SF Chronicle joined NY Times in false assertion that pro-Obama group allows supporters to break legal contribution limits
An August 8 San Francisco Chronicle article by staff writer Lance Williams on Vote Hope -- a political action committee (PAC) that says it "intend[s] to deliver California for Barack Obama" in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, and an unaffiliated "527 group" -- claimed that Vote Hope "rake[s] in donations in excess of what is allowed under tough federal campaign finance laws." The article's headline asserted "Obama's supporters get around money limit." As Media Matters for America noted after a New York Times article raised the question "Have some of Senator Barack Obama's supporters figured out how to give more than the $2,300 legal maximum to back their candidate?" both the Vote Hope PAC and "527 group" are, by law, independent of the Obama campaign, and donations to either entity are separate from the $2,300 limit on direct donations to Obama's primary or general election campaigns. Contributions to the PAC are capped by law at $5,000 per individual. The non-PAC "527 group" does not have contribution limits but is barred by law from expressly advocating for the victory or defeat of a federal candidate such as Obama. The "527 group" has reportedly stated that it will use its money "to support local candidates 'inspired by Obama' and for voter-registration efforts." Therefore, the Chronicle's claim that donations to Vote Hope -- either the PAC or the "527 group" -- "exce[ed] ... what is allowed under tough federal campaign finance laws" is false.
The article also claimed that Vote Hope is "[e]xploiting a legal loophole" and that it has "set up a so-called 527 group -- an unregulated committee of the type deployed by Republican Swift Boat Veterans in the 2004 presidential campaign. The article does not explain how Vote Hope constitutes the exploitation of a "legal loophole," given the contribution restrictions to which the PAC is subject and given the requirement that both the PAC and the non-PAC "527 group" be completely independent of the Obama campaign. Indeed, Williams' characterization of the "527 group" as "unregulated" is also inaccurate, given the legal restrictions on its activities. A June 22 MSNBC.com article cited Vote Hope founder Steve Phillips on the differences between the two groups:
Phillips claims Vote Hope is going to keep the money it raises as a 527 separate from the money it raises as a PAC. Only the PAC money, he said, will be used in direct support of Obama for TV ads and get-out-the-vote efforts. On the other hand, the 527 money will be used to support local candidates "inspired by Obama" and for voter-registration efforts.
According to the Chronicle article:
California supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama are using a controversial political committee to rake in donations in excess of what is allowed under tough federal campaign finance laws.
Exploiting a legal loophole, the Obama supporters have set up a so-called 527 group -- an unregulated committee of the type deployed by Republican Swift Boat Veterans in the 2004 presidential campaign -- as a centerpiece of political fundraising for the California Democratic primary in February.
So far, wealthy donors have written checks in the amounts of $90,000 and $50,000 to "Vote Hope 2008," the Obama supporters' 527 group, federal records show. The group is led by San Francisco lawyer Steve Phillips, son-in-law of wealthy financier and Democratic political donor Herbert Sandler.
Named for the section of the U.S. tax code that regulates these groups -- and independent of the input or control of political candidates -- 527 groups aren't subject to the Federal Election Commission's legal limit on contributions of $2,300 per donor per election.
[...]
None of Obama's rivals is believed to have set up fundraising mechanisms similar to Vote Hope, according to experts who have reviewed 527 committee filings at the Internal Revenue Service.
By law, Obama himself cannot have anything to do with either the Vote Hope PAC or the 527. His campaign couldn't be reached Tuesday for comment on the Vote Hope effort.
The political action committee is allowed by law to electioneer for Obama. The 527 group cannot expressly advocate Obama's election, but it can pay for voter outreach. As the example of the Swift Boat Veterans shows, a 527 group can also finance attack ads against a preferred candidates' opponents if they are framed as oriented toward an issue. Some believe the barrage of anti-Kerry advertising financed by the Swift Boat Veterans helped secure President Bush's re-election.
The even larger story is that the $2700 limit is a joke, McCain Feingold is a joke, these PACS and 527 groups are out of control. The Swiftboaters lied about Kerry and I am sure there will be another swiftboater. As for Obama, I am sure he is doing everything to the full extent of the law. The SF Chronicle should look at something else that is news.
sorry $2300
If it is such a joke, why is it that it was only conservatives who fought against this travesty (a denial of 1st Amendment rights)? It was liberals and RINOS like McCain who brought McCain-Feingold CFR to a us. It is necessary that other liberal Democrats live by the rules they championed.
