadening scandal of influence peddling and bribery in Washington. Mr. Abramoff confessed to federal crimes last week and promised to cooperate against politicians who sold their offices for free vacations and sports tickets.

The fact is, such improprieties are all-too-common in Washington. The recent revelations about Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., add fuel to the fire. Mr. Cunningham left a paper trail of gifts such as a Rolls-Royce (and $17,890 in repairs), use of a corporate jet, silver candelabra, Persian carpets, a sofa, a sleigh bed and much more, all courtesy of the defense industry.

Although there are calls for reform, the smart money in Washington has to be on the long-armed lobbyists. Just in case anyone is serious, however, here are eight simple changes that would clean up Congress:

1. Close the "outside income" loophole. Members of Congress routinely legislate in areas where they have direct and sizable financial interests. That's because the ethics code prohibition on outside income doesn't include money earned from investments such as stocks.

Researchers at the University of Memphis found that 75 percent of randomly selected members had "stock transactions that directly coincided with (their) legislative activity."

The way to deal with this problem is simple: Require members to put their investments into a blind investment portfolio or trust.

2. Bar quid pro quo arrangements. Members accept sweetheart financial deals from individuals who then get generous government contracts and legislative perks. Some members have gotten no-interest loans; others have made 500 percent profits on deals in just a few years.

The solution is to force members to recuse themselves from any legislation or official action that benefits their business associates or family members.

3. Deter nepotism. Members have become increasingly bold in seeking offices and appointments for their children, siblings, spouses, etc. Again, the simple solution is total recusal. No member of Congress or his or her staff should be allowed to participate in any appointment or hiring of a family member.

4. End family lobbying. Lobbyists aren't allowed to give money directly to members, so they routinely give it to members' spouses or children. How? They hire them. Dozens of children and spouses of members of Congress are working in Washington lobbying firms – often with no pertinent experience or skills. Members should be barred from any involvement with legislation or from committee assignments that bear on issues a family member represents.

5. End "educational" trips. A rule bars congressional junkets paid for by lobbyists, but as long as the lobbyist uses a shell "research" group and calls the vacations "educational," members can go and take their families. All trips paid for by any outside group should be banned.

6. Bar private-jet travel. Congress allows members to accept flights on private or corporate jets, often with lobbyists tagging along, if members reimburse those companies for the equivalent of a first-class ticket. The problem is that the value of such travel is far greater than a first-class ticket. Members should be required to reimburse for the total cost of a jet charter.

7. Change the valuation of gifts. Members are supposed to accept no gifts worth more than $50, but it happens all the time. For example, the owner of a major basketball team reportedly valued tickets to his skybox at $49.50, at least when they were given to a member. The valuation of gifts should be independently calculated.

8. Create a truly independent ethics office for both houses. With members in control of their own ethics rules, as is now the case, ethical behavior is just one more commodity to be traded in the political market. For example, when ethics charges were flying a few years ago, members simply agreed on a moratorium on such charges – creating in effect an ethics-free zone for the corrupt.

These loopholes were maintained by members of both parties, despite years of objections by outside groups. It's not that they didn't know how to govern ethically, they simply preferred not to, if given the choice.

One of the things that the Republican party has done that I take issue with is a procedural change in the way PAC funds are dispersed.

Basically it makes lobbyists take the funds they have to distribute and instead of giving directly to a Representative they wish to influence they are to give it to the leadership of the Republican hierarchy. The hierarchy then distributes the funds to the members as it sees fit.

What this does is allow the few members at the very top to dictate the votes of all Republicans. If a Republican member wishes to vote against something the few in power support that member can expect retaliation from the leadership. So what you have is a corruption of a corrupt system.

It takes funds to be elected. If the leadership wishes they can cut off funding, select one of their patsies as your opponent and support him. Again, this allows a few members at the upper level to control who gets elected anywhere in the nation.

Reform is sadly needed but neither side is willing go at it with the vigor required. The only time this will change, I feel, is when the American voter gets so torqued off it changes out a large percentage of the elected in one election.

Using money in this manner is not a First Amendment issue IMHO. I think this is the very thing our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.

But if you seriously enforced ethics violations, how could one of these politicos justify spending 10 million $ to get a $125k per year job?

And the TV stations would struggle with the reduced revenue