Equating money with the 1st Amendment is a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Unless you have more money.
Mccain feingold was part of the reason the swift boaters and karl rove were free to smear John Kerry
...the swift boaters and karl rove were free to smear John Kerry.
Smears are easy prey for facts and truth... just ask the firefighter union bosses whose purported and much touted second-coming of swiftvet is already long forgotten.
Cardboard swiftboats don't float. You do the math.
Lets Make Sure We Take Obama Down
I know there are those of you who will say: "Why does someone always have to make things a racial issue?" The answer would be me the Black guy. Within the last week, Barack Obama has been attacked from more than one direction. These attacks speak to America's reluctance to accept a person of color this influential and close to being the next president of the United States.
During the first debate, MSNBC conducted a post evaluation poll. That poll showed Obama winning in every category. However, the commodators decided to avoid the results of the poll and call Hillary Clinton the hands down winner.
I know polls like the above are not scientific. They do give some peak into who the viewers thought won that debate. MSNBC, CNN, and Fox have a tendency to create the news their viewers want to hear. The post debate commentators were in creation mode big time.
The last debate was influenced by recent poll releases that showed Clinton widening her lead on Obama and the rest of the candidates. You would think every candidate would be trying to chop down Clinton's huge lead. They were more content with making sure Obama would not gain any ground on the leader. How strange that was.
If you ever wondered what it would look like should a Black candidate running for president be plagued with non acceptance, you might get a good example by examining what Obama is going through. Although Obama made some inroads to colorizing our White House, we still have some subtle access issues.
Joseph
J., I think the biggest fear that corporate media and wealthy a-hole America fears most about Obama is his popularity. Money and power cannot control how a voter feels toward a candidate if he or she simply likes him, as with the case of Obama. They can't control popular candidates. Just ask JFK and RFK. Oh right, you can't ask them.
Hey, what is being done is entirely legal. How many degrees of separation are required to "prove" legality? Sure it is in effect here, but as the process goes forward, remember it will probably be in effect in all cases.
Lance Williams, shame on you!
This is the co-author of "Game of Shadow" were talking about here, a book i and am sure many other sports fashions consider an almost definitive account on Olympic cheaters and MLB steroid users, Barry Bonds especially.
All I have to say is Lance, go back to what you do best, taking down scumbags in sports, not democratic candidates who don't deserve this kind of false scrutiny.
He and Christopher Drew of the NY Times should be ashamed of themselves for these non-stories - they must be listening to whiny Republican operatives who are pissed off that Democrats are outraising them, or just lazy reporters who don't know the federal campaign laws well enough to write about who's in violation of them and who is not.
Obama has made a few mistakes in this campaign, but he has violated no laws and neither has the Vote Hope PAC and its 527.
Republican candidates and their outside supporters can and no doubt will, do the same thing Obama supporters are doing. Let's see if the MSM notices and scrutinizes them when they do.
The article clearly states that this is a LEGAL loophole so MMFA is off base with their false allegations about false assertions.
The humorous part is where the Chronicle article says the "Obama campaign could not be reached for comment". Yeah, they're really tough to find these days. Where could they be?
CORRECTIONS to my earlier post: It's "Game of Shadows we're talking about here" (and highly recommended, to all BTW), and I meant to say sports "fans" (not "fashions"). I was in a rush to post, sorry about that.
Also, Bruce1Ace, the definition of loophole, according to Merriam-Webster is: "2: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded."
From OpenSecrets.org: "Many 527s run by special interest groups raise unlimited "soft money," which they use for voter mobilization and certain types of issue advocacy, but not for efforts that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate or amount to electioneering communications."
Obama and his campaign will NEVER see any of this "unlimited soft money," so Williams is dead wrong about Obama supporters EXPLOITING a "legal loophole." This soft money from Vote Hope's 527 IS regulated, will go to local candidates (in California, I presume), and Obama will never see any of those $90,000 checks. Only the Vote Hope PAC money will go to him and help towards winning the CA primary.
Williams was also off-base in claiming that this 527 is at all like the SBV, when Mr. Phillips said the money from it was going to voter registration efforts and local candidates. In time, we'll see if this money goes into other areas, like issue-oriented attack ads aimed at Hillary, but to claim that Obama is setting up a committee to do that right now and compare it to the SBV is slanderous.
Finally, the only thing you should possibly complain about here is the fact that soft money from local 527s is unlimited - but capping this money may hurt voter outreach efforts and issue awareness, which is probably why the people who wrote the law decided to keep it unlimited.